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).
Peter, are you serious?? You’re citing the Paul Cameron (Nazi-admiring “it’s a plausible solution that gays should be quarantined and exterminated” Paul Cameron) “lifespan study” as proof that gays are unhealthy? David Roberts was right, it really doesn’t take long for your true colors to come out. It’s one thing to insist gays are sick spiritually (“destruction of the soul”) which, by the way, as a devout Jew, I have yet to experience – but it’s quite another to attempt to persuade the skeptics and atheists with your bad science. This is exactly what Jones and Yarhouse attempt to do – use bad science. And you’re using the bad science of a man who sides with genocidal Nazi ideology, at that!
This is always what happens when so-called “tolerant” people start talking more and more – their true colors come out. They end up not only openly denying gays the spiritual opportunity to live as fulfilled happy faithful people, they try to convince them on a scientific level that their lives are that much more destructive, denigrating, and diseased than theirs on a scientific level – as if that really drives the point home. “God is not only not on your side, medical science isn’t either! So even if you don’t believe in God or my religion – well, science hates you too! You’re finished!”
Peter, why is it so important that you “prove” to us gays that we’re so much lower than you “non-gays?” Is that the only reason you’re “not” gay anymore? Because of fear? fear of an Angry God and fear of science?
Because last time I checked, being in love with someone was not “destructive of the soul.” How can love ever destroy the soul?
Aw, don’t ban Peter! He may take up space, but bandwidth isn’t that expensive. I know it’s no one’s intention, but if the annoying, tedious people who diasagree with you aren’t allowed in, very soon we’ll just be a bunch of like-minded folks patting ourselves on the back for how clever we are and how deluded everyone else is (see Rush Limbaugh listeners). I can see banning people for egregious personal rudeness, but Peter, although only tangentially on topic a lot of the time, is a useful counterweight here.
Emily K,
I’m not citing Paul Cameron. I didn’t even mention Paul Cameron. You did. There are far better studies than Cameron’s to indicate that in some parts of the gay community there are serious public health issues to be addressed.
Please don’t let that stop you associating me with words like “genocidal Nazi authority” though.
Just a reminder to anyone who is able to receive British radio: remember to listen to BBC Radio 4 tonight at 8 o’clock (GMT) to hear the much-revered Archbishop Desmond Tutu talking about how the Anglican communion has beome obsessed in recent years with matters of human sexuality, at the expense of far more vital issues; how he is ashamed of his Church because of this; and how he believes that Jesus, too, would be ashamed of it.
Rose, Peter was not banned, he was asked to obey our guidelines for constructive discussion. This is not a graffiti site where vandals can scrawl whatever they wish. XGW requires that commentary be civil, on-topic, and free of strawman argumentation. We welcome ex-gay commentary that meets these simple requirements.
Peter O
If you are not referencing Paul Cameron, please provide the source for the study that indicates that homosexaulity in and of itself results in a shorter life span. Please also provide access to the peer reviewed article in a reputable journal (not pay to print) which reported this observation.
If, on the other hand, you find that your source truly is Paul Cameron, rather than change the subject or ignore this post, please do come back, apologize, and retract your claim.
Thank you.
Peter, feel free to cite them. As offhandedly mentioning “studies” without citing sources will get you nowhere with this crowd.
Although please save us some time and visit Boxturtle Bulletin first and make sure you’re not using something they’ve already exposed as fraudulent, heavily flawed, misrepresentative of the actual work done, or simply a boldfaced lie.
If God didn’t say that same-sex behaviour was wrong then I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I always find these statements rather silly. They are so full of preconceived assumptions about how Scripture was written, compiled and interpreted that they are meaningless and naive. Even those who make them don’t believe that God “said” everything written in the Bible, nor that every thing God “called wrong” is applicable to all people in all situations.
Unless someone is following all 613 commands of Jewish law (and the additional dozen or so commands in the NT) they aren’t doing everything God “said”. It should be no surprise that other Christians are going to disagree on whether their rationalizations for picking and choosing are valid, or use different criteria for their own. This has happened since Peter and Paul fought over circumcision in the 1st Century.
The NT (in Galatians) clearly forbids using the law to condemn others, unless those who do the condemning follow all 613 laws perfectly. I find it odd that people spend so much time constructing and maintaining so called “ex gay” ministries yet do nothing to stop divorced and remarried people from committing ongoing acts of adultery with their second spouses and embrace lifetime celibacy (per 1 Corinthians 7:10-11) or urging the rich to give up their possessions.
But Biblical consistency has never been a hallmark of the Anglican right-wing. If surveys are to believed, all this ex-gay stuff is part of a dying worldview; even younger evangelicals have a more diverse and nuanced view of committed same sex relationships.
You are more than welcome to respond to the open questions before taking your sabbatical, Peter.
I was on another website discussion forum and someone brought up The Law when discussing The Law and Homosexuality.
The Law was not given to me (a Gentile) but it was given only for the Jews to follow. So The Law is not binding on me as a Gentile. And you know what? It makes perfect sense. I am not Jewish. My ancestors were never Jewish. So in short The Law is not something I need to follow since it was never given to me to follow. I am a Christian. I follow Christ. He fullfilled The Law upon the Cross.
So my question is this: How can anyone bind The Law to me when it was never given to me, a Gentile, to follow in the first place?
Studies indicating serious health problems in parts of the gay community:
Holly et al, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81 (1989) p1728, “Anal Cancer Incidence” – Shows much higher rates of drug taking amongst gay men then rest of population using a longitudinal study (1983 to 1989)
Williams et al, Comprehensive Psychiatry 34 (1993) p153 shows extremely high levels of alcohol abuse amongst self-identified gay men
Also in this study (Williams et al) and in Bell & Weinberg’s “Homosexualities” (page 200) there is clear evidence of much higher rates of mental health issues amongst gay men (though I grant this is a 1978 book, but it comes out with similar results to the 1993 Williams study)
D I Abrams in the Journal of AIDS 3 (1990) p545 has a table showing the huge difference in STD carrying between heterosexuals and homosexuals (not just AIDS patients).
Schomer et al in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 41 (March 1992) shows phenomenally high Hep A rates amongst homosexual men. Keeffe in his “Clinical Approaches to Viral Hepatitis” (published in The Medical Clinics of North America 70 – 1986 I believe) shows the same for Hep B.
Obviously I don’t even need to quote the HIV figures for you.
This takes us then to studies like Hogg et al (Int Jrnl Epidemiology 1997 26(3) ) which show definite lower life spans for gay men. In this follow-up, they argue (cogently) that the evidence that lifespans are 8 to 21 years less for gay men isn’t a reason for homophobia. Good point. They also suggest that if the study was repeated today the life-expectancy figures would be higher. However, no one has done the repeat study (to my knowledge) so we cannot assume that is necessarily true.
That’s just for starters. Want anymore??
Please note, I normally never raise these issues as I find talking about STDs and death rates is a bit too brutal and doesn’t add anything to the theological argument, but given that I’ve been challenged on this I’m happy to provide.
Forgot to add this.
You are quite right toujoursdan. But tell them that. I was on a site that claimed to clear up the misconception of divorce and remarriage. They claim that the act of remarriage is the sin and that there is no such thing as “continuous state of sin (adultery)” for those that have divorced and remarried. Only the act of remarriage is a sin. And that it can be forgiven. So they are breaking it down and making divorce and remarriage a thumbs up in God’s eyes. They also have a wonderful section on Homosexuality which is consistent with the anti-gay theology most evangelicals/fundamentalists have. No surprise there.
As for the rich giving up their possessions, haven’t you heard of the “Prosperity Gospel”? They claim its God given. One minister on CNN (can’t remember his name) claimed that if Jesus was walking the Earth today he’d be riding around in a Rolls. *shakes head in disbelief*
*I apologize if I am off-topic but there was questions raised that I needed to put my two cents in about.
David Roberts asks:
On that point, Chapman points out that Jones and Yarhouse create a bit of a straw man by mis-stating the APA’s statement on conversion therapies. Your statement tends to give credence to J&Y.
The APA position is stated in Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality
It’s not just gays who are damaged by the false promises these treatments make. Parents are adversely effected as well. A child has years to adjust to the fact that they are gay, while the realization that a child is gay may happen all at once. This can send parents into a frenzy looking for answers. If they are misdirected by the likes of “love won out” the resulting conflict between parent and child is quite challenging to manage. Jim Burroway discusses the mischief LWO causes on his excellent blog Box Turtle Bulletin
David continues:
We know that same sex and opposite sex reactions come from the same place since these reactions are in all ways identical even thought the external stimuli differ.
This study has PET scans which show how the limbic system “lights up” in reaction to male and female pheromones in both gays and straights, graphically demonstrating that these responses are at the same “depths” of the brain for both.
Peter O,
do you believe the same thing about lesbians (of which I am one)? Since they lead “healthier” lives (according to the center for disease control, no HIV transmission has EVER been recorded regarding F to F relations), does that make my personal “lifestyle” better in your eyes? Also, there is nothing in the Law or Prophets that forbids female homosexuality. There is only an oblique reference in the Talmud (which Christians reject). Do you “approve” of lesbians since we’re clearly “healthier” and much more morally acceptable?
Peter O,
I know.
Also Blacks are much more likely to be victims of crime, die young, suffer from poverty, etc.
Why are blacks not joining an ex-Black program?
The answer is not to deny one’s sexual orientation – but to examine the underlying causes of self-destructive behavior.
Please use your intelligence.
Peter O,
A 1997 study on life expectancy???
That would be significantly affected by the HIV epidemic.
Gay men who were infected in the late 1970s and early 1980s before anyone knew about HIV would skew those numbers.
Now gay men have significantly changed their sexual behavior and new drugs have made HIV a manageable disease.
Please use your intelligence.
Actually, Peter, you did not answer the question at all. You changed the subject. The question, as you appear to have forgotten it is:
“…please provide the source for the study that indicates that homosexaulity in and of itself results in a shorter life span…”
What you gave was a bunch of SDI statistics that are not applicable to many homosexual men and women. The closest you came was to the Hogg study.
However, as you well know, the Hogg study was a measure of how the AIDS crisis had impacted the gay population and was reflective of the height of that crisis. As Hogg stated in 2001, “If we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved.”
(a helpful hint: next time do check your facts with http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com before throwing around statistics and studies)
In other words, this too was a measure of a specific virus and was not indicative of homosexuality per se.
One could argue that promiscuity in a time of sexually transmitted diseases leads to a shortened life. One could even argue that homosexual promiscuity (especially outside of safer sex guidelines) in a time of sexually transmitted diseases leads to a shortened life.
But it is dishonest to suggest that homosexuality, per se, is akin to alcoholism because of the “much lower lifespan for homosexual men than for heterosexual men”.
Bill said:
Bill, the link isn’t working, but in any case these are fascinating indications that what you say may very well be true, but it is still speculation at this point. It does us no good to claim solid facts exist for something when they do not yet. I tend to agree with the hypothesis, but we will have to wait for more conclusive evidence. Until then, making a matter of fact statement about origins and causality of homosexuality is not appropriate here.
David Roberts,
For some reason that link had http:// in it not once, but twice.
Let’s try it again here.
Ah, that’s better.
In the years after WWII, researchers took a heightened interest in homosexuality. The focus of this research was to confirm and clarify Freud’s conjectures that factors in upbringing led persons to be gay. If we had a more detailed understanding of the psychodynamics underlying this process, we could develop more effective treatments for those who suffered from what was then considered a psychological disorder.
Freud based his insights solely on his intimate knowledge of his psychiatric patients. He never included members of the general population in his research. Many of his insights were valid to some degree when applied to people in general but some were definitely not.
When researchers took random samples from both the gay and straight population and looked at their upbringing, no particular differences were found. This was so astonishing to many that they assumed that these studies were flawed. Yet when even larger, better controlled studies produced the same results, they had to conclude that Freud had been wrong about the origins of homosexuality all along, that upbringing had no bearing on adult sexual preferences at all.
The idea that we haven’t found the “gay gene” yet, is a red herring in determining whether or not a trait is genetically determined. Even though we have not found the gene(s) that control for eye color, we know that eye color is genetically determined simply because we know that no environmental factors or process of thought can change the eye color one is born with.
When researchers find that no environmental factors (upbringing) effect adult sexual orientation, the same criteria are met. This also means that no environmental factors (therapy) can change sexual orientation as well. When we see that no treatment, from deep psychoanalysis to electroshock therapy has ever changed a person’s sexual orientation, we confirm this basic truth.
The fact that these sexual inclinations are a trait, not a disorder, is one of the five compelling reasons why homosexuality was dropped from the DSM by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973.
peter, you seem to be leaving out a lot involving the supposed early death of gays. How about some quotes from that rebuttal, (bold is mine)
“From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.”
You say this
*They also suggest that if the study was repeated today the life-expectancy figures would be higher. However, no one has done the repeat study (to my knowledge) so we cannot assume that is necessarily true.*
…but seem to not have actually read what they wrote:
“In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.4″
How’d you miss the part where they put little notations that someone actually had some proof to this effect?
“Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor.”
Translation: you cannot use this study to prove gay men live shorter lives. You can use this study to show that a certain subset of a Canadian gay population that lived in this area during this time period had significantly shortened lives. Things have significantly changed since then.
and this final note:
“If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man’s risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.”
So in essence, gay men as a group do not live significantly shorter lives. The researchers themselves pretty much tell you that.
The only reference they have is to HIV deaths, NOT to the overall life expectancy of self-identified gays.
Note very carefully what they say (which you highlighted Jason) – “Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.” – That’s putting together all the male population tables and then asking you not to split it out into gay, bi-sexual and straight because it’s not convenient. If you think that’s a robust way to decide that gay men don’t have a lower life expectancy then I think you’re kidding yourself. That would be the equivalent of adding all HIV deaths into the aggregate death count of all people and then, looking at that average for all people (and not looking at the HIV subset) and from that arguing that people with HIV don’t have a shorter life expectancy then anybody else.
The rebuttal was a rebuttal of the homophobic use of the research, not a rebuttal of the data. What we are still left with is the Hogg analysis that gay men had a much lower life expectancy than others, with no repeat study to show that has changed. Do you deny the Hogg study? Have you any research to show that the figures have changed in the last 10/15 years? Or are you simply going to accuse me again of bigotry without presenting the research that you seem so keen on?
I only presented all the other health data to show you a number of reasons to explain why the life expectancy might be lower. But frankly, you just need to look in the advertising pages of magazines like Gay Times and Attitude here in the UK and see the huge number of health clinics advertising STD and Hep tests to see that sexual and physical health is an issue in the gay community.
So do me the courtesy now of presenting either the critique that show that the Hogg paper is wrong in saying that the life expectancy of gay men is lower than others OR some more recent research that shows how Hogg’s observations have now changed.
Amazing, Peter, just amazing. I point out to you the the researchers themselves say that gay men do not have a lower life expectancy, and that the researchers themselves, people with degrees and an amount expertise (where’s your expertise on this subject?) say that gay men’s life expectancy is not significantly different, and should therefore be calculated like everyone else — and you refute that by saying it’s not convenient??
I point out that the study was of a specific population at a specific time and you ignore that and suggest it can be attributed to all gay men everywhere? But what logic do you come to that conclusion? My brother is straight, I’m gay, can I therefore say that my research shows that 50% of the population is gay? Of course not, but that’s the logic you’re using.
When the researchers you quote say that their data does not prove what you say it proves, that should be enough. It is for me, but apparently not for you.
I never accused you of any bigotry until now.
It’s very clear to me that you will do anything, say anything, use anything to your advantage, to prove your point, even if the experts you quote say that you are wrong to use —I’m sorry— MISUSE their research to prove your point!
I’m not going to bother looking up statistics and studies for you because I’ve already presented you with verification from THE SAME SOURCE YOU CITE and you don’t believe it. I don’t see the point in continuing any sort of dialogue with you, you’ll simply listen to what you want, and dismiss what you don’t want to hear.
I’m gay by any definition, but I have exactly zero chance of harm from any of those things you mentioned. In fact, I suspect you are in greater danger from them than I, Peter. This is an old, and somewhat tawdry slander.
More
Peter – Hogg in his follow up letter also noted the following:
I linked to a blog post of mine which discusses the use of data in the longevity debates. I also asked epidemiologist Morten Frisch about this and his view is that we do not have sufficient data in the US (or in his country either) to make unbiased estimates of longevity.
If mortality decreased by threefold, one would certainly expect an increase in longevity. This has not been quantified, however, Hogg warned about using their work predictively and with good reason.
Where did Jones, Yarhouse or Chapman have anything at all to say about longevity?
Once again, Peter Ould has disrupted a civil discussion about recent research and academic criticism of that research, with off-topic, unsourced, misquoted, and long-discredited propaganda.
I knew I read this somewhere. Thnx Phelan for reposting this.
Too bad liver damage is real. Im gay, but you know, I’m really aware of AIDS(prolly even paranoid) and will definately not have any sex until I settle myself with someone( I dont agree on open relationships btw, so sum1 with the same values is vital), Whats the life expectancy of ppl like me? I wonder tho… is acoholism that relative too?
Why so much religious talk when ex-gay comes up? I think Peter answered it. If its harmful or not bears no wait on anything. Even if they PROVED it was mostly harmful or if the bad outweighed the good, well… someone already stated that they were gona blame ‘the fall’ and the ‘few will enter heaven’ comes to mind.
Proving that ppl can change orientation is just a way, imo, to tell the world that God exists and that their not psychotic. ANd they succeeded. You can’t disprove anecdotal evidence(like I am straight now! and I am happy), the same way you can’t disprove that there was harm. You have to take it as evidence, as Patrick so profusely acknowledges.”those who declare they are hurt by the process are evidence of harm.”. So the same thing should be said of those that say they have changed, no?
Joel,
One has to look more closely to see if that is really what they are saying. Most often, they are not saying, “I am straight now”.
Sadly, very very few talk about being straight. Most reference that they struggle with temptations, or sexual dreams, or fantasies. Those who are most successful at maintaining a heterosexual life seem to be those who have put severe limits on their own freedoms in order to reduce the chances of temptations.
Those few who do make claims of miraculous change to complete heterosexuality seem to be those most likely to find themselves in a “fall” or embarassing predicament. Not being as on guard, or perhaps as honest with themselves about their own desires, they are ill prepared when temptation arises.
Mostly, “change” means something other than change of attractions. Usually it means change of attitude, lifestyle, perspective, or behavior. And often that is adequate and fulfilling for those who seek change.
Which is fine… until such claims of change are used to sway politicians, denominations, voters, or others on matter of social or political policy. Then it ceases to be “change” and becomes “lying”.
Jason,
I don’t think you’re engaging with what I’m saying. As Warren rightly points out, there has been no repeat study to confirm Hogg’s suspicions that the death rate will have fallen. Until the new data is presented that suggests as much you can’t criticise me for not accepting your claims.
And Dave R, you’re absolutely right that a large proportion of the gay population doesn’t engage in dangerous sex. But a large proportion still do and with that comes all the dangers of STDs and worse (increased risks of cancer, Hep A and B etc). And your Hogg quote is out of context because he is stating very clearly that homosexual orientation in and of itself does not lead to a lower death age. Rather it’s behaviour that might contribute to a decreased longevity. The problem is we continue to see behaviour patterns in a significant part of the gay population that are deterious for their life span expectancy.
Mike A – I was specifically invited to answer a challenge on this issue. Please don’t now take THAT as an excuse to accuse me of twisting the conversation again.
Tim K – Once again you insist on attacking the testimony of those who claim to have seen change in their sexual orientation. That seems to be the favourite default position here. If in doubt, attack the anecdote!!
I think that Peter O. likes to argue. In fact, I think that he needs to argue in order to satisfy some deep seated desire to defend his recently acquired “heterosexuality” (the sister protests too much!). I’m glad that you are happily married, and have a child on the way. Good for you. Please recognize that you and your anecdotal story are in the severe minority among people who are same-sex attracted (‘hundreds’, ‘thousands’, ‘tens of thousands’, ‘hundreds of thousands’ out of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of gays globally [that last one was something of hyperbole]). Seen in this light, do not chastise others for being skeptical of your highly atypical story as they are working from their own experience of “ex-gays”. Given the equally anecdotal long term histories of countless “ex-gay”ers and their flip-flopping from gay-to-straight-back-to-gay, is it any wonder that many are skeptical of the movement and its results? [This 'coming-out deja vu effect' should really be quantified by "real" social scientists.]
Please also recognize that admitting that you are “post-gay” is a subtle admission that you still have SSA, but chose to live a life consistent with your conservative christian beliefs. Your life will forever be tainted by the scourge of your homosexuality – face it, you will always like guys even though you are now married. You can claim that you are moving beyond homosexuality as a defining characteristic of your identity, but somewhere in the back of your mind… Furthermore, you claim that your orientation has changed from exclusively homosexual to heterosexual (is that exclusively as well?), but argue against a dichotomous view of sexual orientation. Which is it?
Peter O,
AGAIN, I respect and even admire (i’ve met what haunts you) the committment you have to your wife and family.
It just appears to me that you keep trying to use these statistics, ultimately to prove how bad gays are….even though you’re willing to admit that not ALL gays participate in these unsafe behaviors.
Let’s say for a moment that every statistic you’ve linked can rightly be interrpreted in exactly the way you interpret it. What then? This no more compells my gay friends not to be gay than the opposite sort of statistics (and they are easily found) could compell me not to be straight.
It seems to me that your ultimate points are these….and I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.
* Sexual activity of the gay sort is inherently not safe.
* If all the gays would turn straight, or at least be celibate, there’d be less disease and death in the world.
Let’s say we all conceded those points. (just pretending here) Then what? Would you go happily about your business and stop incessently arguing here? What IS it that you are really trying to say here with all this arguing?
Peter B,
I’m not to crazy about the sort of snarky way you said it…but….I do think you’ve made a great point. I don’t understand why the ex-gay movement is not forthright about this. Particularly when they claim to have God on their side. It’s as if God is not big, good, or right ENOUGH. They have to do so much of the work FOR him by yammering on and on and making claims about total and complete change. I know how very difficult it is at times for these guys and their wives. I admire them for sticking to it and I honestly don’t know another group of people who are more reliant on God for daily sustenance during the times when it’s most difficult. I wish they could be more publicly forthright about all that.
Peter O asks:
Psychologists who conduct studies which compare homosexuals and heterosexuals in order to determine their similarities and differences cannot “take their word for it” when it comes to which group each individual belongs.
They employ physiological testing to make sure that all participants are correctly identifying their sexual orientation. Briefly:
The importance of this became evident in a resent attempt to study gay, straight and bisexual individuals.
So you see, we don’t have to rely on anecdotal reports to know if a person has changed their sexual orientation from gay to straight, for example. We only need to give them this physiological test to determine the truth of their claim.
This test is available at universities and research centers around the country. So when can I set up an appointment for you for this test?
There has been a “repeat study” of Hogg, albeit un”published” except at XGW.
Hogg updated… by us.
The “life expectancy” has not only increased from Hogg et al’s estimates, but increased dramatically.
We used the same methodology as Hogg et al (because it is perfectly valid for what they wanted to show), but applied the methodology to stats for the entire United States and updated from 15-20 years ago. It’s valid for 2003.
(Hogg used only Vancouver and a much earlier period. He and his colleagues set out to “guesstimate” simply how bad it could get — and Hogg, for one, is very glad their worst cases did did not predict what has actually transpired over the past 2 decades.)
Hogg, who we did contact out of sheer politeness, had a few comments — a few positive ones encouraging us to EXTRA work (ick, like NO WAY), and some very pointed comments about how his work has been misused and abused by anti-gay people.
The old post at XGW is here. 2 and a half years ago…
All the raw data is available in the public domain. The methodology is straight forward. We have EVEN made the spreadsheet available for you. Dispute the outcomes if you like, but if you wish to do that … please provide the evidence to the contrary. (Or shut up.)
(given Dr J Pelan’s banging on about homosexual v heterosexual risk, would be much interested in his take on “white” v “black” risk. ie: should black people stop having sex???)
grantdale,
At the risk of sounding trite, thank you for finally having a proper debate with me. For the first time in the years that you and I have chatted I’ve not felt you were simply abusing me. You actually produced some evidence that corrected Hogg and (as someone who has a degree in hard sums I can honestly say) the sums are good. It appears that gd’s work clearly shows that the effect of HIV on the lifespan of gay men has been much reduced over the past decade or so.
Pam,
I’m afraid you misread me if you assume I am obsessed (or even believe) the bullet points you listed. Far from it. For example (as has been pointed out on this thread), female gay sex leads to almost no transmission of STDs or other diseases. Non penetrative gay sex is equally not a greater spreader of STDs (or causer of damage). I rarely bring up this subject and only did it on this thread because I was challenged on the longevity rates of gay men. I simply wanted to provide some evidence to support the claim.
Peter B,
I understand your scepticism but please understand that there is a clear difference between scepticism and the abuse and ridicule that I get (and from regular posters on this site). People seemed to be obsessed with how many times I day I might or might not think about people of this or that sex.
And stuff like “Your life will forever be tainted by the scourge of your homosexuality – face it, you will always like guys even though you are now married” is just demeaning. You make it sound as though every day I have to steal myself to not look at men and deny some basic urges. That couldn’t be further from the truth and to suggest otherwise is to engage in that ridicule that I mentioned above. If you expect me to treat those who self-identify with respect and integrity, have the decency to do the same to me.
I’ve made it very clear on a number of occasions that “post-gay” is to move beyond being defined sexually by one’s emotional response to something. So yes, you can wire up my genitals to a machine, and that will probably show me aroused by all kinds of things. In terms of my sexual practice though, I’m very happy with my wife. Given that I only have sex with her, what does that make me? Bisexual? Monosexual? The one thing I can say for sure is that I used to be 100% homosexually attracted and now I’m not. Apparently though, that isn’t good enough for some people. And when I say to them “You know what, it could work for you to” they attack me with a kind of viscousness I rarely see elsewhere.
So where does this leave us? It leaves us:
i) with some proper evidence that the longevity rates of gay men might not be as lowered by HIV as Hogg originally thought
ii) with a number of people like myself who report a clear change in their sexual orientation which, anecdotally, shows that non-fluid theories of sexual orientation may not be the final answer
Peter O,
You satte:
“HIV on the lifespan of gay men has been much reduced over the past decade or so.”
HIV has reduced the lifespan of heterosexuals all over the world. The vast majority worldwide are infected with HIV through heterosexual sex.
Can we start an ex-straight program?
Peter O,
The vast majority of gay men changed their sexual behavior after HIV was discovered.
I cannot say the same for heterosexuals in the US or Africa and India.
Maybe it is b/c gay men tend to be higher educated and earn more money – have access to information – I don’t know.
I cetainly hope that you, as a re-closeted, shame based, gay or bisexual man, are not having unsafe sex on the sly.
Peter O,
I feel for you – that you have been shamed about sexuality by certain forces in your life – religious or other ones. I think it is tragic.
Its not just tragic for you – it can be tragic for those in your life as well.
Look at all the gay black men who have sex on the “downlow” b/c they cannot accept the sexuality that they were born with – due mainly to religious, family, and cultural forces in the black community.
It is tragic for them and the women that some of them have infected with HIV – the church is certainly guilty too.
When you deny truth and facts [whether out of religious based bigotry or shame or cultural attitudes] – they don’t go away – they become powerful forces.
G,
What if I were to write “I feel for you – that you have been damaged in your sexuality by certain forces in your life – emotional or other ones. I think it is tragic.”? Would such a response be treating you with respect?
Peter O — thank you.
And for the “first time in years” we actually have NUMBERS to discuss, instead of your bald claim. There’s the difference.
(and, HEY!!!, don’t forget we — actually, only one of us… ’cause t’other doesn’t get it — thought it “very cool” or words to the effect that you lived next door to Dr Who’s assistant. Sorry cannot remember who that was for the life of me — but it did make me chuckle.)
If you’d met us, instead of Mario Bergner Pty Ltd, in your younger, confused days… you wouldn’t think the way you do. Least of all, you wouldn’t have thought you were gay in the first place — and, hence, not thought you’d achieved the miracle… ex-gaydom.
And I’m sorry, but you’ll always be open to correction (aka “abuse”) for so long as you remain ignorant, and spout falsehoods about a subject you barely are familiar with.
There is a particular quirk with you: a quirk that turns “love one another as you expect to be loved” into “punish me as I’d expect others like that to be punished”… and if you can get over that, the World is your oyster. No, really: gay, straight or Calathumpian: same rule.
But…
When you deliberately set out to make our lives difficult, or misrepresent what homosexuality is, or bloat your credentials as an ‘ex-gay’, or cause us to be caught in some cultural crossfire that we frankly care little for … expect our opposition.
We are on record here at XGW saying that you do not either need to “explain” yourself, or live other than you want to. You have every right, we think, to live according to your religious beliefs. Both the law and the opinion of society should be structured in a way that makes your efforts able to achieve your own ambitions.
All we want from you is a “likewise” commitment about ourselves.
REGARDLESS: we genuinely wish you and Gayle a long, productive and joyful life together: intellectually and physically. It means nothing to us that you are straight, but we do wish you both to be glad to be together and to display that pleasure about each other in all your relationships.
Why, oh why, cannot you want the same for us?
You wouldn’t dare talk about, let alone treat, single mothers or divorced people the way you describe or scheme against “us”.
Yes, I used that word — scheme. Hence, The Opposition.
ps Peter O — we did not “correct” Hogg. We simply undated their study.
Hogg, et al, were right in the first place with their methodology. But the early data was way out of kilter with what would later prove to be the fact.
It is a shame “you, et al” have kept repeating it. We expect otherwise, from now.
Peter O,
My sexuality has not been damaged for emotional reasons. Sexuality is biological. A small minority are born gay. I did not suffer any emotional trauma as a child neither have my closest gay friends.
I feel for you – that you have been shamed into thinking that sexual orientation is emotional or pyschological when it is biological.
It is not fair to you and it is not fair to those to whom you spread this misinformation.
When you look at the WEIGHT of the EVIDENCE re: whether sexual orientation is emotional/psycholoigically based versus biologcal – it is clear that a biological cause wins out.
The truth matters.
Keep that in mind Peter
No, Peter, I’m only giving my observations. And, as I noted, the lives about which ex-gays testify may well be adequate and fulfilling for those who seek change. I don’t wish them anything other than happiness.
I’m just clearing up misconceptions about these testimonies.
For example, Joel seemed to think that they were illustrations of persons who at one time had a homosexual orientation and now had a heterosexual orientation (ya know, the bi-polar model you so dislike). Further he was under the impression that these newly heterosexual people were similar to all the other heterosexuals that he knows.
Clearly, though, if one reads the testimonies and follows up on them one soon learns that this is not at all what they are saying. And if one reads the stories of success (Jones and Yarhouse, for example) one soon discovers that “success” includes a very large component of continued struggle against regularly occuring temptations, attactions, dreams, and fantasies.
“Success” is simply the ability to combat these urges and to diminish patterns of behavior or thoughtful dwelling that might make them occur more frequently. And from a religious perspective, that may well be considered success. But it is certainly not a change in sexual orientation.
Which makes me wonder: how did someone like Joel come to think that these testimonies were about folks going from gay (like me) to straight (like the postman)?
And further, why are you so threatened whenever I clarify exactly what is being said?
Peter Ould-
I don’t see anyone “attacking” your testimony regarding the degree of change you’ve experience. But no one here buys your attempt to label the actual change you describe as a change in orientation.
I hate to repeat the obvious, but it seems necessary to define a very basic term in order to communicate with you. For most of us, “orientation” refers to a person’s basic sexual attractions. That may be primarily toward people of the opposite gender (heterosexual), or primarily toward the same gender (homosexual), or it may involve attractions toward both genders.
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. I have never felt any sexual interest in women in general, but I was deeply in love with my wife and we had a very good sexual relationship for most of our 26-year marriage. Many, many of my gay friends, including my partner, have had the same experience. So to me, the fact that you are happily married and sexually attracted to your wife says absolutely nothing about whether you’ve experienced a change in your primary orientation.
From your own descriptions of yourself, it seems that:
* you once considered your attractions to be exclusively homosexual, but now experience some heterosexual attractions.
* Some could represent only your attraction to your wife–you haven’t said that, but you also have never suggested you feel strong sexual attraction to women in general
* You continue to feel primary sexual attraction toward men, but normally don’t feel any great urge to act on that attraction, because you feel content and fulfilled in your heterosexual marriage
You want to define the above as a change in orientation, or dispense with the idea of sexual orientation and just call yourself post-gay. The rest of us are simply saying that you haven’t described anything that we can recognize as a true change in orientation. What you’ve described seems absolutely no different from what most of us who have tried to change our orientation were able to achieve.
You want us to change our definitions to suit your way of thinking. Sorry. We can fully accept that your current experience is what you describe. But you need to realize that what you describe is not a change in orientation, as the rest of us understand that term.
On the issue of life expectancy for homosexuals:
I don’t think anyone disputes that unhealthy behaviors like drug abuse, alcoholism, smoking, and promiscuity remain serious problems within the gay community. Gay organizations and the gay press regularly speak out about these issues. So we don’t need to be defensive about the idea that average life expectancy for gay people may be shorter than for straight.
However, the same is true for many minority communities. African Americans have a substantially shorter life expectancy–66.1 years for African American men, compared to 73.6 years for American men in general. Some of that difference is also due to unhealthy behaviors in segments of the black community, especially among young men.
But imagine the derision that would be heaped on any social critic who suggested that the way to improve longevity trends in the African American community is to discourage young black men from forming committed relationships or getting married, deny them jobs based on their race, shut them out from military service, and generally stigmatize them and try to make them stay hidden.
Moderator Note: This comment has been moderated because of length — 22 large paragraphs. This is entirely too long for a comment, much longer than the posts around which the discussion is based. It was also mostly OT. Please rephrase the germane issues into something more manageable and submit again if you like.
Thank you.
Ben, and everyone. please don’t post comments that are longer than most of our posts. It makes reading the threads and following a train of thought very difficult. This would be more appropriate as a personal blog post, or a private email.
We aren’t asking for one-liners, and we don’t want to stifle germane discussion — just try to use some judgment on comments this long before submitting them.
Thanks.
I’m not sure I could shorten it, at least not all that much. It is a lot of thought that has been gelling for quite a while in response to a number of blogs. If i have time later, i will give it a shot. that took 90 min. to write!!!
I’m not saying it wasn’t valuable in and of itself, I’m sure you made some intelligent, thoughtful points. It’s just too long to make any sense here, we have to draw some sort of line. The fact that it took 90 minutes to write is also an indication
I have a copy of it saved if you didn’t and want it.