Ex-Gay Watch

Response to Part 1 of Dr. Patrick M. Chapman’s Review of “Ex-Gays”, posted on Ex-Gay Watch, November, 2007, by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse.

The greatest compliment that be paid to any work of scholarship is for it to receive serious consideration and generate discussion. Thus, we are pleased to see the review by Dr. Chapman of our book, Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. Chapman raises important issues, but in the end, we must conclude that his review fails to establish the serious flaws he claims in our study.

Response to “Part 1: Introduction and Methods”

We applaud Chapman for correctly summarizing the main questions we examined in the study, for a reasonable brief summary of the study’s methodology, and particularly for granting us some credulity in saying that “They claim the ex-gay organization [Exodus] did not exert any control or power over their results and conclusions (p. 127), and there is currently no reason to believe otherwise.” Minor points of disagreement with his summary and commentary include the following:

• Our interest was not triggered by “the conflicting views of science [versus the claims of our] conservative Christian acquaintances;” but rather by the conflict between a) the prevailing and hardening consensus of mental health opinion that change is utterly impossible, based on a very mixed scientific record, versus b) the actual scientific record and the anecdotal claims of people we know. Regarding the actual scientific record, note for instance the recent publication by a respected scholar of a report of some notable plasticity in “female same-sex sexuality” in a minority of women followed in a longitudinal study (Lisa Diamond, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(#2), 142-161. Diamond rightly concludes “the more we learn, the more we do not understand,” p. 142. She also, it must be said, would not regard her findings as providing support for change as understood in this study, but on the other hand, her results do challenge a simple “sexual orientation is utterly and always unchangeable” stance). And Chapman in his review gives weight to the anecdotes of people he knows, and his own story, so once again we raise the question why only certain anecdotes are privileged as worthy of consideration in this debate.
• Chapman implicitly dismisses “behavior modification” as trivial, but we see insufficient justification to take this step. Some of our subjects experienced more than mere behavior modification, and even behavior modification can be very meaningful if it empowers a person to live in closer accord with her freely chosen core values.

The core of Chapman’s criticism of the study in Part 1 is that our study is somehow not truly prospective. We would agree that if our study is not prospective then it is disingenuous to claim that it is, and the scientific value of the study is considerably weakened. This charge, in other words, is truly significant. Let’s look carefully, then, at the basis for Chapman’s claims. Read more…

In an attempt to turn ex-gays into real men, some in the ex-gay camp recommend a weekend retreat called New Warriors Training Adventure to their clients. An interesting and enlightening discussion of the New Warriors program can be read at Dr. Warren Throckmorton’s blog , where the following retreat activities are described as taken from a recent article in the Houston Press.

• Blindfolded walking tours in the nude;

• People blowing sage smoke in his face while 50 or so naked men danced around candles;

• Men sitting naked in a circle discussing their sexual histories while passing a wooden dildo called “The Cock”;

• Naked men beating cooked chickens with a hammer.

As Throckmorton notes in a follow-up post, there was a rift a few years ago amongst the New Warriors when a local branch hosted a talk by NARTH founder, Joseph Nicolosi.

The New Warriors Training Adventures are put on by The Mankind Project (MKP) and are described eloquently at their website as an invitation to step forward and look in the mirror. However, red flags are raised soon after by a barrage of yes or no questions phrased in such a way as to make one feel wimpy who dares to answer “no”.

• Do you have the courage to face your own fears and insecurities and discover the tremendous power and beauty that lies within you?
• Are you willing to step into the fullness of who you really are?
• Are you willing to discover the real joy and terror of being a man?

From the descriptions given by the Houston article as well as commenters at Throckmorton’s site, it appears the New Warriors Training focuses more on terrorizing than discovering joy. Participants are literally stripped down, physically and emotionally. In the article, one woman retells her husband’s description of an activity.

…everyone was sitting Indian-style in a big circle in the lodge when the man leading the group said, ‘If you wish, you may reach over and grab your brother’s dick. If your brother doesn’t want your hand there, he can remove it.’ Well, my husband told me he just froze. And from that point on, he just wanted out. Read more…

Recently, we received a copy of a letter sent by Exodus president Alan Chambers to members of a parents group earlier this year. While the source wishes to remain anonymous, we have verified it as authentic.

In the letter, Chambers describes the first and last time ex-gay guru Richard Cohen was invited to participate in an Exodus Annual Freedom Conference in 2000. During that conference, Cohen taught a workshop on holding therapy.

During that class, which I attended, he asked for a volunteer to demonstrate on. His volunteer was a seasoned Exodus leader. This leader was instructed by Mr. Cohen to lay on the floor and spread his legs wide open. Dr. Cohen then laid down on top of this other man face to face and embraced him.

Mr. Cohen made the comment, “This might cause some stimulation. However, what goes up must come down, I always say.” He made other vulgar comments of this nature.

Apparently the volunteer was so affected that he was uncertain he could continue as a ministry leader. Chambers goes on to explain how Exodus banned the use of holding therapy by member ministries, and removed Cohen’s books and other materials from sale. Cohen was told he would not be invited to another conference and Exodus refused to endorse his work.

Below is the full text of the letter:

Dear Parents Group,

Many of us within Exodus initially read Coming Out Straight, as we do most new books on the topic of overcoming homosexuality. Those of us who read the book began to talk amongst ourselves about the legitimacy of holding therapy, a practice Richard both uses and endorses.

At the time this discussion began (2000) I was not the President of Exodus nor was I even a board member. However, as the leader of an Exodus Member Ministry, I was deeply concerned about the implications this would have on Exodus as a whole if we endorsed such a controversial technique. Too, I worried about the possibility of leaders exposing themselves to temptation via the practice of “holding” a client.

That year (2000) at the Exodus Annual Freedom Conference Richard Cohen was invited by the Leadership at the time to teach a workshop on holding therapy. During that class, which I attended, he asked for a volunteer to demonstrate on.

****PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING IS SOMEWHAT GRAPHIC****

His volunteer was a seasoned Exodus leader. This leader was instructed by Mr. Cohen to lay on the floor and spread his legs wide open. Dr. Cohen then laid down on top of this other man face to face and embraced him.

Mr. Cohen made the comment, “This might cause some stimulation. However, what goes up must come down, I always say.” He made other vulgar comments of this nature.

Mr. Cohen came out of homosexuality as did the leader that he violated. This leader was so taken back and embarrassed by the event that he wondered if his ministry status was at stake.

I joined the board of directors of Exodus that year and I made it very clear that I wanted to ensure that Dr. Cohen was taken to task for this breach of trust. A letter was sent to him and to my knowledge he had some conversations with Bob Davies, my predecessor. The tapes of his workshop
were pulled and he was told that he could not teach at any future conferences.

However, his book continued to be sold by the Exodus office until I was hired and I stopped that, as well.

It is because of all that I have shared and more that Exodus International does not and will not endorse or work with Mr. Cohen. His recent lack of judgment in the area of media interviews has only served to reinforce my belief that he is not someone Exodus should highlight as a valuable resource to the people that look to us.

As for the practice of holding therapy, under my leadership we decided to adopt the NARTH (www.narth.com) position banning our ministries from practicing this technique. Regardless of any benefits that this therapy is purported to have, I firmly believe that it is a stumbling block for all parties involved.

I appreciate each one of you and as someone who battled homosexuality myself, I believe it is my obligation to only promote the ministries and resources that will bring forth life long term and not simply every resource out there.

God bless each and every one of you,

Alan

Alan Chambers
President
Exodus International

–

Since that conference in 2000, Cohen has appeared on several news and comedy shows, cuddling, screaming and whacking pillows with his trademark tennis racket. Perhaps the most bizarre was his performance on The Daily Show, after which many organizations quietly removed any reference to him (though later some were replaced). He also appeared on The Howard Stern Show, where he posed next to male members of the crew, some of whom were sporting naked genitals.

Yet through it all there are some groups who hold tenaciously to Cohen and his teachings. Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) removed him as President, but they still recommend his books. Jews Offering Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH) has a close relationship with him, while the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) still carries his material on their website. Even InterVarsity Press, a prestigous Christian publisher recently released Cohen’s book, Gay Children, Straight Parents, even after an apparent period of reflection over the matter.

And now we have new revelations about Cohen’s support of a strangely homo-erotic “therapeutic group” called New Warriors. One wonders if there will ever be enough writing on the wall to discourage the confused from trusting a Richard Cohen.

A guest post By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
Continued from Part 2

A Focus on the Results — Examining if it is Harmful

The American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association regard attempts to change sexual orientation as “potentially” harmful or risky. However, Jones and Yarhouse misrepresent the American Psychological Association as saying that such involvement “would be” harmful (p. 353) or “is highly likely” to be harmful (p. 365). Likewise, the authors state they are examining whether the change process is “always” harmful (p. 19), “potentially” harmful (p. 77), or “likely to be harmful” (p. 77). They conclude there is “no evidence” such attempts are harmful (pp. 296, 332), it is not harmful “in and of itself” (p. 359), there is “no meaningful” evidence for it being harmful (p. 363), there is “little evidence” for harm (p. 365), and it is “not harmful on average” (p. 367), the latter being a far cry from there being no evidence it is harmful!

The participants themselves refute the authors’ assertion that change therapy is not harmful. One participant says these groups are not “healthy or necessarily beneficial” (p. 301), another reports his faith is “taking a beating” (p. 313), a third feels “hopeless”, “helpless”, “empty”, “frustrated”, “hurt”, and “very alone” (p. 314, all after 3 years in the Exodus program), a fourth bemoans he spent so many years trying to change that he has missed out on other goals in his life (p. 316), and a fifth claims involvement in the therapy made life “more difficult” (p. 317). One wonders what would have to be the reports of the participants for Jones and Yarhouse to declare the ministry harmful? However, they do recognize that the 23 participants (of an original 98) who dropped out of the program may have been harmed, but they cannot be sure of such a conclusion (p. 354). Nonetheless, dismissing this possibility and ignoring the statements of the participants that remained in the program, Jones and Yarhouse confidently declare the change process is not harmful. Once again, their conclusion is not based on the evidence: those who declare they are hurt by the process are evidence of harm.

One might be inclined to forgive Jones and Yarhouse for their optimism if they had not presented anecdotal stories of individuals not related to the current study who committed suicide because they were unable to change. The authors plead: “should such anecdotes foreclose the option of the individual choosing to attempt orientation change?” (pp. 359-360). Jones and Yarhouse do not indicate how many deaths and testimonies of harm they consider permissible in order to allow other individuals the opportunity for a change that, by all evidence, is unlikely to ever happen.

Jones and Yarhouse recognize that individuals who enter ex-gay ministries are vulnerable (p. 64). Thus, it is disappointing to have the authors draw unwarranted conclusions that are in direct opposition to their own decree as to what the study can and cannot indicate. While their book will be likely and erringly used to convince some homosexual Christians or their families that change is possible, the results demonstrate nothing of the kind. How many lives must be broken before the authors realize the actual damage caused by these ministries outweighs any potential good?

It is clear to me why the participants in this study retain homosexual desires, attractions and arousal: they were born that way. While Exodus and many conservative Christian leaders argue that postnatal causes lead to homosexual orientation (p. 69), to this day no scientific study has successfully identified any postnatal causal factor or factors. Meanwhile, scientific organizations, supported by considerable research summarized in Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman’s Born Gay, recognize the importance of prenatal factors in determining sexual orientation, specifically prenatal hormones and genetics, and believe that a homosexual orientation is immutable.

The evidence indicates that while a person can change his or her behavior, sexual orientation cannot be changed. Homosexuality is not a disorder or illness that requires healing. Contrary to the conclusions of Jones and Yarhouse, the data from the current study adds additional support to this conclusion.

–
This is the final part of Dr. Chapman’s critique. One of the subject book authors, Dr. Stanton Jones, will be providing a response here within the next few days — check back.

Patrick M. Chapman has a PhD in biological anthropology and is author of “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press: in press).

A report recently presented to Anglicans in the UK has warned that therapy to change sexual orientation is based on unproven methods and can cause severe damage.

In its submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality, the Royal College of Psychiatrists wrote that therapists who attribute their clients’ mental health problems to their sexuality are likely to cause “considerable distress.” The report went on to say:

A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client’s sexual orientation. This can be deeply damaging. Although there is now a number of therapists and organisation in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible. The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field.

No mention is made of the recent Jones and Yarhouse study, which also falls short of a full, randomized clinical trial.

The report, which also addresses the nature of gay and lesbian relationships, the origins of homosexuality, and the mental health of gay men and women, concludes by urging Anglicans to accept gays and lesbians fully into the life of the Church:

[There] is no scientific or rational reason for treating LGB people any differently to their heterosexual counterparts. People are happiest and are likely to reach their potential when they are able to integrate the various aspects of the self as fully as possible. Socially inclusive, nonjudgemental attitudes to LGB people who attend places of worship or who are religious leaders themselves will have positive consequences for LGB people as well as for the wider society in which they live.

But will the Church listen?

Tip of the hat to regular XGW commenter Jimbo.

Despite the fact that it was revealed that half of their library is made up of Christian literature, and their online resource center is padded with articles from Christian therapists and counselors, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH) strives to provide ex-gay therapy to an exclusively Jewish clientele. Christian ex-gay group Exodus International’s Alan Medinger has contributed six articles, more than any other writer, to JONAH’s online library, including one that needed to be “adapted” from its original Christian context (PDF) to be easy on Jewish eyes. Clearly, JONAH considers him to be a good resource – so imagine the surprise I felt when I saw the following statement from an article he’d written for Exodus International explaining the reasons why he left the Episcopal Church:

5. The rejection of evangelism. The strenuous objection to the evangelization of the Jews reveals the fundamental universalism of the Episcopal Church.

In this context, “universalism” is code for “inclusion” or a sort of “liberalism” – that is, according to Medinger, the Episcopal Church is too inclusive of ideas and religions outside the Episcopalian faith, and not orthodox (read: exclusive) enough. He obliquely mentions “radical feminism” (whatever that means) as a danger to the church. Now, JONAH has stooped pretty low to push their anti-gay stance, including using research tied to Holocaust Revisionism. But I think that even a religious Jew who can somehow justify using bad science to back up their Halakhic convictions would agree that JONAH would be doing a Jewish soul a disservice by sending them down a path that could potentially lead to their abandonment of the Jewish faith.

Still, I sincerely doubt Medinger’s presence will disappear from JONAH’s site – they didn’t even bother to remove Paul Rondeau’s only article, which directly quotes Nazi-admiring Paul Cameron. Why would they remove the literature of a man who singularly provides 8% of their online library? Perhaps Christian ex-gay groups aren’t the ONLY ones who offer “freedom from homosexuality through Jesus Christ.”

As reported by AlArabiyah.net:

Dr. Awsam Wasfi, 42, offers a “treatment program” for gays that focuses on boosting their self-esteem and enhancing their communication skills, as well as encouraging them to play sports and work on their religious beliefs.

In what could be a soundbite from NARTH or a Love Won Out conference, Dr. Wasfi asserts that “No child is born homosexual. It is either social or as a result of some childhood sexual abuse.”While the ex-gay approach has yet to gain widespread acceptance in the Islamic world, it’s not difficult to envision a Muslim version of Exodus taking root in some of the more westernized Islamic nations. And just as conservative evangelical groups have formed alliances with groups (Catholics, Orthodox Jews and Mormons) that they once looked down upon in their quest to reverse the advancement of gay rights, it’s not inconceivable to imagine that alliance eventually expanding to embrace likeminded Muslims.Hat tip: The Bilerico Project and commenter Rob (aka Xeno)

Brian Murphy, a Soulforce Equality Rider, attended the Ex-Gay Survivor Conference that was co-sponsored by Soulforce, Beyond Ex-Gay and the LGBT Resource Center at the University of California-Irvine.

Murphy, a filmmaker, interviewed fellow attendees and taped footage of various conference activities including the Chalk Talk, a time of written expression and reflection.

Watch Murphy’s complete film:

Three-minute trailer:

Brian Murphy’s weblog: All Points In Between

Filmmaker Morgan Jon Fox has released an extended preview for the feature-length documentary, “This Is What Love In Action Looks Like.”

According to the filmmaker:

In the summer of 2005, a 16-year-old from Memphis, Tenn., wrote on his MySpace blog about his parents sending him to a “Fundamentalist Christian” program that claimed to offer “freedom from homosexuality.” What followed is a modern-day message in a bottle, as teen-agers in the local community stood up for their friend with daily protests which eventually grew to include a plethora of individuals demonstrating at the facility in what would become an international news story.

The documentary features several former clients of the organization who tell their personal stories about the time they spent within the programs walls, including exclusive never before seen interviews with several teenagers who were forced into the “Refuge” program.

The documentary producer’s intent was to show the passion and conviction of both sides of such a strong debate, however, countless attempts to interview Love In Action officials, and their wider network of affiliates were continuously denied, unfortunately thwarting [the filmmaker's] wishes to allow them to tell their personal stories in detail.

This Is What Love In Action Looks Like will premiere in February 2008.

Facebook users: Join the Cause.

A guest post By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
Continued from Part 1

A Focus on the Results — Examining if Change is Possible

In the opening chapter Jones and Yarhouse honestly and correctly state this study cannot establish if long-term, permanent and enduring change occurs because that would require a long-term study (p. 17). Contrarily, they later suggest the results demonstrate sexual orientation is changeable (pp. 42, 325), evidenced by 11 “Success: Conversion” cases out of the original 98. The conclusion is unwarranted because: 1) they acknowledge multiple anecdotal cases from previous “ex-gay” success stories who later recanted their “conversion” to heterosexuality (pp. 63-64, 72); 2) they freely acknowledge that people in ex-gay programs declare they are heterosexual even if they experience exclusive and powerful homosexual attractions (p. 220); 3) they admit that one of their 11 “Success: Conversion” cases recanted his claim of change, confessing his homosexual attraction was unchanged after the book manuscript neared completion (p. 285; Jones and Yarhouse did not remove his “success” from their data); and 4) the only way to determine if change actually occurred is through a long-term study, which this is not.

This study is littered with biased and sloppy scholarship. The authors suggest the results presented in Tables 7.4 through 7.6 (pp. 239-240) present a “modest portrait of positive progress” in the change process (p. 246). Yet, there is no change based on the data presented in Table 7.4: at both the start and end of the study nine participants declare themselves heterosexual while 51 declare themselves homosexual. Jones and Yarhouse state there is “no indication of significant change” based on the data presented in Table 7.5 (p. 248) and no statistically significant change in Table 7.6 (p. 249). Nonetheless Jones and Yarhouse declare the results represented in these three tables to be “positive progress.” Simply put, their conclusion is not based on the evidence: progress requires positive change.

When one examines the statements of the “Success: Conversion” participants it is once again clear that Jones and Yarhouse’s claim of change is unfounded. In addition to the “Success: Conversion” male who recanted his success, another male admits to still having “unwanted sexual attraction to men” (p. 297), while a third admits to continuing homoerotic dreams (p. 298). Read more…