NARTH Concerned About Their Media Image
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is concerned that the media isn’t reporting the details of reparative therapy accurately.
“During the past month, Montel Williams and Diane Sawyer have run features dealing with reparative therapy, but neither one of them invited a therapist on their shows to explain it,” said Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. “Both shows actually dealt with faith-based ministries, not reparative therapy–the approach I developed more than two decades ago. If the mainstream media has any interest in accurately reporting on our therapy, they should invite real reparative therapists to tell their stories.”
Considering Nicolosi’s own bizarre response to CNN’s rather basic questions during a recent Love Won Out event, it’s odd that he would now complain about a lack of investigative interest by the mainstream media. One can sympathize with his desire to save face after the aforementioned tantrum, but Dr. Nicolosi should be reminded that the press is unlikely to submit to his considerable ego in the manner he apparently expects from those around him.
NARTH President-elect A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., agrees. “Whenever any form of reorientation therapy is discussed in the mainstream media, it usually involves someone who either never went through such therapy, or went through a faith-based process and became disillusioned.
Both Nicolosi and Byrd mention faith-based conversion programs with apparent disdain. Is NARTH now officially expressing what has until now only been rumored — a disagreement with the effectiveness of programs such as Exodus which are not based on his reparative therapy model?
Also, Mary, if you are sincere (and I am not saying you are not) about your desires to:
“1. Be supportive of those who are gay. 2. Demonstrate that not all ex gay christians are anti-gay mongers with a politcal agenda or financial backing”, then are you willing to clearly denounce NARTH and EXODUS for using Cameron’s anti-gay, hate-mongering in support of their organizational agendas?
How about EXODUS’s own political agenda? Focus on the Family? How far are you willing to go?
Mary, I certainly appreciate your contribution here. Most often it’s been hard to either understand or trust what a person DOES mean by identifying as ex gay.
And then I tend to read between the lines when background is presented. I dunno, I don’t want to contradict another person’s experience,
But I’m confused too.
I’m thinking, that at this phase of your life…perhaps you might be relationship EXHAUSTED and retreated someone to get more of a grip on your own self fulfillment.
Which to those ministries invested in you not being gay, is to be celibate until the right man comes along…no matter if he NEVER does.
I am a straight woman, navigating the dating pool for the first time in nearly two decades. I am in my late forties, and the pickings are small for us….regardless of if we’re gay or not.
And surely happiness is a fair goal, I’m looking for it too, from other than a relationship.
I know that women who choose to be child free, or never marry…are as much of a project for a church community as the orientation of someone gay.
All of which is busybody work, and can’t really work to help an individual find their own levels.
Women, especially get the busybody/nanny treatment.
At any rate, I appreciate you working with us here, to understand you.
IMHO…we seem to both be on a continuum of what a mature woman, who has seen a lot of life will inevitably go through. Especially if she’s single again, gay or not.
I know though, that I am VERY suspicious and don’t trust those unaccepting church communities, that never respected or knew your needs as a lesbian, don’t want you to have them or encourage you to deny or ignore them.
I think that’s an unfair burden at best. A nanny assumption that gay adults should relinquish to the church and thus have the status of a child.
“We know best what’s best for you’, attitude, so to speak.
I wish you well, dear. Don’t get me wrong.
But it’s hard to be a woman OR gay in religious societies, period.
oops, typo
I meant to say retreated SOMEWHERE…
sorry.
Mary,
I hesitate to write this because I fear it will appear like piling-on. Please know that I am happy you participate here and am glad for your perspective. I am not trying to challenge you or your life. Nor do I have some litmus test about your idealogies before I will believe you.
But I would, if you are willing, like to clarify some confusion i still have about your testimony as presented here so that I can better understand what your are saying.
I am still uncertain whether your therapy was in relation to your sexual orientation. On the one hand it seems that you simply decided that you are not gay, and on the other it seems that you have been in therapy for 10 years over the issue. Also, you went to Living Waters AFTER you had your instantaneous reorientation.
Or am I misunderstanding the instant nature of the long journey.
And I’m confused about what sex you are sexually attracted to. You are “attracted” to men but this seems to me to be more of a decision – ie. you are attracted to the idea of being with a man or are attracted to the type of man he is and how he would be in a relationship. But I don’t know if you are attracted to him sexually. Some of your comments suggest you have little sexual attraction at all. I’m just not certain.
I’m not trying to make this all about you. I just want to understand when you talk about your life what it is that you are saying.
As I have said in the past, language can be confusing when we are all using the same words but giving them different meanings. And the gay culture and the ex-gay culture have almost opposite definitions to the same words so I don’t know which meaning you are using some times.
Thanks and I hope this didn’t come across as accusatory or hostile.
Mary, I hate to pile on here, it seems rather unfair in a way, I think you are sincere in your beliefs and about your good intentions, but have another question if you don’t mind somewhat related to the first I asked. Why did you decide being gay “wasn’t for” you? You stated that you became a Christian 3 years after you came to that conclusion, you also stated that you received quite a bit of flak for your decision, that it was a painful experience for you to attempt your transition.
Was it because you experienced discrimination as a lesbian? (You only mentioned the discrimination you faced as an ex-gay, nothing about anti-gay actions by people) Was it from a moral sense that it was wrong? Did you have a bad break up? Some other reason?
Your experience seems very similar, and yet very different than the patently formulaic stories put forth by various ex-gay groups. Perhaps the only element I found hitting a major “wrong” note with me was your sense that you had a “fear of men” which I believe is a common element listed by ex-gay groups as part of their belief as to the cause of their sexuality. I’m not here to judge your experience, but I will say I do not believe any studies that follow proper methodolgy on lesbians have indicated that is a significant cause or common element among lesbians. Nor do I think if you wore a dress, dressed up, and owned a Honda and a Labrador Retriever that it would indicate anything either way about your sexuality, just like your cat said nothing about it.
I haven’t even read all the entries in this very long blog. Just chiming in at this late point in reference to one of the earliest exchanges between Christine and Mary.
I actually did receive counseling from Janelle Hallman at Where Grace Abounds in Denver about 1993. I believe she was basically training at that time–the counseling was as a part of a team with a more experienced WGA leader. (Steve Armstong? Am I remembering the name correctly?)
Janelle was (and I’m sure still is) a very sweet, well meaning person. And of course, her counseling skills and approach have probably developed quite a bit from that early point. But unless she has changed her approach radically, I will agree with Christine that she should be identified as offering a “faith based” ministry. I don’t mean that as a criticism or slight on what she offers, just as a realistic evaluation of her approach.
The point Christine makes, which I will echo, is that it is hypocritical of Nicolosi to criticize the media for confusing his therapy with “faith based minstries” when people who practice faith based ministries speak at the NARTH conference.
NickC said:
And there I think is the core issue, a basic, pervasive, double-standard, i.e. hypocrisy.
I want to thank everyone for being so polite to me. That is a true pleasure. And in response to the many valid questions and thoughts, the post have been printed out so I can give time and consideration to the inquiries.
As work ( you know – the way I earn a living) has increased a little more this week, I doubt I will be able to respond before this thread moves on. Later, I will provide a word doc and an e-mail where those who are interested can access.
Again, thank you for being so generous.
Mary
Mary, this is an open forum and it isn’t appropriate for you to take questions to you generated here and only offer to answer them privately. Scrutiny is part of the process of keeping things honest. If you do not want to answer, then say that, but please don’t solicit private discussions through us instead.
I find it a strain to believe that mentioning the era in which you graduated, especially to back up one of your own statements, could possibly be a threat to your family. And what family are you talking about?
Again, if you aren’t going to substantiate something, then say so. Please don’t couch your reasons in this kind of nonsense. I still find it hard to believe that you could have come out and proud with such enthusiasm and acceptance (as you described) during high school if you did so in the late 70s or early 80s.
David,
I’m not trying to hide anything or take it to a private forum – I am trying to avoid a very long post that may take time to write.
Thank you for advising me.
I just re-read the tile of this thread. NARTH Concerned About Their Media Image? Hardly. If they truly were concerned, they would publicly disavow Cameron. That they don’t (and won’t) tells you all you need to know.