Ex-Gay Watch

I have a relative, a woman, who dated men – then dated women – then dated men, and married a great one a couple years ago. She did not go into any kind of therapy. She also did not try to change herself sexually. She went with what felt natural.

While dating women, she took it seriously and seriously considered being with women as long-term partners. But then, she felt that dating another man was the best course. So she did.

Today, there’s not a doubt in my mind that she’s absolutely in love with the man I married, a man I’m proud to call part of the family. Does that obliterate her genuine same-sex attractions of years past? No, not according to me, and probably not according to her, either. However, I don’t think she would describe herself as “bisexual.” I think she would describe herself as “human.”

Oh, and also, she is a religious Catholic. But for some reason that never got in the way of her embracing her true self. Sometimes things are very grey – her “change” wasn’t instantaneous, but then, we’re not talking about a woman who struggled for 15 years to find attraction to a different group of people. Maybe compared to Chambers’ and Paulk’s experiences, it IS kind of instantaneous.

Emily, that reminds me of a friend. I haven’t been in contact with her directly in a few years but know through other friends that she was recently married to a man she started dating before I lost contact with her. Before that she was in a 17 year relationship with another woman. She was and is quite active in the local gay community, though there isn’t nearly as much activity (potlucks, movie nights, etc) as there was in the 90s.

I had almost forgotten but even back then while in a relationship with a woman, she didn’t call herself bisexual but said she felt she could fall in love with a man or a woman with the right qualities. In those days I didn’t put much stock in that kind of comment to be honest; being on the extreme gay side of the scale I just couldn’t easily identify with that.

But if she had had a crisis of faith between her first relationship and her second, and had gone through some therapy (or as in Mary’s case not) then attributing her marriage to a man would have been a raving success story for changing one’s orientation. As it is, I understand she is still quite open with the fact that she could fall in love with a woman again if she met the right one, but is perfectly happy in her marriage.

As you said, I think this is just part of the human equation. To use it as evidence that one can cause such change if the desires are not already there would be wrong. To further use it as an excuse to deny equal rights to gay people is unconscionable. Yet this is what we see every day.

I’m going to make a note to get in contact with her. I have much more intelligent questions to ask than I did years ago

I wrote in love with the man “I married” but i meant “she married.” i missed that typo.

Thanks for the good response, David. Hope you can get in touch.

No one’s life should be used as a tool to constrict others. Some would agree that whatever their challenge or perspective or “outcome” is that that is a personal issue to be shared but not to be “used”, explioted.

Mary, I know you don’t really want to get this started again, but the “broad strokes” I made about what “ex-gay” does NOT mean were derived directly from what ex-gays themselves have posted here and elsewhere. They told me what it does not (necesarily) mean and they repeatedly explained that what it does mean is extremely variable and personal.

You are correct whten you point out, that “to say say in broad strokes what it does not mean – does NOT mean that is true for all ex-gays.” As you have acknowldeged else where, it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. In your case, I think you mean that your orientation has changed completely from gay to straight. But that, I submit, is extremely rare.

After our lenghty discusssions, I still am not clear on whether you already had some heterosexual attractions before becoming “ex-gay” — or if these are new. I also am not clear on whether or not gay attractions or temptations are completely gone, or if (like almost all others who use the term “ex-gay”) you continue to struggles against them.

Most English speakers would use the term “bisexual” to descibe a person who once had and still has both. Just looking for clarity I don’t want to re-start the debate. You are free to use the words in whatever way makes sense to you. In any case, are you willing to admit that “change” is not sudden, radical or complete?

I can’t be more clear. I am oriented towards men. I do not have struggles with same gender attraction at this time, I was a lesbian.

I would not and I doubt most people would consider me bisexual. I am not attracted to women in a romantic/sexual way. What else can be said Michael??

Change is not sudden for most people I have known. I have not met in real life a person who changed in an instant. But not discounting that someone in 5 billion people could experience dramatic instant change – just rare. Sort of like chemerics. Rare.

Sorry to annoy you, Mary. That’s clear enough. I won’t ask you again. Promise. I do have to say that you are the first person I have ever spoken to, in over thirty years of asking, who has experienced such a complete and total change in sexual orientation. The very first — and I have talked to many, many ex-gays and ex-ex-gays over the past three decades — including members and leaders of EXODUS.

I believe you are sincere and I have no reason to doubt what you are saying. Congratulations. Now, if I could only talk to a man who has had this complete change in sexual orientation. That would be great! But, heck, I am getting old and I don’t know if I’ll make it another 30 years…

For you, the change was gradual. And you are right, in terms of possibilities, perhaps there is “someone in 5 billion people who could experienced dramatic, instant change”. Still, it seems kinda inflated for EXODUS to imply that it’s there for the asking (or believing). I think Ed Hurst (EXODUS pioneer and still-defender of the term “ex-gay”) was on the money when he called such a claim “hype”.

Humanity’s great, isn’t it? It’s so diverse and unpredictable. The human condition is rife with uncertainty and variety. Mary had a complete change- but I’m proud that she is a supporter of XGW and not a poster child for EXODUS. I can almost see Chambers kicking himself saying “Gosh darnit! if only she’d come to OUR side first! what a great PR tool- ahem, person- we’d have!”

Michael, it took 30 years but you finally did meet one – and on a pro LGBTQ site, at that! However, you are on the money when you say “if only I could talk to a man who had this complete change” because it seems that women are the ones who have an easier time flexing their identities sexually. Both David Roberts and I mentioned women whom we’ve known to be “open/flexible/go-with-the-flow” (bisexual, for lack of a better term) and seemingly made a 180° turn in identity. That makes three women and no men who fit into the “change” category. IMO, this is because women are more flexible sexually in general. We’re wired differently psycho-sexually, and ofcourse, cultural influences take their toll – but it seems in the exgay circuit, it’s men who are the most desperate to change, and men who have the most difficult time changing. I think men are more likely to try to enter into ex gay programs, and all of the pop psychology and propaganda used to “heal” gays is based on stereotypes from the male homosexual realm (bath-houses, pedophilia towards boys, over-bearing mothers…) Most of us here probably know of Anne Paulk’s “instant” change and John’s continual “walk with Christ.” Former-ex-gays please come out and correct me where I’m wrong!

I think its all about message. I mean, look at the culture in the United States right now. Increasingly the focus is on speed and instant gratification. Everything is just faster now, from the microwave to the washing machine (which obviously has been around all of my and most commenters here lifetime but certainly was a revelation when introduced) to the internet. Americans simply don’t like waiting for anything whether its weight loss or apparently “successful” orientation change. Now all that is needed is a handy dandy toaster to be added to the package…

Micheal,
Keep in mind – I did not say complete change. I don’t mean to belabor the point. But in my change there have been periods of struggle and there might be in the future. I don’t think we will have a complete grasp or understanding of sexuality for a very long time. I know that probably fuzzies up the answer again – but it really is the best I can do right now.

Emily,
You say alot that rings true with me. Women and sexuality is sort of a different subject sometimes than men and sexuality.

Mary said:

Keep in mind – I did not say complete change. I don’t mean to belabor the point. But in my change there have been periods of struggle and there might be in the future.

Wait, where did that come from??? You have been emphatic in saying that you have no romantic feelings for woman, and that before you were “completely lesbian.” In fact just a couple of hours ago you said this:

I would not and I doubt most people would consider me bisexual. I am not attracted to women in a romantic/sexual way.

This is an example of the inconsistencies which make it hard to believe you, Mary. Could you please explain this sudden modification of your story?

Yup, Mary, I’m afraid it does “fuzzy up the answer again”, but, oh well. I can live with it. At least, it’s a gradual, semi-complete change for now. For now, no lesbian attractions or fantasies — just attractions to males. Would that be just one particular guy or guys in general? (Sorry, I know said I wouldn’t annoy you by asking for such specifics. Can’t seem to help myself…)

For you, there have clearly been big changes in attraction, behavior and identity. You are happier, better adjusted emotionally — and you are following your faith. That’s all cool. And, after all, no one can predict the future, right? Maybe it’s true (after all) that women can “flex” more. Who knows? So… I am still looking for the male who fits the bill. Actually, come to think of it, I have met a lot of men who were straight “for now”…

Yup – no one can predict the future. Fuzzy is something we all have to live with. I’d be hard pressed to describe the perfect afternoon.

I’m attracted to guys in general. Not in the guy crazy way that some do. I am sort of interested in one guy right now but that does not eliminate the potential for other options. I’m picky.

This flies in the face of everything you have said here about your life Mary. A question has been posed, please do not ignore it.

This is an example of the inconsistencies which make it hard to believe you, Mary. Could you please explain this sudden modification of your story?

This is a discussion, not a monologue, please address this.

Michael,
Also, I’velived long enough to know not to use words like always, never and only. And have replaced those with phrases like ” today I can say”, “I don’t know what the future holds”, “at this time” etc… I guess, I assume, I have about 80 or so years left to live on this planet and when I’m coming into that final turn I’ll have a better grasp on words like completely and for as long as I can remember.

One last opportunity Mary.

Mary,

You have made comments about when you went to high school that indicate that you are older than I am. If I were to live “80 or so years” more on this planet I would be between the age of 120 and 130 years old.

Not to worry David, You have threatened me and I will leave on my own. I have tried to simply avoid you and your tone has concerned me.

John,

That is a very long life and certainly possible with the advances in medical science and technology.

I imagine it must be difficult for self-described “ex gays” to participate a site called “ex-gay watch.” Naturally, they’re the ones that will end up being the most- well, watched.

Not to worry David, You have threatened me and I will leave on my own. I have tried to simply avoid you and your tone has concerned me.

Threatened? On the contrary, you have been given months to comment as you wished, but what you said leaves many with questions about your sincerity. Questions are not threats, but there is a limit as to how long you can ignore them without losing all credibility.

The problem is not how you live your life Mary – you are free to do that as you please. The problem is that you expect others to take at face value, what is beyond the claims of most ex-gay advocates (certainly Exodus, Dr. Throckmorton, etc) and what little science there is on the subject. Your statements about your life journey have been inconsistent and when pressed, you have refused to respond, citing personal and family security.

We have had countless ex-gays comment here, and none that I can remember made claims such as yours. Only you and those around you really know if these claims are genuine, and I might be content not to challenge the notion that you are the one in 6 billion who just did the impossible if this there were a different forum of discussion. But here it is important that debate be based on fact and candor as much as possible. Otherwise, the quality of what we do will suffer and degrade into deception.

That said, I have to admit that I am quite leery of your claims, and therefore question your intentions. Given your statements and my experience with others, I would have to say that you are not being completely honest with us. You have been given ample opportunity to respond to basic queries about your history, and now you not only refuse to respond but you ignore the questions. There is a limit to how long you can continue to do that if you wish to be taken seriously.

If that makes you feel threatened, then you are probably right to comment elsewhere where the truth is not quite so important.

That is a very long life and certainly possible with the advances in medical science and technology.

You have got to be kidding.

I refuse to respond to you David Roberts. I said so in another blog and your tone has been less than civil. You are just about at the stage of cyber stalking. That you don’t take a hint is yet another indication of your social skills to read ques and take hints. So be it – now I have stated it quite clearly.

That you fail to understand as well as Emily, Micheal or others is your own fault. To give you reading comprehension lessons is not my job.

And as far as age and longevity go – please look at historical records and recalculate.

I have answered Michael every time he has had a question because you can truly see he wants to know.

That I did not answer all those others questions was put very simply to me not to do so in the way I suggested. I told you in another blog that I wanted to take my time as this is a sensitive issue and wanted to use language that was easily understood and not harmful or hurtful to others.

I was going to provide an e-mail address here in the forum with a password and an attached word doc answering all questions in full. I was asked not to – or so I interpreted it that way.

I still have those answers and am reviewing them. Also, you forget to mention that I told you in that other blog that my story might be posted somewhere and you would be made aware of where and when and you could read it – as it would probably answer all your questions.

Somehow it is soooo easy for you to accuse me and forget conviently how I tried to answer you without putting you off.

Well, I’m not good enough for you. Big deal.

I refuse to respond to you David Roberts. I said so in another blog and your tone has been less than civil. You are just about at the stage of cyber stalking. That you don’t take a hint is yet another indication of your social skills to read ques and take hints.

To refuse to answer is your right, though your credibility here is gone. As to cyber stalking, I’m stumped. Are you that paranoid? Questioning statements that don’t add up, and which you posted yourself on this site is cyber stalking? I suggest you take a hard, long look at what that really means before you accuse someone of it, because unlike most things thrown back and forth here, that truly is a libelous statement in every sense of the word.

Though you stated a few comments back that you were no longer commenting here (but continued to comment), in light of that accusation I think it best that you actually don’t.

I imagine it must be difficult for self-described “ex gays” to participate a site called “ex-gay watch.” Naturally, they’re the ones that will end up being the most- well, watched.

I suspect there is some of that, but honestly we have had many people from that point of view participate in a candid, open manner. Pam (Willful Grace) was an amazing commenter even during a time when she and her husband seemed to be the epitome of an ex-gay success story. Jay and James are quite inspired and have given me much to think about. Disputed Mutability is an awesome writer and comments here at times.

There are others but suffice to say they all had honest, open debates and were consistent in their stories. If you look back a couple of months, you will see that Mary started out quite harshly – many thought she was a member of PFOX which is about as harsh as they come. Much of what she said came across like their rhetoric. Then at some point she began changing her tone, making comments from a very different point of view. At the same time or just before, her story line wasn’t adding up at all.

Timothy became confused first and requested clarification. I also became confused about statements which made her sound about 20 on one side, but more my age (early 40′s) on the other. When I questioned this, she clammed up and said she couldn’t answer questions like that over fear for her family. That’s about the time she offered to send her story out to people if they would email her. My response was that she be open with those here or refuse to answer, but not offer private bits – it’s not fair and one should consider those things before commenting about ones life on an open forum.

I’ve not gotten a meaningful reply since. She started posting on Doc Throck’s blog somewhere in there and less here, so I let it go. But after noticing some really outrageous statements there, I mentioned the inconsistencies from her experience here. She never answered then either.

This thread couldn’t be farther off topic, and I realize I helped with that. Once it becomes likely that someone is simply playing a role here, we can’t let it go. But I suspect nothing more good can come out of this one, so I’m shutting it down. If you have any pertinent comments, use the open forum thread.