In 2004, Dr. Warren Throckmorton produced I Do Exist, a video that profiled five individuals who identified themselves as ex-gay. One of these, Noe Gutierrez, was given particular attention because he had previously been included in a supportive video about gay youth called It’s Elementary. Throckmorton’s video was considered by those with an anti-gay agenda as a refutation of the pro-gay video.
There has been some speculation for a while that Gutierrez was no longer a supporter of the ex-gay movement. In a public statement dated January 7, 2007, Noe Gutierrez verifies this and explains his decision to leave the effort.
I do not regret my words on-screen. I am a person who believes in change, especially that espoused by an active Christian faith. However, I do regret the divisive message of the ex-gay movement and that my story became a vehicle for that message. I personally have had a change of heart in the matter of a person’s sexual orientation. It has been my experience in the years since joining (and later leaving) the ex-gay movement that a person’s sexual orientation may or may not be an area impacted by the change that comes by way of a diligent Christian faith.
As for Gutierrez’ personal change he says the following
For those left wondering about my own sexuality, I have decided no longer make this small part of my identity a topic for public discussion.
We will respect his wishes. Gutierrez appears to have much matured and seems to be strong in his faith. We congratulate him on his efforts to distance himself from harmful deeds done in his name and wish him much happiness and peace. We also hope that anti-gay activists will resist the temptation to demonize Gutierrez for his decisions.
On his website on the same day Dr. Throckmorton has announced that he is retiring the video.
Can’t think of a better place to announce that the documentary I Do Exist will be no longer be available as of February 1, 2007. I am nearly out of them and I do not intend to reproduce another batch.
Throckmorton also announced a change in the focus of his efforts:
My current work does not emphasize changing sexual orientation as much as it does achieving congruence with chosen beliefs and values (which may or may not lead to change of attractions).
While I may disagree with Throckmorton on the bases of such values, I think that efforts towards a life lived consistent with one’s personal values are more likely to result in success and happiness than efforts to change one’s orientation. I commend Dr. Throckmorton on this shift in emphasis.
Bizarrely, he just this morning uploaded the intro to the video on YouTube…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7woj3N0UBuo
“For those left wondering about my own sexuality, I have decided no longer make this small part of my identity a topic for public discussion.”
Translation: I’m gay.
I think it’s clear that Noé, like many of us, has some real, serious problems with the stance of some parts of the ex-gay movement. But the question as to whether he still shares their view on sexual ethics is a different matter. Don’t assume that one is necessary connected to the other.
Mark,
Not at all. Why don’t you ask him privately about it.
Peter,
that would be why I didn’t make assumptions about Noe’s view on sexual ethics. It is clear, however, that he no longer share’s the ex-gay movement’s insistance that one must seek a change in orientation. It is also that he does not seek any mutual exclusivity in gays and Christians.
Mark,
Please be respectful. Not only is it offensive to speculate about the orientation of those who request that one not do so, it is also not always wise. I don’t want to be like the ex-gays who claimed (as the Focus on the Family on line store says about the video) They Came Out — For Good only to end up in embarassment.
Oh shuckeedarn…I suppose, then, I shouldn’t expect seeing the Blu-ray/HD DVD version of this video any time soon?
We all know some people will continue to use, copy and disseminate the video. Do you expect the video will be prefaced with some sort of a disclaimer?
Plus, they can’t just distance themselves from the video by rationalizing they no longer sell it…they must also make a full disclosure of Mr. Gutierrez recantation (of sorts). It’s not a fictional story. It’s supposedly a documentary and anyone showing/selling the video must make the viewers aware of possible mitigating facts.
Since Sundance Film Festival is nigh and Queer Lounge is part of the festival, maybe someone should make a documentary about this documentary. Oh…that’s right…Mr. Gutierrez is not publicly saying anything about his orientation and he is okay with what the video portrayed. Scratch that idea.
So, the video is done with. Mr. Gutierrez has published a statement. But, the misinformation and the undesired intent will continue to be promulgated. Which is sad.
Gutierrez says:
Hear, hear…
I agree with Timothy that Gutierrez’s sexuality going forward is his own business. If he opts for celibacy, I think he’ll have little difficulty finding spiritual and social support for that path among conservative gay Christians.
Excuse me??? … “My current work does not emphasize changing sexual orientation…”
Wow. 2. short. years.
That’s the blurb. On the back jacket of the video. Or perhaps we’d like the front cover instead:
Good for Noe, as always. Don’t care either way what he wishes for himself. (And fully support those sensible words from him.)
Good for him, not so good for those who question why one should doubt “ex-gay testimony” about change in sexual orientation at face value, and not so good for those who seized upon Noe’ to promote intolerance and doubt over tolerance and respect.
Perhaps it’s also time for Warren to make as much effort writing the retractions as he once demanded of others… or here. At the very least, given what he expected of others, perhaps a letter through to all those who attended the “I Do Exist” events would be in order? And note: no mention of what has actually triggered the withdrawal of the “I Do Exist” media — apparently it’s because the World’s nearly run out of copies, and we just won’t be making any more of them.
Good grief. You’d have thunk people would learn by now, instead of continuing trusting the manipulative people behind the cultural warfare around those caught in the ex-gay revolving door.
Not holding my breath on that one. Nope: they’ll just sideline him or her, and move onto a new poster child. Sorry Noe, you’re yesterday’s campaign.
(Now… if I can only find the comments made here by Warren after he was point blank asked “So, what’s happened with Noe?”…)
Wow, I think this is huge. This man has experienced a deep conflict about the rhetoric of hate coming from the ex-gay community (i.e. the use of Throckmorton’s video) and his deep faith in Christ’s ultimate teaching of unconditional love. Somehow I think that the “ex-gay” movement is a good thing in that (even though it is based in fallacy) it is creating deep questions from society. These groups keep us in the spotlight and keep the dialogue going. As Christians see more and more Christians who are gay not only coming out and finding wonderful relationships but living lives of Christian love and acceptance the results will follow. I am hopeful that more and more straight people will see the incongruence and open their hearts in love and acceptance.
I’ll bet Noe comes out fully when he is ready and finds a spiritual need to do so. In the meantime it is groups like Ex-gay Watch that needs to respect him and be supportive.
Let’s just say that I’ve never run into a straight man who refuses to admit he’s heterosexual. But I will refrain from further speculation on Mr. Noe’s orientation.
Let’s just say that I’ve never run into a straight man who refuses to admit he’s heterosexual.
Oh come on Mark — Ricky Martin??? /snort!
More seriously, it actually doesn’t matter where Noe finds himself at the moment (other than, one hopes, at peace with himself and others)
“This” isn’t really about an individual. But rather, about the conveyor belt of exgay’s that are paraded past the public as proof that “Change is Possible”. The pressure to “be something” that conforms to the social aims of some and the religious beliefs of others must be immense; and not leave much room for genuine personal development or reflection.
At least, that’s what I ultimately picked up from Noe’s words. Not that my reading means much, I guess, and all 🙂
While none of us have real right to know Noe’s orientation, it was Noe who made his sexual orientation the subject of discussion. He submitted his “change” as an example of the efficacy of Ex-Gay therapy and of “praying the Gay away.”
I don’t wish Noe any ill will. Unlike many anonymous people who go into the Ex-Gay movement, Noe did make his orientation the subject of discussion by appearing in videos and speaking engagments. In my opinion, it’s not wrong or impolite therefore to express the view that his “change” didn’t really occur.
Jody said, “I don’t wish Noe any ill will. Unlike many anonymous people who go into the Ex-Gay movement, Noe did make his orientation the subject of discussion by appearing in videos and speaking engagments. In my opinion, it’s not wrong or impolite therefore to express the view that his “change” didn’t really occur.”
Except that what one wants when they expect him to be more explicit about his sexuality is that he is gay. That may or may not be the case. He may still consider himself struggling to be straight. Or he may be bisexual. Or he may be celibate, and thus considers himself straight. All of those (and probably some things I haven’t thought of) are possibilities. Would there be any discussion at all if we thought he would say that he changed from gay to straight? Of course not. The call for an answer is based upon what the answer is already assumed to be.
What Noe is saying is that he isn’t the same person he was when the video was made, and that he now believes that his issues with his sexuality are a private thing. I think I’m not stretching too much to assume that when it comes to our own sexuality, we all think it is private. Expecting him to declare his sexuality because we think it will dispel the ex-gay myth is no better than putting out a film like I Do Exist in the first place.
Regardless of his current orientation, he’s still pretty hot. 😉
Folks, could you help me out?
There is a long thread under Wayne Besen’s last article.
A satire on Canada.
A little more than halfway down the thread, an Anonymous and I had an exchange.
Now, this person claimed to be ex gay. Sometimes it’s hard for me to take them seriously.
Even less so when they reveal little about themselves to help the discussion.
I would like a someone to read down the thread and give me their impressions.
The poster didn’t reveal their age, gender or ethnicity.
I find it insufferable when you’re trying, but that person seems to be playing a bit of a game.
Or at least trying to sound deep, but not succeeding.
I suspect this person is young.
But they certainly don’t help my impression to have me believe they are someone sincerely wanting to or involved in the advocate fray.
Eventually, I got brutally frank, and I like to know what is thought here.
I could use the exchange for future reference for other opportunities for discussion.
Many thanks!
Regan,
It seems odd to me that someone claiming that they are ex-gay is all for gay marriage and gay rights. That counters everything the ex-gay organizations stand for. However, I have met one individual in my life that called themselves gay for a very brief time. In short, they experimented with being gay. It sounds like this Anonymous may have experimented with being gay as well and claims “they changed” or they are now “ex-gay”.
Labels can be sorely misused.
I tried to force myself to be straight, dated a guy, pretended to be into the relationship, etc. Finally I could not deny the fact that I am a lesbian and nothing can change that.
Does this make me an ‘ex-straight’ or just someone who is now authentic?
Lynn:
ex-ex-gay, perhaps.
Thanks Tim for posting this. It has been a very busy week for me and I am behind in my work at the Throckmorton site.
I will check in here about this and see what it stirs up.
I am proud that Noe has updated us about his experiences and that he has used that opportunity to talk more personally and powerfully about really seeing eachother and seeing God’s grace and work extending to us.
I can’t imagine how hard all of this is for him, to be in one movie educating teens about gays and then in another educating them about ex-gays. He has stepped into the middle of a difficult conversation with courage and integrity, each time.
It is easy to use and manipulate and then denegrate such people when they don’t serve our purposes…
Such people are easy to turn into objects of our gratification; or to annihilate them if they are objects of frustration.
Just some thoughts.
David Blakeslee
David,
Yes, I agree. And his latest effort in distancing himself from the abuse inherent in the ex-gay movement has also required great courage and integrity.
It is certainly is honorable of him to stand up and say that the ex-gay movement has misused him and his testimony in their cause to demonize and harm gay people.
It takes cajones to risk offending or alienating the conservative Christian political efforts. They can be quite punative. I hope in this case that this will not be the consequence of his statement.
Of course, I also hope that those who claimed that I Do Exist invalidated or refuted It’s Elementary will apply the same standard in this case. I hope they will listen to Noe’s concerns about the abuse and misuse of the tape. But I don’t have confidence that will happen.
Regan,
I’m one who wishes to express my gratitude to you and your contributions.
I’m wondering why some gay people continue to try to validate their lives with going to obviously biased anti-gay organizations for help. Where does it enter into the mindset of people they can trust everything a person says about homosexuality simply because they wear priestly robes or a clerical collar? You and others have mused why in the world do people seek out these biased and objectively anti-gay people for advice or council and even why the main-stream media gives so much credence to some of the more vocal (read: controversial) ex-gay organizations.
You may not have reached “anonymous” … or got him/her to understand…but by symbiosis you have reached others.
Here’s another translation to consider: I’m post-gay.
There are a growing number of postmodern Christians and non-Christians who are not driven by the didactic sexual identity politics fuelled so often by modernist thinking.
Like Noe Gutierrez, and as a believer myself, I believe that maturing in our faith should be our biggest priority because God’s in the business of transforming hearts – that’s where the real human journey begins.
David,
While you equate the word “gay” with “sexual identity politics,” many people understand the word “gay” simply to describe a state of sexual attraction that is primarily toward the same gender.
I understand (and agree with) the desire to not exaggerate the importance or role of sexual attraction in one’s broader life. I also dislike when various political interests either claim false ownership of the labels “gay” or “ex-gay” or presumptuously claim to speak for everyone who is gay or ex-gay.
BUT — there is still a matter of honesty for some of those who identify as post-gay. Specifically:
When you tell people that you are post-gay, do you also tell them the gender to which you are primarily attracted? Or do you allow them to assume you are heterosexual?
Since I came out 17 years ago, I have heard people talking about postgay. Honestly, I never cared about identity persay. I am gay, but I don’t choose anything except my spouse as gay. I don’t perform activities generally because of my gayness (except visit this website ;). The vast majority of my friends are straight or lesbian. I have rarely had gay male friends. I don’t generally visit gay places such as bars (I don’t think I have been to a gay bar in a decade). I watch some gay movies less because I am gay and more because I am a film teacher. I definately do not listen to “gay music” as a long time punk/postpunk follower (although punk started as a gay movement in many ways). Frankly I don’t care about sexual identity in many ways. Nevertheless, I am gay and not postgay, and I will never be “postgay.” I also suspect that nobody is “post” gay. If men like men or women like women, they are technically gay. Nobody says they are post straight, so why the ridiculousness of semantics. If it personally makes someone feel better to say he or she is postgay, so be it. However, it does not change the fact about attraction or dating or orientation. It is also a homophobic stance in some ways–to claim that one is “beyond” their own attraction suggests to me that they are not comfortable with their own situation.
Everyone likes to say labels are bad. Maybe they are, but they are useful and important. I notice generally only minority groups have the problems with the labels. Majority groups do not, and again I think it is a self-hatred situation in many ways. If straight people are going to identify me as gay, then I am also going to also. I think it would be funny if a woman hit on me (and this has happened in many cases), and I said “I am sorry, but I am post gay.” Do they know where I stand? No. In any case, I am going to say I am gay. I suspect “post-gays” would too. Are there post gay bars and centers? Post gay personals? Let’s get over the silly Fucault political correctness, accept what is truthful to 99% of people, and deal with it. If you aren’t comfortable being gay, bi, straight, or assexual, fine–change it if possible, but don’t say silly things like post gay. It needlessly complicates the truth.
David Blakeslee said “I can’t imagine how hard all of this is for him, to be in one movie educating teens about gays and then in another educating them about ex-gays. He has stepped into the middle of a difficult conversation with courage and integrity, each time.”.
I’m sure this has been hard for him but to say he’s shown integrity is politically correct dishonesty. He’s been mixed up. If he had integrity he would have accepted his same sex attractions as the integral part they are of him in the first place rather than trying to deny what he’s been feeling to accomodate a chosen external religious belief. If he had integrity he’d be honest about being same-sex attracted now rather than hiding behind it being a “private matter”. He chose to encourage the public to believe he had changed same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions. Now he owes it to the public to be honest that that didn’t happen.
As for “post-gay”, that’s just another deceptive word like “ex-gay”, that’s the terminology of “sexual identity politics”. If one is same sex attracted they are neither “post-gay” nor “ex-gay”, they are gay.
Mike, those “many people” you mention are modernists living in a complex emerging postmodern world. When I said he may be post gay, I did not infer that he would use that language to explain his sexuality. You see, you’re still thinking in terms of true and false, white and black. The air that postmodernists breathe exists beyond the need for divising language like Republican and Democrat, et al.
When I go out to see a live band in a funky offbeat restaurant, I see men and women, men and men and women and men sitting at tables enjoy the music. I don’t think that the man siting with a woman is anymore straight than I would thinking he might be gay. Likewise, if I see two men sitting together I don’t think they’re gay. I’m not there to disect anyone’s sexual identity. I’m there for good food, good beer, good music and good conversation.
I would recommend a Google search on postmodernism and deconstruction along with watching The Matrix
And for those modernists who rely on defining themselves by their sexuality, queer is probably the best label in a postmodern world.
I’d also recommend reading Violin virtuoso Owen Pallett spills his guts on Dungeons & Dragons, going solo and why Rufus Wainwright isn’t a gay artist.
I don’t know how many Christians are here, but as I said earlier, for the (real) Christian, maturing in our faith should be our foremost goal.
Cheers,
The air that postmodernists breathe exists beyond the need for divising [sic] language like Republican and Democrat, et al.
Or modernists and postmodernists?
I’ll fully admit that there is no clear cut distinction between moderism and postmoderism. They are a continuum. Someone can be born in the modern era and have some postmodern values while another could be born in 1980 and have a very modern worldview. The terms modern and postmodern are not meant to divide like the other terms I suggested often do.
David, having taught for many years, one thing I have noticed above all else. Students always look for others like themselves, and they will group themselves based on the belief that the other person is similiar in some significant way.
The Christian will suppose based on certain characteristics that another is Christian unless told otherwise. The biker will assume someone else is a biker. The gay person will assume other people are gay just as the straight person will. While there may be exceptions to that rule, I have seen it over and over again with countless students. I have sat in a restaurant and seen two men sitting next to each other (BTW many straight guys will sit opposite each other) and I probably assumed rightly or wrongly they were gay. However, it is natural and is part of our evolutionary heritage (there is a survival instinct in alligning oneself with similiar people). Again, it may not be right, but I think most people do it. When I was a Mormon, almost everyone I knew would say that a person observed was Mormon based on this or that. Mormonism is a small percentage of people, but you would think 50% based on how people would assume others were (Reagan was rumored to be a secret Mormon in these circles for instance).
As far as deconstruction, as an academic knows, that went out in the late 80s and is dead, dead, dead.
All I know is, any time someone suggests watching The Matrix as a way of accessing and understanding the tenuous concepts behind modernism and postmodernism, it’s time to run the other way. 🙂
David, everything you write in your last post sounds good, except that when we use the word “gay” here (and just about everywhere else I’ve ever been), what we mean are people attracted to others of the same sex or gender. That’s it. In other contexts, that may not be accurate; certainly among those who use the term “post-gay”, there’s an effort towards understanding the gender, class and even racial issues involved in the way a word is used and what it means. But in this context–in the context of Ex-Gay Watch, and in the context of everyday relations with those we come in contact–“gay” means just as I defined it above.
We must be careful of two things in the matter of Mr. Gutierrez. Firstly, we must not assume that whether he is gay or straight or whatever has any bearing on what his statement is trying to get across. He saying that he doesn’t want to be used as a political tool anymore. He makes that quite clear. Secondly, we must not assume that his statement says anything more than it actually does. If Mr. Gutierrez were truly interested in expressing postmodernist concepts in his statements, he certainly would have done so alot more explicitly.
Hey! My professor had us watch The Matrix to analyze its use of postmodernism.
Hey! My professor had us watch The Matrix to analyze its use of postmodernism.
Drop the class 😉 Postmodernism isn’t really the topic here.
Try taking the red pill next time. ;D
No, don’t drop the class.
Deconstruction is far from dead.
I never said postmodernism was the topic. Mr. Gutierrez’s response is a postmodern response to a divisive modern debate that it appears he no longer wishes to partake in.
I agree. He doesn’t want to be used as a tool, would like some privacy, and appears to be moving beyond divisive modern sexual identity politics.
Notice how he says, “this small part of my identity”. Post-gay means that a gay identity no longer plays a major role in defining one’s life.
“It’s about taking a critical look at gay life and no longer thinking solely in terms of struggle. It’s going to a gay bar and wishing there were girls there to talk to.” — “New Way of Being,” The New York Times, June 21, 1998