A Critique of Jones And Yarhouse’s ‘Ex-gays?’ – Part 3
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).
I agree and plead guilty to all counts. It is just a large thought that has been gestating and seeking expression for quite a while. I will see if I can shorten it. i’ll probably have to cut out all the witty remarks.
The Apology I wrote this in a somewhat playful mood – I often forget that I have claws (apologies). (Has anyone here seen But I’m a Cheerleader – closing sequence? – What was I thinking, of course you have) Not trying to minimize the swipes, I do think that I was trying to capture how the ex-gay movement (and most Evanglicals) view SSA persons. You can never be as if you never were (to paraphrase Alan on the ‘taint’ factor) – it’s something that you will (probably) struggle with for the rest of your life, or until you stop struggling against it. Most conservative Church people who are welcoming but not affirming view SSA as a ‘thorn in the flesh’ (what else but a scourge?). I just used a little rhetorical license, which tried to capture the sentiment that I have encountered most.
And now, for another really pointed remark… From what I can tell, by your own admission Peter O., “post-gay” speaks not so much about desire, but mostly about behaviour. In terms of desires, you may not be “100% gay” anymore (but really, who is?), but you aren’t 100% straight either. You just choose to not act upon your homoerotic desires plain and simple. I think that your arguments against a dichotomous view of sexual orientation are simply a way to avoid admitting that you are not “straight” (exclusive heterosexual desire), which is the (not so) implied goal of ex-gay ministries. The whole orientation system that ex-gay programs are based on necessitates going from one to the other. In order for the scheme to work, you need to go from one to the other. Come to think of it, by definition you can only be 100% straight, while you can be 25%, 50%, or even 75% gay; to be “straight” is the complete absence of homosexual desire. I think that, given the failure to produce the expected results promised by “therapy” (i.e., the Jones and Yarhouse study that started this post), ex-gay ministries and organizations are increasingly forced to abandon their quest for complete heterosexuality by adopting a much fuzzier objective. Thankfully, this objective is also more attainable. Namely, living according to their religious beliefs, and not their desires. This lets them off the hook of actually having to change a person’s arousal response one iota, even if this does come after enough behaviour modification and conditioning. And yes, I do think that many people undergoing ex-gay “therapy” do ‘guard their heart’ daily, because you never know where temptation might come from, or when your eyes might linger too long and cause you to stumble. This last point goes back to the Jones and Yarhouse definition of a “success” story, ie., given these goals, how successful can an individual really be when they do not “come out straight”?
(Hopefully I have kept the “snark” factor down. I think that some things need to be said bluntly. Writing things down is so much more complicated than speaking to people face to face.)
Peter O: I’ve been following your comments, and it seems to me that you and Jim Phelan are very similar. So, I will repost something that I wrote to him, modifying and expanding it a bit, as I have had a lot of thoughts on it.
You have stated why you think gay is bad and people ought to try to be straight, that you have accomplished the same, all of which points to those of use who are gay changing our ways, getting right with G, and becoming straight, or at least, not-gay. Just like you.
I don’t really care whether you are gay, straight, or petersexual. You can be a monkey, if you want to. It is all OK with me. Insisting that your life experience ought to be valid for me is not OK with me. I don’t wish to be a monkey. It does give me a clue about where you are coming from.
Your religious beliefs about homosex is another clue. Again, you are entitled to them. Where we disagree is that because you think you understand something that you read in a book that claims to be the word of the living G, that there MUST BE something wrong with me, with G’s view of me, and with THE STATE OF MY VERY SOUL. You are not qualified and do not have the authority to make that judgment. What part of “Judge not, lest ye be judged” is inapplicable to you? By what right of spiritual arrogance do you pick the parts of your sacred book that you will adhere to, or worse, insist that I must? Of course, 4 billion out of six do not accept your book’s authority at all. I think I’ll go with the majority on this one, but I don’t think it is really about religion, either.
You have cited the “fact” that gay men die young, and is an argument as why being gay is bad and contrary to G’s will. Arguments and evidence to the contrary have made no impression on you, which is your right, but it doesn’t MAKE you right. Even if it’s true, what does it have to do with anything? Why does it make me unworthy of equality before the law? I’m not saying that you support this, but a lot of organizations which very much support a host of other indignities and offenses directed towards gay people, use the same “evidence” and draw these “conclusions” from it. As someone pointed out, black men do not live as long as white men, but nobody uses this to promote the un-naturalness and/or spiritual inferiority of black people.
Maybe this is really a lot more about ideology than it is about dispassionate fact and reason. Or passionate religion, for that matter.
It’s not about science. It doesn’t really matter whether animals “do it” or not. It doesn’t matter whether there are weak fathers and strong mothers, or not. It doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is a mental illness, a result of molestation, or biology. It doesn’t matter whether the bible bans, loves, encourages, allows, homosex, because it isn’t about religion either. Even the change-your-gay-ways researchers cited have all stated that even if gay were completely biological, we would still need to change it. It’s not about religion, either. My being Jewish excites no one any more, but being gay…well!
There is not one true thing that you can say that is true about gay people as a group except that they prefer members of their own sex for dating, sex, romance, or family. Just like heteros. Therefore, this is about one thing only: either you think that being gay is OK, and that being gay means that gay people should not be treated differently, or you don’t, That is, I think, except for room for some gray area, as fair, dispassionate, and accurate a description of reality as I can come up with. All else flows from those two basic positions. Gay is OK I call affirmation, gay is bad I call prejudice– prejudice given a very thin veneer of respectability by religion. Segregation in the old South was very much supported by law AND by religious belief. Yet we now see it as prejudice, and not divine rule.
There are a lot of platforms from which these two positions get expressed: religion, fear, political power, career, money, self-hatred, self-protection, fear of self, fear of sex, and on and on and on. But these are all after-thoughts. No one is born knowing that gay=bad, though we learn soon enough that some people think so.
Either position is ideology, of course. I am willing to admit that I am an ideologue, absolutely committed to GAY IS OK. But then, I am a gay man great life, as are my very wide circle of friends, so perhaps that is to be expected. But I can say also this: I am willing to concede the possibility that there is something inherently “bad” about being gay, but the sum of my life experience, which is considerable, indicates far lesser consequence than the usual run of heterosexuality. If you can show me evidence that being gay is bad for society, bad for gay people, bad for anything except fundraising on the basis of prejudice, I would certainly be open to looking at it. That is what this website, and others like it, are about.
Peter, can YOU admit to your ideology, that being gay is NOT OK, and that this determines everything YOU have to say? You may say: well, why is your ideology better than mine? As Mammy Yokum said: “Good is better than evil because it’s nicer.” Jesus put it another way: “By their fruits shall you know them.” My ideology is about ending prejudice. Yours is very destructive. That you prattle on about the destructive nature of homosexuality on the human soul is entirely theological, not even theoretical– and we only have your word for it.
Do you want evidence? Look no further than my brother, a man who spent his adult life fighting against being gay. He died unhappy and alone. But at least he died “not gay”. Would you like to take responsibility for that?
But your ideology is clearly soul-destroying for gay people, and the poor-wanna-be-straights. Soulwise, I would prefer taking my chances with being gay than with being ex-gay. Do you want to talk about crimes against nature? What about the crimes against our natures? Gay people are imprisoned, attacked, kicked out of their families, fired, murdered, vilified, persecuted, jailed, slandered, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve. People engage in destructive behaviors because they are gay, you say. No, honey, it is because the anti-gay industry is bent (pun intended) on creating the world where gay=bad=destructive, too busy saving my soul to worry about my body, my life, or my happiness.
Your ideology is destructive to straight people as well– Ted Haggard and families with gay members, to name just a few. Of course, they’re “not gay”, just the consequences of the ideology that gay=bad. Also, AIDS in black women has surpassed AIDS in gay men. It is linked to the number of black men who are “not gay” and having unprotected sex with other men, and then going home to infect their wives, and ultimately, their unborn children. Contrary what some black “preachers” are claiming, accepting homosexuality will do more for the health and security of the black family in general than all of the constitutional amendments “defending” marriage could have even in the magical world where such things are related.
Your ideology is destructive for our country. We waste so much time and energy on the topic of homosexuality. The sad irony is that given the quality of people homophobes people insist on electing, fear of homosexuality will bring about our downfall, if indeed it led to the utter disaster known as the second term of George Bush.
And finally, your ideology is destructive for the world. Your focus on this subject, the stories you tell yourself about it, allow you to ignore untamed, unregulated, unconscious heterosexuality, which has produced (in no particular order of importance) consequences of over-population, dwindling resources, global warming, abortion, war, unwanted children, sexual slavery of unwanted children, family breakdown, refugees, pollution, and on and on and on and on. As a gay man, my sexuality is responsible and affirming.
Compared to all of these consequences, either what makes my dick hard, or the alleged status of my alleged soul — well, they just don’t seem all that important after all, do they?
Ben In Oakland, I officially love you.
petersexual…
How appropriate that you should use this wording on this thread. To quote from one of Jones and Yarhouse’s “success – conversion” (p. 298):
This is the language of the highest level of success in Exodus ministries.
Thanks, Emily,Feel free to quote.
While I have no desire to eliminate erotic dreams of any kind, I’d be absolutely fascinated to know how one goes about it.
I believe Lysol makes an “erotic dream” formula you can spray on your bed at night.
And every 15 minutes throughout the night.
and then you get up, just in case.
“Whatever the direction of one’s primary attraction, or orientation, most of us are perfectly capable of attraction and sexual functioning with someone in the other camp.”
Capable, in the sense that it is “possible” yes. Does it happen, hmmmm.
For my own example I have never been sexually attracted to women. Never. When I was very young, I made a lot of false assumptions about heterosexuality in order to make it possible for me to remain in that camp. When you think about it, there’s a lot that makes sense.
TV shows and movies often show men chomping at the bit to get away from their wives so they can hang out with “the boys”. Men and women are often portrayed more as advasaries with almost nothing in common than they are as friends or comrades. Comedians of both sexes routinely make biting observations about the intelligence and folly of the opposite sex. I think some women are pretty, but I also think some flowers are pretty. I have no sexual attraction to either. It took me awhile to understand that thinking a woman is pretty in an aesthetic sense is not the same as sexual attraction. So with all this in mind it seemed reasonable to me when I was younger that men and women do not actually find each other sexually or emotionally attractive, they just pretend to in order to get what they want (sex, a family, etc). And thus I was able to explain to myself that my thoughts and feelings (or lack thereof in the case of women) were something everyone had, but just didn’t talk about. It was quite a shock when I realized that while straight men may look at each other, may even admit that they are “handsome” they are not thinking what I am thinking at all.
So I guess I wanted to say that in my case I don’t have primary and secondary attractions when it comes to gender. I only have one: men.
I will admit, however, if the population was severely limited, if only a few hundred men were alive, and I were one of the few healthy enough to reproduce, I would do my best to help the human race survive. And even then I would hope that artificial insemination was still an option. Thankfully we are not in that situation.
Very well thought out, Jason. It summarized things that felt when I was kid very clearly. I didn’t see parents who were in love with each other, or who even seemed to love each other all that much. I thought that that was what it was supposed to be like.
I had sex with a woman on July 4, 1974. First time. i wasn’t particlarly attaracted to her, but I was VERY attracted to the idea of trying out sex with a woman. Her name was Joy, but that wasn’t the name of our sexual activity. It wasn’t bad, it was just BORING. I told my roommate, also gay, that i had wanted to try it out, but if that’s what straight boys had to do, well, thank god i’m gay.
I had sex with a second woman on July 4, 1979. (Nothing happened in 1984!) We actually had a two-week affairette. It was actually a lot of fun, and a much different experience than boys or my previous girl. But atfer two weeks, as much fun as it had been, it was not any longer particularly interesting to me. Sort of like Abbott and Costello. Lot’s of fun the first time, but doesn’t bear much revisiting.
So i guess I’m a 5.98 on a scale of Kinsey 6. Or put another way, I’m just a really big queer, happily married to a great guy. Having sex with a woman did not turn me straight.
Me either Ben and Jason. I thought “I just have to have sex with a woman and then I will understand.” I didn’t. As far as being well in my soul, I am happily a Priest and my partner is happily a pastor. God loves us just as much as God loves Peter and Jim.
I just want to say to people, if you don’t like gay, DON’T DO IT! BUT LEAVE US ALONE!
Mark Twain: “Nothing needs minding so much as other people’s business.” He might have added that it is often more profitable than minding one’s own.
Rochefoucauld: “Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” He might have added that it is also more profitable.
“While I have no desire to eliminate erotic dreams of any kind, I’d be absolutely fascinated to know how one goes about it.”
I found that regularly masturbating 2-5 times a day eliminated my erotic dreams entirely. Perhaps that could be of help to ex-gay ministries (then again, maybe not).
Many thanks to Ben in Oakland for his quotations. I’d like to add another on the theme of hypocrisy.
Molière: “Hypocrisy is an art, the practice of which always commands respect, and though people may see through it, they dare say nothing against it. All other vices of mankind are exposed to censure and anyone may attack them with impunity. Hypocrisy alone is privileged. It stills the voice of criticism and enjoys a sovereign immunity. ”
Molière, oh please. Voltaire struck at the heart of ex-gay…
“Once a philosopher, twice a sodomite!”
As memory serves (’cause we are that old, afterall)… this followed an “experiment” with a young Swedish Count at Sans Souci.
Voltaire was rather ho-hum about the occasion. Not an hideous episode, but also no big whoopty-do. The young Swedish Count, however,. was able to regale him a week or so later with all his “extra scientific experiments” — with soldiers, stable hands, etc etc etc.
Oh. Right. Nice for You.
At which point … Voltaire made his comment.
He could have provided an equally witty / accurate comment at a person who insisted “I’m not gay, I’m just a gender-confused heterosexual who (unfortunately) keeps having sex with unknown men in parks every Saturday night…I love my wife, not that she knows about this thing about men in the park and all…”
Yeah right… also… once a philosopher, twice a sodomite.
“Experiment” only goes so far…
(says someone who is currently “experimenting” with breathing. I swear I am a non-breathing person who “falls” and sucks in a bit of oxygen sometimes. Like, every 5 seconds.)
I’ve been thinking the past few days about the flip side of studies like this, one that the anti-gay movement rarely considers. The gist of these “change” stories is that heterosexuality is clearly a biological, “normal” phenomenon, whereas homosexuality must be the illness, or mistake, or “choice.” But if one looks at the alleged scientific support for the homosexuality-as-mental-illness model, it works exactly the opposite way. If there are straight men and women with gay and lesbian identical twin siblings, does not this mean that heterosexuality cannot be genetic? After all, identical twins share all the same genes?
And if people exist like Anne Heche, who move between hetero and homo relationships, does not that mean that heterosexuality is just a choice? If it is a choice, why again would I choose to be a straight man?
After all, straight men are responsible for most of the violent crime in this country, not to mention drug dealing, prostitution (without johns there are no ladies of the evening) and child abuse – all out of proportion with their percentage of the population. Why would I want to join such a violent lifestyle?
And statistics show that straight men are also at high risk from early death, certainly earlier than their wives, and many studies point to stress and other bad lifestyle choices as the culprits – where is the rationale for being a straight guy again? According to the anti-gay memes, gay men have shorter life spans (nearly always due to HIV), higher risk of some other STDs, and increased violence from partners. Yet all those are easily avoidable by not being promiscuous and being very selective about whom one dates. In the coverage of the murder of Sean Taylor (the Washington football player), much has been made of the difficulty some straight men, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, have in escapting the violence of their subcultures.
As Jason points out, even allegedly happy and non-violent straight men are often shown as being trapped in marriage (the “ole ball and chain” phrase comes to mind) and eager to avoid the responsibilities that come from being a husband and father, if only briefly. Why would I want to be a minivan-driving, escaping-to-the-golf-course, unhappy straight guy again?
Trust me, I wish I was born straight. But I’m wasn’t. However, I still want the right to be myself. I still want a world of understanding. I don’t just want sex… I want compassion, trust, and empathy in a partner. I can only see myslef in a relationship with a man. Much like you can only see yourself in a relationship with the opposite sex. I think we should base ideals on love and not genitalia. Please don’t try to brainwash those who are like me! SPREAD LOVE – NOT HATE.
Matt, I don’t mean this as a criticism of you, but for myself, I’m very happy to be past the stage where I wished I was born straight. I love being gay!
A little story: a couple of weeks ago, my partner and I threw a party for a friend celebrating his 50th birthday. It was an all male guest list, and the birthday boy was one of the youngest guys there.
For an unrelated project, my oldest son, a video producer, had arranged for someone to tape footage of us setting up and the first guests arriving. The camera man was my son’s age–late 20s, straight, and had never met us before.
When we wrapped up the video taping, I told the camera guy to feel free to have a drink and some food before he left. Two hours later, I realized he was still there! He came over to tell me what a good time he was having, how interesting he found all of our friends, how great the food was, how beautiful our house is, etc, etc. I told my son the next day, “I think he was ready to sign up for his gay card on the spot.”
That gave me a fresh opportunity to look through someone else’s eyes, and realize what a wonderful life I have found as a gay man. The very best part of it is my friends–I really do believe that gay men form more and closer friendships than most straight men. I’ve mentioned here before what my daughter said after another of our parties: “Straight people can’t just walk into a bar and leave with a bunch of really nice friends!”
I don’t tell these stories to boast about how good I have things, but because it’s important to counter the constant negative stereotypes we hear from the other side. Six years ago, when I decided to leave my marriage, I was very afraid that I’d end up lonely and sad. I bought the whole story about the misery of older people in the gay world, and the impossibility of finding stable relationships. At that time, I would have given anything to have been born straight, and be able to stay in that life.
Now, you couldn’t drag me back!
I am a Family Doc in Ohio and the American Academy of Family Physicians just added to its bylaw a section that basically condemns reparative therapy. During the on-line discussions, we engaged in much of the same as I have read here today. The Jones and Yarhouse study was discussed and, at that time, I expressed my concerns about its “claims”. We too went round and round in circles with mainly one dissenting voice (i.e. a supporter of reparative tx).
For me, as a doc, it comes down to the following:
1. Sexually is not broken and does not need to be repaired.
2. There is a difference between sexual orientation and behavior and unfortunately the two are often cited as one and the same.
3. Not looking to see if there is harm from a treatment does not mean you can say the treatment causes no harm.
And I always go back to that old joke:
Two psychiatrists meet at a party.
“You know, all of my gay patients are crazy”, says Dr. A
“You know, all my straight patients are crazy too”, says Dr. B.
Two Freudians were walking down a hall towards each other. Dr. Jones says to Dr. Yarmouth: “Hello”
Dr Yarmouth says: Hmm. I wonder what he meant by that?”
If it was only that… without implying anything else. Something like… ‘hetero-marriage/celibacy is the only way’, and/or… theres no such thing as equal-rights for the homo-couple . Thats what ex-gay ppl and therapy represent to me.
Seems this quote responds somewhat to the first quote… but anyways, it wasnt why i quoted it.
Correct me if im wrong but… if by cultural crossfire you mean an anti-gay culture vs a pro-gay one, then you definately want to care about it. Is there a culture war without the topic of homosexuality?
At the start you are implicitly stating that you are still SS attracted(as far as naturally occuring emotions go) and then say that you are not completely gay, then how gay is your “petersexual”/post-gay orientation? Its been stated pretty clearly that sex doesnt make you straight or gay, so what im asking is how gay are you as far as naturally occuring emotions go.(say from a scale of 100-0)
You made an interesting point on gettin aroused by things. Im pretty sure ppl(for example gay) will get aroused by more than just men… How else would a gay, hetero-married person have children? This would, as a result, prove that using a machine to determine arousal and thus orientation is a flawed or useless method. We are back then at anecdotal evidence. (Unless we find conclusive evidence of a biological basis).
I dont remember who stated this but I remember that someone commented(even if implicitly) that he wasnt straight, but he enjoyed(im guessing he meant get aroused by) the satisfaction that she was experiencing from it.
Ah, another lingering point comes to mind, I remember Jim Phelan stating that gay-sex was less emotionally involved then hetero-sex. I wondered why that was relevant, now it’s quite clear why he brought that up. If being gay means that ones simply naturally emotionally attracted then this would somewhat disprove that it was and it fits quite nicely with ‘gays are promiscous’ because they are really just sexually-obsessed individuals with not much gay goin on.
Still… I wonder Peter O, would you still be in a hetero-relationship if you didn’t believe it was wrong?
Probably not, no reason to believe so because Peter O’s change is not from gay(100%) to straight(0%)… Peter O is quite clear on that. Then again, Phelan, as far as I know, went from gay(100%) to straight(0%). Even if the J&Y research doesnt support this, no reason for me not to believe him.
PS- Go see the movie The Mist ASAP! The screenwriters really worked hard on this one imho.
Kreuz und Queer is a movie out there maybe worth watching for a different point of view,imo it’s a +1 for ex-gays(without the religious belief attached to it). Sumwhat explicit nevertheless.
There are some brief videos that Jones has done where he addresses some of the critiques of this study. This is one that he does address. He says the rate of harm seen in ex-gay therapy exists, but is not any more likely to take place in ex-gay therapy than it is in any other remotely similar type of psychological therapy. I suppose the appropriate language would include words like “statistically significant comparative difference in rate of reported harm.”
So that question isn’t just likely to be answered; it already has. In order to determine if some form of therapy causes undue harm, you compare the rates of reported harm to similar therapies and see if that rate is higher in any statistically significant way. It seems that Dr. Chapman was able to come up with only five examples of people who reported harm, so unless all types of therapy that bear similarity to this study report numbers on the order of a one percent rate of harm, I’d say it’s likely that this type of therapy is at least on par with other areas of interest in psychology.
Lock Down,
We actually don’t know the harm or lack thereof experienced by the 25 or so who dropped out of the study, so clearly more research needs to be done in that area.
I’m curious, however, wasn’t the entire study about “religiously mediated change” rather than professional psychological therapy? That’s certainly what my copy of the book says. Have you had a chance to read it?
While to be sure Exodus and other ex-gay ministries often profess agreement with the theories of a Dr. Nicolosi or Satinover, I hope those which the authors monitored were not practicing psychotherapy.
Aside from the relatively small sample used by J&Y, and the fact that a hefty percentage of those that did not drop out were replenished from those already in the process, the period during which data was collected seems very brief. I think you will find quite a few people here who have been through such ministries did so for longer than three years.
When one is told by those one considers knowledgeable that God considers their sexuality a sin, the struggle to avoid it, or change it,can go on for a long time. Certainly you would agree that the damage caused to some because of that would not likely show up in a scant three years. It also doesn’t count the marriages entered into in the hopes that ones attractions will be changed by the experience, etc.
I didn’t see any of this covered in the short promotional videos at IVP.