Ex-Gay Therapist James Phelan Removed From Exodus Referral List
Dr. James E. Phelan recently caused quite a stir with a disturbing and somewhat gleeful report on his blog about having “one-two drop kicked the hell out of” a man in the Columbus Marathon. Phelan had heckled a gay group, one of many who had gathered alongside the road to cheer the runners on. The victim of his drop kick had protested this by allegedly shoving Phelan. No one we contacted remembered such an event so we can’t confirm or deny what happened. Phelan himself confided that the police had not been notified.
In the mean time, we noticed that Phelan’s name no longer appears on the Exodus International referral list of ex-gay ministries and therapists. He was listed there when this story broke last month (cache), but not now. Exodus has not yet responded to our request for more information.
If Exodus has indeed dropped Phelan from their referrals, we applaud them. His comments in the post mentioned above, responses to comments about that incident and statements since on various blogs, including XGW, display a troubling attitude and certainly not one conducive to a healthy patient-therapist relationship of trust and vulnerability. We are still waiting to see if NARTH, Transforming Congregations*, Richard Cohen and JONAH will take similar action. Phelan actually spoke at the NARTH annual convention days after this incident, where he also received an award.
Apparently NARTH values such attitudes in their therapists.
* Transforming Congregations has released this brief statement on their website:
The Board of Directors of Transforming Congregations has accepted the resignation of Dr. James Phelan as one of its co-Presidents. Although the Board disapproves of some of Dr. Phelan’s recent public actions and comments, we did not request or desire his resignation, having hoped instead that we could come to a mutual understanding regarding mission and ministry. We appreciate Dr. Phelan’s integrity in recognizing that his approach has diverged from ours, and we wish him well in his future endeavors.
Since “psychoanalytic triangular theory” produces no results on google, and because his link is to an amazon site to purchase a book about Frued, I’ll assume that he’s refering to Bieber’s old “classic homosexual triangular pattern” of “the mother is close binding and intimate and is dominant and minimizing towards a husband who is a detached father, particularly a hostile-detached one.”
Now would be a good time for us to chuckle because at this site we all pretty much know how completely useless that stereotype is. Especially if he thinks “a constructive, supportive, warmly relating father precludes the possibility of a homosexual son”.
But sadly I’m not surprised that Jim believes this steaming pile of nonsense. He also believes in Cameron’s research, Cohen’s methods, and NARTH’s objectivity.
And he also believes this site is dominated by “liberals” which really DOES make me laugh.
ChakTah said:
Like Timothy, there is no sexual abuse in my history either.
Emily K said: “Jim, what’s a “liberal?” Seriously. What is the definition of a “liberal?”"
I think in his case (and kind) you’d have to determine what a conservative is first, and that’s easy.
A conservative, is anyone who agrees that a liberal is anyone who disagrees with them.
It’s the ultimate enemy recipe.
ChakTah:
No abuse here. And no “false memory syndrome,” either.
Timothy, the “book” is not just a book about Freud, rather a cricial review of all the studies that have tested Freudian theory or therapies over a significant period of time. Why don’t you read the book first before being so critical? No, it is not just about Bieber’s old “classic homosexual triangular pattern” which everyone loves to reject!
Devlin, read my blog and learn the truth. Relinquish your fantasy to sensationalize this. Relinguish your narcissism for personal explanations. Relax. You’re the one striking out because you are missing the truth. Can’t we just get along?
Finally, I’d like to respect David and stay on topic and so I will rest the liberal explantions and just leave you with this thought: You might know you are a liberal if you actually believe what you read in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Besen’s Truth Wins Out, or if you don’t want the Christian Right imposing their morality on you, but you want to impose big government on everyone else.
My dad put me on a horse that threw me off once. Does that count as abuse?
Oh wait. I’m striaght.
Jim said:
You know what Jim? I’m just honest enough with myself and others to admit that you are probably right here. There are many other things I could have been spending my time on yesterday that may have benifitted my family or those less fortunate than myself yesterday than checking up on this thread. You are absolutely right about that. I make choices every day, as we all do, and ALOT of them are far less than Christ-like even though I say I’m a Christian. And here I am, back at it again today. I’ve got lots of projects and other things going which I could detail to you to explain how “worthy” I am in spending my time and talents being Christ-like, but you’re not my judge and I’m not yours. So, we’ll just continue on here discussing things in between all the other more “worthy” pursuits I’m sure we are each engaged in. You can take cheap shots at me all day….and I’ll agree with every one of them that’s true. Go for it if that’s the way you want to spend your brain energy.
Bold mine:
Speaking of truth, and just to share again, I’ve found this article of Mr. Phelan’s to be immensely informative, on ssseveral levels.
http://www.socialjusticereview.org/articles/after_vows.php
Now Mr Phelan, the longer you delay/avoid the more this will sensationalize. Many many people are watching this blog, including your friends and coworkers and maybe even your clients. Instead of ordering people around, hiding in your shame, and trying to control the situation, relax, take a deep breath and simply answer the questions, clearly concisely and with honesty. You put yourself on trial here, not us. The way you answer will go down in history, forever. Would you rather the bailiff throw you out for non compliance? With the anger and fear you have tossed into the marketplace, I wouldn’t doubt a full disbarment for not being forthcoming, would be the least the public could do. However, I have faith that a professonal thereapist, would have the wherewithall to come forward. Are you going to continue breaking down in front of everyone when you have a chance to redeem yourself? Or are you going to continue to cement yourself into Mr. Besen’s analogy of you being the “nutty therapist”?
For your review: Mr Phelan — It looks like you are taking quite a skewering at your personal blog jimphelan.vox.com. With comments referring to “Jim Phelan’s incitement of a physical and/or verbal attack on a gay group, and an attack on a man, presumably, a gay man” zinging your ears, it must cause you to take stock. How did you vocalize your comment to cause someone such angst, so as to physically shove you? People usually don’t go to such lengths unless intensely provoked. And out of many groups supporting the marathon, why did you single out a gay group to verbally “attack” moving forward to physically maiming a man, potentially causing serious physical injury? What have you learned from all this hooplah you’ve ignited?
This is your 15 minutes of fame.
Any regrets?
Devlin Bach
Whoa! Wait! Isn’t it the Christian Right that is trying to push their own morality on the rest of us through legislation? Since when did the majority decide who gets rights and who doesn’t? Since when does my rights as a gay man need to be put to a vote?
I’d give anything to see what the US would have been like if Abe Lincoln allowed the individual States to decide on slavery. I can bet my life on the fact that the US would be a different nation right now.
Jim Phelan doesn’t seem to know the difference between a liberal and a socialist.
The Christian Right and socialists both affirm big government. The Christian right, in particular, raises government spending (through user fees, endless borrowing, and other guises) and diverts taxpayers’ money into the pockets of partisan Christian “churches” that have become little more than self-serving political lobbies and extensions of government power.
Liberals — libertarians in particular — seek small government that allows a maximum of individual freedom while providing for a modest defense and (to varying degrees) a social safety net for those who are stricken by catastrophic misfortune.
Socialists seek — with varying degrees — to turn the roles of business and charity over to government institutions. They may, or may not, favor high military spending.
Liberals are the progressive transformational bright eyed visionaries, conservatives are status quo, don’t rock the boat, slow to move. Liberals are fast out the gate, conservatives are the stones around liberal’s ankles so as not to sprain a leg. Like poz and neg charges in electricity, we need both.
As history shows, once the liberals turn their light on something, it’s pretty much a done deal much of the time, though slow. This current sexual culture war is already won, it’s only a matter of time to put all the wiring in place so as to shine the brightest light. We can thank the conservatives and all their worn out brake pads for making sure we wire this thing correctly at every junction box. Thank God for all the great neg poz wiring. YaY.
Did everyone have a FAB thanksgiving!? What was your experience?
Due to logistics, I spent my first Thxgiving entirely on my own. The Thxgiving buffet in my favorite gay restaurant in Seattle WA was GREAT, though the au gratin yams was a bit strange. That was a first, has anyone else had au gratin yams? The waiters were talkative engaging and tres cute and gave me extra dessert. Yummm to the berry cherry cobbler w ice cream and the pumpkin pie w whip cream! All in all a grrreat day.
I am very grateful for all we do have in our great country. I always bless our forefathers and the constitution they wrote for us all. Gotta luv those guys!
Peace,
Devlin Bach
Jim,
I did not criticize the book.
But you used a term, “psychoanalytic triangular theory”, and you did not define it. Now if this were a common term or recognized theory that would be fine. But google gives us no (zero, goose-egg, nada) reponses for that term so I think it is reasonable to assume that either it is obscure or goes by another name which you did not use.
If it is something other than Beiber’s trangular homosexual theory (distant father – controlling mother) then you need to describe what you are talking about. That it is in some book somewhere is not adequate. And no, I’m not going to read some rehash of Freudian theories just so as to know what you’re referencing.
“Secret” theories aren’t much use, you know.
PS The movie Beowulf (the hero who is naked throughout a good portion of the movie) is flawless with the deranged monster Grendel eating and obliterating the towns people when they party hard. Yeh I know, sounds a bit morbid but it comes off way cool. Angelina Jolie is stunning. See it in 3D for a great holiday treat.
Timothy: Sorry, for confusing matters, but to explain as you asked, from much of the body of literature in Psychoanalysis, the classic triadic relationship is very common in the histories of homosexual men: a father who is an unappealing identification model to the boy, the poor relationship between mother and father, the frustration and unhappiness of the mother, and the consequent over-identification of the young son with the mother. Hence, the theory. There is research to support this, and the authors of the book I described reviewed it. This is not a “useless stereotype” as you allude, but rather a phenomenons straight out of empirical work. But I see by your dismissive stance that you are fixed, inflexible to consider anything else but in your own personal belief in the origin of homosexuality. This is fine, as we know, there are many theories, and so we abide to what we feel most strongly inclined. BTW: There is much to “chuckle” about as for the studies that look for a biological explanation of homosexuality. And, what about bisexuality? Half a gay gene?
Devlin: My friend’s brother hated that movie – and he’s a teenage boy. And the fact that the hero is naked most of the time is supposed to make it appealing? Yeah right. And that’s not just the lesbian in me talking. Unless you’re trying to appeal to stereotypical “preferences” of gay men (movies are good just b/c they have naked men in them). If that’s the case, shame. Please stay ON topic.
Delvin is someone you have to break it down to, so here you go D:
1. Q: How did you vocalize your comment to cause someone such angst, so as to physically shove you? A: No different (but less histrionic) than the guys who protest the Love Won Out conferences, and NARTH meetings I attend.
2. Q: People usually don’t go to such lengths unless intensely provoked. And out of many groups supporting the marathon, why did you single out a gay group to verbally “attack” moving forward to physically maiming a man, potentially causing serious physical injury? A: I already answered this.
3. Q: What have you learned from all this hooplah you’ve ignited? A: I learned that gays and the liberal left have double standards. It’s okay for them to protest Love Won Out, NARTH and the like, but when others do it to them it’s a sin! I learned that when we take a stand and we are attacked, others assume we need to do the wwJD thing (a misnomer, anyway) and turn the other cheek. That the expectation is that we be the “good little boy”.
4. Q: Any regrets? A: Yes, I regret having to have all this sensationalized; and No, because I got to meet lots of interesting people in the process, like you. Seriously, I may not have gotten to know some of you if not. All things have purpose. We must live now and not worry about yesterday.
BTW: The movie sounds adventurous. As does Angelina Jolie, ummm? I’m sure unconsciously, there’s alot more about her you’d like.
Jim Phelan did not define liberal. he refused to define it in a serious manner and used staying “on topic” as an excuse – but then proceeded to give a snide, unserious, immature answer anyway. Nice. I have a feeling this all will be over real soon.
I guess his definition of “conservative” includes imposing big government on us (being in favor of the government refusing homos rights) and dumping HUGE amounts of money into government fiascos (like the war in Iraq). Now, what part of that sounds like anyone is conserving anything, or reducing the government’s role? The beast is hardly starving – “conservatives” like Jim intend to keep feeding it my tax dollars.
Methinks the man doth protest too much.
But I see by your dismissive stance that you are fixed, inflexible to consider anything else but in your own personal belief in the origin of homosexuality.
Oh, so it IS the Bieber model as I originally deduced that you meant. I’m sure there is much in “the literature” that supports this model – most of it pre-70′s.
But oh well, since I am dismissive of your pet theory (as is most of the mental health community) I guess that makes me inflexible.
OK. I will inflexibly stick with the results of emperical research and leave you, Dr. Dobson, and Dr. Nicolossi to enjoy your notions about distant fathers and overpowering mothers.
Ya know, at one point you might have convinced me. Although my parents don’t fit that mold, I could have bought the idea that this was true for most. But unfortunately, there just seems to be more and more evidence of biological etiology and, well, no research supporting your notions.
But please do let me know if any new studies appear on the horizon that support the triangular theory. Oh, and let me know exactly how that fits into the x chromosome deactivation in mothers.
Hmmm. At the LWO I protested, we smiled, waved, and yelled “good morning” and “God bless you” and “have a nice conference”.
I guess that’s what Jim was yelling.
Or maybe not.
Q: What have you learned from all this hooplah you’ve ignited? A: I learned that gays and the liberal left have double standards. It’s okay for them to protest Love Won Out, NARTH and the like, but when others do it to them it’s a sin!
Well, yes. This is because both sides happen to have a disagreement in this area. If you believe one side is right and the other is wrong, then of course you’re going to have two standards. LGBT people and allies believe it’s wrong to work to deny us our rights, LWO NARTH et. al. think it’s wrong to be LGBT. Hence we think they’re sinning and they think we’re sinning. See how it works?
HAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAH!!!!!!!!!!
He don’t know me verwy well, do he.
GobbleGobble you say!!! Off to watch the remainder of the UofW football game at a straight bar full of Cougar howlers. That’s after I changed my oil in my car. Ohhhh LWO. (shaking head smiling) Y’all have a great Sat night!
More mo latoh,
Devlin Bach
BTW: There is much to “chuckle” about as for the studies that look for a biological explanation of left-handedness. And, what about ambidextrousness? Half a southpaw gene?
Well it’s nice to see some equal-opportunity pandering for once. Beefcake as well as cheesecake.
Nick, have you found a copy of James’ article in the “Journal of Evolutionary Psychology”? Has any one read this article??? I tried, but came up with zilch. I even “Google Scholar”ed the article title – nothing. I then googled the name of the Journal and found this
http://www.akademiaikiado.hu/main.php?folderID=1615&articleID=3925&ctag=articlelist&iid=1
Also, my school’s library only carries a subscription back to 2001 to this Journal, so this was a dead end (James is this the right journal?). I guess that I will just have to order it through my University’s Inter-library loan system. O, well.
I’m just interested because this article (based on James’ brief description) flies in the face of a spat of recent books. Maybe you have heard of them: Biological Exuberance [1999], Evolution’s Rainbow [2004], and Homosexual Behaviour in Animals [2006]. I would like to compare these controversial books to James’ thoughts which were published in a “peer-reviewed” venue before they appeared. These works state that same-sex activity is not an uncommon (in fact, very common among vertebrate species!) practice among animals – suggesting that homoeroticism is biologically based. There are numerous examples among primates for same-sex activity – just look at Bonobos, those raunchy little pigmy chimps!! As primates, it should come as no shock then that humans practice same-sex activity also. According to these researchers, same-sex activity is a natural part of the natural order.
As for the comparing of humans to animals (in terms of sexual behaviour), as I understand it, that is part and parcel with Evolutionary Psychology. The same thought lies behind the phrase “birds and the bees”. If James still doesn’t like that, he should read a book by Roger Lancaster called “The Trouble with Nature” (2003). (P.S. Lancaster challenges LeVay’s “gay brain” theory).
For all of these years I was deceived into thinking that my homosexuality had a biological basis! Damn evolution! Maybe I can change, just like NARTH and Exodus say I can!
I hope that no one mistakes my curiosity for malice (the tongue-in-cheek is free). Basically, if James has debunked all of this research in a 9 pg article, he would have saved me so much time wondering what that pouch is really for among marsupials…
Just ordered my copy – can’t wait for it to arrive!! I also found that James reviewed Biological Exuberance as well. Have to read that one too!
Oh wait, that last one is in the NARTH Bulletin… is that even an academic source? I wouldn’t allow if for the students I teach…
Peter, no, I’ve not been able to find a copy of the article or even how to find a place that carries the journal.
I do know what he said about the dominance thing is wrong. In a number of species 1/2 the time the dominant male is on the receiving end, not the giving end. Also, it is found exclusively and in normal situations (but I suppose that depends on how one defines normal).
Peter & Nick:
Here is a fascinating informative video documenting homosexaul behavior in the animal kingdom, land and sea, from the highly respected publication National Geographic. Many may find this of great value.
http://nationalgaynews.com/content/view/151/157/
Humans beings are bipedal mammals and by definition animals; classified such with a varying assortment of other animals within the animal kingdom.
Devlin Bach
PS Note that the film depicts homosexual behavior in some species as “exclusive”, and all sexual interaction in all species as normal, with all footage being shot within their natural habitats i.e. “normal situations”.
Due to the high quality National Geographic produces, this video could be an excellent tool for broadening the horizons of unbiased sex ed within the classroom.
PSS From what I have seen, the 2001 documentary Out In Nature: Homosexual Behavior In The Animal Kingdom is the mother of full length docs on the subject, is better quality resolution, and much more sexually graphic.
It is the full length version of the National Geographic doc and shows the life long exclusive homosexual partnerships of some species. It seems dolphins take top prize in that arena, whom some think out smart human intelligence. I have only seen it on Logo, a gay cable channel and it does not seem to be available for sale online. It does however, show from time to time on cable. Here is a link to watch a trailer overview and get showtimes.
http://www.logoonline.com/shows/dyn/out_in_nature/series.jhtml
DB
Thanks Devlin – the videos were interesting…
Maybe it is time to bring this back to the topic of James’ expulsion from the ex-gay industry. Personally, I would like to see James use his “triangular” theory of homosexuality to explain all of those animals featured in the video! Humans, and very recently, are one of the few animals to live in “nuclear” family units (mom, dad, children). And yet, documented homosex has been going on for untold millennia (and presumably much more in prehistory). How do you explain that? In this light, theories of distant fathers and controlling mothers somehow do not satisfy as a plausible explanation for the origin of homosexual behaviour. Unless of course, you want to attribute “culture” to animals…but even then it still doesn’t work. I think that this whole discussion highlights the weakness of not only the “Reparative Therapy” espoused by some, but also the entire ex-gay movement as a whole. There seems to be a willful amnesia concerning human sexuality on their part. This goes to their lack of credibility, and also their extreme hubris (that their understanding of sexuality is the only correct one). The whole enterprise smacks of Right wing bourgeois mores. It should come as no surprise then when leaders and members of this movement exhibit shocking behaviours that demonstrate a lack of integrity (like James did; who could forget John Paulk?!). These people build their lives around a lie. Sooner or later they will act out their frustrations – at least no one was seriously hurt.
Maybe James is lucky to get out [sic] now, before the sh!t really hits the fan. I mean, how long can a position that lacks scientific support last? (Especially when they claim to be “scientific”.) Hopefully, Exodus and NARTH’s days are numbered. People (and animals) have been practicing same-sex activity long before these groups came on the scene, and will be practicing it long after they disappear. Life, and love, always find a way…
I might add that if you Google “classic triadic relationship,” all roads lead to Nicolosi.
And all the websites that appear in the search results are fundamentalist christian sites, like leadru.com and family.org. And did you see the reference to Beiber?? Man…
Jim,
Thank you for availing yourself. Your authentic communication is highly valued. I look forward to responding to your comments first of the week.
Devlin Bach
Thank you for this info Jim, I fit right into the triadic relationship. “the classic triadic relationship is very common in the histories of homosexual men: a father who is an unappealing identification model to the boy, the poor relationship between mother and father, the frustration and unhappiness of the mother, and the consequent over-identification of the young son with the mother.” except i never did over identify, not even identify imho, with my mother. Empathize with her and my father? sure. I did identify and looked up to my grandfather tho. So i guess im 33% short of the triadic family…, enough to be gay right?
I wonder tho.., does that mean I can and have to go straight now? or willl eventually come to know that i am subconsciously attracted to Angelina Jolie?(i mean shes beautiful but… did you see the guy in Beowolf!?).. or maybe after indefinate amount of years in ex-gay therapy will come to terms that the true nature of my sexuality is irrelevant to whom i should live with, all of the effort in order to please a God which theres no reason for me to believe exists. Now please, take your cross off my crotch before I ‘send myself’ to the fiery deeps. TY!
I was going to read throgh the whole thing, but ill read it when I have time to spare, for the first 3-4 paragraphs it was quite obvious and/or implicit that gays(taken as a group) are REALLY… promiscous, pathological, violent, etc.. BECAUSE they are gay, or at least, because they see no wrong in being gay and having sex.
Nick and Peter, if your local library doesn’t carry it, you can get a copy of my article “Deviated copulation among animals” through the British Library Direct:
http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=042800648&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine
Joel said: “Now please, take your cross off my crotch…”
May we please have some respectful moderation here? Thanks.
Peter you said, “Maybe it is time to bring this back to the topic of James’ expulsion from the ex-gay industry.” Yes, I agree we have gotten off topic, but so have you here, because where you say I was “[expulsed] from the ex-gay industry”, is not entirely true. I was merely removed from ONE source (Exodus) for the time being until matters can be settled. Exodus does not represent the whole. Please stop from what I perceive as sensationalizing and scandalizing matters. Thanks.
If I had noticed it I would have. Joel, please leave comments like that out of the discussion here. You can show your disagreement without being crude about it.
Let’s not forget your, cough cough, wink wink, “resignation” as co-president of Transforming Congregations. Since by your own admission they were asking things of you that you were not willing to do, wasn’t it either leave or be told to leave?
And trust me Jim, you need no sentimentalization. You draw plenty of attention all on your own.
A jump back to the triangle theory, if it is not too far afield.
What strickes me about the discussion is 1) Does the triangle “cause” homosexuality or does homosexuality “cause” the formation of such a triangle? And 2) Are the triangle and homosexuality correlative? Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
Have either of these questions been tested?
Where can i get a copy of such literature?
Joel,
Freud Scientifically Reappraised: Testing the Theories and Therapy. By Seymour Fisher and Roger P. Greenberg.: New York: John Wiley, 1995, is the text for which testing the psychoanalytic theories in homosexuals is found. Link
Jim, please use the link button so they don’t scroll off the page. I fixed this and the last one.
Jim, I’m not trying to scandalize or sensationalize matters. Being expelled (not ‘expulsed’) from Exodus, the world’s largest, umbrella-like exgay referral organization is a pretty big deal – more than you make of it. Alan’s comments seem to indicate that you will be out in the cold for a good long while. “Resigning” as co-President of Transforming Congregations is also significant – who is next to disassociate themselves from you?
On the other hand, you did what most Right wing people wish they could do – shove back in the culture wars. They are probably just jealous. However, given the PR challenge they already face, they are treating you like a hot potato.
Thanks, John B. Your honest. You call, like you see it. Got to like you for that!
Sorry, meant Peter B. to last post (John B = error). And BTW: Its VERY cold on the Right wing lately.