A Rebuttal to Wayne Besen
chenla...@yahoo.com
By Glenn Wyler,
People Can Change
Wayne Besen's book "Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and
Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth" is described on the back cover as a
"groundbreaking exposé." An exposé is by definition an attempt
to discredit, to expose alleged corruption. Thus, the reader should
keep in mind that "Anything But Straight" is, by design, anything
but straightforward. It is anything but fair, complete or honest. In
its attempts to expose, it eschews all pretence of balance, fairness
and honest inquiry. It is journalism that is decidedly yellow, and
deliberately so. There may be nuggets of truth in the text, at times,
but these are buried beneath such mounds of diatribe and surrounded by
such vicious vituperation that all that can be determined for certain
is that the author holds a seething hatred for anyone and anything that
argues for the possibility of altering one's sexual attractions.
In presenting his nearly 300-page invective, Besen repeatedly employs
name calling and labeling, mockery and sarcasm, generalizations,
stereotypes and double standards as he introduces one allegation and
false claim after another. His central claims are that sexual
orientation change is a myth, that there are absolutely no means of
effecting change, and that everyone who claims to have experienced
change is either lying or deluded.
He repeatedly makes completely unsupported allegations and uses
anecdotes and hearsay to support his claims as though they were proven
fact, then criticizes his opponents for supposedly having insufficient
data or substandard studies to support their claims. He dismisses all
evidence that counters his views (or more often, declines to mention
that such evidence even exists) but accepts unquestionably any and all
information that bolsters his position. He is the king of the double
standard, liberally applying methods that he turns around and decries
as the epitome of hate and ignorance whenever he is the recipient
rather than the purveyor of them.
NAME CALLING AND LABELING
To get a sense of Besen's intent, consider just a small sample of the
name-calling and labeling the author uses throughout the book in an
obvious effort to discredit and embarrass his subjects:
"the dangerous quack psychology of the lucrative reparative therapy
industry" (p. xviii)
"the zany characters who run these programs" (p. xxi)
"Moberly sends the quack-o-meter off the charts" (p. 104)
"the leading ex-gay ministries are a disorganized, shockingly
unprofessional collection of unqualified counselors and fundamentalist
shamans who cause untold damage to the very people they are supposed to
be helping" (p. 59)
"Moberly's pedestrian book" (p. 103)
"twisted antigay doctors such as Jeffrey Satinover" (p. 137).
"the avaricious Cohen" (p. 121).
In some of his most egregious moments of name calling, he actually
titles two of his chapters "Nicolosi's Nonsense" (p. 133) and
"Radical Richard" (p. 161), and throws in subheads like "Inside
Nicolosi's Lair" (p. 150), "The Quacks Organize" (p. 136) and
"An Underachiever Finds His Niche" (p. 134), for good measure. But
his single most bitter denunciation may be this:
"Reparative therapists are detestable, money-hungry con artists who
lure and bamboozle susceptible people with misleading promises and
false hope. One reason these quacks practice their chicanery is to
cash in on this lucrative industry, but one cannot dismiss raw hatred
as the primary motive that drives these charlatans to extreme lengths
to denigrate lesbians and gay men" (p.158).
Reading the nonstop slurs in "Anything But Straight" will make
perfectly clear to the reader who exactly it is that us seething with
"raw hatred." (Hint: It isn't the therapists.)
Besides, why on earth would anyone with "raw hatred" for lesbians
and gays choose to spend his professional life, day after day, working
with homosexuals? And if a professional were actually motivated by raw
hatred, wouldn't that tend to come across to his clients, and drive
them away in droves? On the contrary, reparative therapy is based in
part on a model in which the therapist is more engaged with the client,
more of a mentor, and plays more of a loving-parent role, than is the
case with standard therapy. This places reparative therapists in an
emotionally intimate relationship with their clients. Clearly,
homophobes need not apply.
But Besen rarely attempts to actually defend his disparagements. It
serves his purposes simply to sling verbal mud and hope it sufficiently
dirties his subjects in the reader's mind so that he needn't
provide any actual evidence of misconduct or malfeasance.
MOCKERY AND SARCASM
Continuing in this spirit of verbal assault, the author delights in
mockery and sarcasm, especially of all things religious. For a man who
seems to think "diversity" and "tolerance" are the ultimate
moral virtues, he certainly draws the line at religious diversity or
respect for traditional Christianity, for which he clearly has a zero
tolerance policy.
Besen describes his visit to a church in Orlando, Florida, that had, in
his words, "an authoritarian, hocus-pocus worship style" (p. 48).
This, under a chapter subhead he calls "Ministry Mouse and
Deuteronomy Duck." He refers to "convincing Jesus to wave his
magic wand" as the means by which some people experience change, and
claims "they have reduced God to no more than a rabbit's foot, a
simple good luck charm that is used to stop them from masturbating or
running to an adult bookstore" (p. 44).
Besen, a self-described secular Jew, demonstrates his special contempt
for the notion, widely held by people of many faiths, of listening to
the whisperings of the Holy Spirit. He slanderously equates such
experiences as signs of mental illness.
"Crazy stories are almost as ubiquitous in the ex-gay community as
prayer" (p. 45)
"Many of the ex-gay leaders appear to have untreated mental
disorders...An alarmingly high number of ex-gays...report hearing
voices and having visions, which may very well be hallucinations" (p.
43).
In one chapter subhead, he even coins the mocking moniker
"Hallucinogenic Heterosexuals" (p. 43). But what kinds of
hallucinations or divine acts (depending on one's point of view) is
Besen referring to?
Regarding the infamous visit to a Washington gay bar by Focus on the
Family's John Paulk, a public spokesman for sexual orientation
change, Besen quotes a repentant Paulk as saying in an interview on
Focus's radio program, "I heard the Holy Spirit say to me, 'Turn
around and run. Do not go in there.'" Besen's mocking response:
"I don't know about you, but if I heard the Holy Spirit personally
tell me not to go into a bar, this Jew would sprint to the nearest
sink, dunk my head under the water faucet, and self-baptize" (p. 20).
"Anne Paulk is one who seems to receive miracles from God as
frequently as most people eat breakfast," Besen writes (p. 45). He
then describes an answer to prayer Anne writes about in her book in
which she called on God to help her find a lost contact lens, and
another where she receives a spiritual impression while looking at
cloud formations that she might be pregnant. While Anne may be quicker
to see the hand of God in her life than some others, her experiences
are hardly on the fringe of a spiritual life, as Besen likes to portray
them.
Besen quotes author Richard Cohen, who at a critical juncture in his
life sat down near a lake and prayed to God, with both impatience and
resolve, "OK, God, it's showdown time! I'm not moving from this
spot until you tell me what to do and where to go." Besen mocks:
"God, sufficiently alarmed that Cohen might expire lakeside,
dutifully dropped whatever he was working on and instantly submitted to
Cohen's demands." Then, after Cohen received a clear prompting,
Besen adds: "Knowing God was at his beck and call, Cohen had the
chutzpah to ask for verbal confirmation, as if God were a travel
agent" (p. 168).
Besen should know, but apparently does not, that this kind of spiritual
seeking is hardly unique to ex-gay experience. By openly ridiculing
these and similar experiences in his book, Besen proves his utter
disdain for the spiritual life of Christians and other people of faith
generally. By mocking these testimonies, he also mocks anyone who
seeks to listen for and follow the whisperings of God's Spirit.
Besen's mocking is not reserved for spirituality. Naturally, he
takes delight in mocking such things as "lipstick application
seminars to help some lesbians become more feminine and touch football
games to butch up some of the more effeminate homosexual men" (p.
xvi). And naturally, he mocks without explaining that the deeper
psychological purpose of such activities is to help same-sex attracted
women and men face their fears of traditional gender associations.
GENERALIZATIONS, STEREOTYPES AND DOUBLE STANDARDS
Given the vehemence with which Besen blasts any perceived slight
against homosexuals or gay culture, the blatant and hostile stereotypes
and generalizations that he directs at ex-gays and reparative
therapists represent the worst kind of double standard:
"Most (ex-gays) are suffering unbelievably dark, lonely, miserable
lives" (p. 37).
"Most (ex-gays) are chronically depressed" (p. 40)
"The vast majority of the (ex-gay ministry) leadership and nearly all
of the spokespeople ...(are) self-destructive, unstable individuals who
lack self-control and have decimated their personal lives" (p. 42)
"A significant number appear to have problems with mental illness"
(p. 42).
"Little evidence supports the existence of 'normal' ex-gays"
(p. 56).
"Most ex-gays are not looking for a religion, but a regimen. They
are learning scripture because they seek structure. When they claim
they are searching for God, they really mean they are searching for
guidance" (p. 48). (Apparently, Besen is a mind reader who can divine
what seekers are "really" seeking.)
"They have left behind colorful, three-dimensional lives of
uncertainty and despair for monochrome, one dimensional lives of
relative stability and security" (p. 52). (This may be the most
bizarre sentence in the entire book. Colorful, three-dimensional lives
of uncertainty and despair? What kind of a color is that?)
(Ex-gays) "are stuck in a lifestyle that demeans, diminishes and
dehumanizes them for who they are" (p. xviii, emphasis added).
Reparative therapy clients are "hapless victims" with "fragile
minds" (p. 156).
Imagine the howls of protest if these same aspersions were directed at
gays instead of ex-gays!
Besen charges reparative therapists with nothing short of malpractice
for allegedly telling clients that there is no true happiness to be
found in a homosexual life, or that promiscuity, disease, infidelity
and broken relationships are rampant in the gay community. This is
supposedly reckless and demeaning, driving reparative therapy clients
to the brink of suicide. But Besen thinks it's perfectly acceptable
to label thousands of people as mentally unstable, out-of-control,
chronically depressed, unable to handle personal freedom, and on and on
- simply for not wanting to be gay!
In one glaring example of his double standards, Besen decries the use
of the term "gay lifestyle" as small-minded and bigoted, because it
supposedly indicates that there is one monolithic gay scene that
defines all of homosexual life. But then he deliberately titles a
chapter subhead "The Ex-Gay Lifestyle" (p. 55) and says ex-gays are
"stuck in a lifestyle that demeans" them.
An even more egregious example: Besen quotes NARTH as saying, "In
reality, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply genetic,"
and then charges, "This phrase illustrates how slippery NARTH really
is. The statement is technically true," Besen says, "because the
research cannot show, at this point, that homosexuality is simply
genetic, but NARTH's statement conveniently omits the
incontrovertible fact that a growing body of research points to a
possible biological component."
That's on page 149. Now flip back just two pages. Besen summarizes
the Pillard-Bailey twin study, which found that out of 56 gays who had
an identical twin, 29 of the twin brothers were also gay/ Besen
concludes, "This study clearly showed a biological/genetic component
to sexual orientation..." Stop right there. No, it didn't. A
biological component is only one possible explanation, since these
twins shared a common upbringing. Besen continues his sentence: "but
the fact that not all of the identical twins were gay suggested that
there may be more than just a simple genetic explanation for
homosexuality" (emphasis added).
"May" be? Suggested? Now who is slippery? - and the sentence
isn't even close to technically true. The study actually proved that
there must be more than genetics at work, since identical twins, by
definition, share identical genes.
Understanding Besen's "slipperiness," spite and ill intent will
help to put into perspective the allegations and false claims he
presents throughout his book.
ALLEGATION: NOBODY EVER SUCCEEDS AT CHANGE
Wayne Besen's central claim is, of course, that sexual orientation
change is a myth. He writes:
"The extraordinary claims made by ex-gay groups are without merit,
and the efficacy of their programs is dubious at best and harmful at
worst" (p. xvi).
"The most these deceptive entities can usually accomplish is teaching
fearful people how to repress natural feelings, at the risk of grave
psychological harm, which is really no accomplishment at all" (p.
xvii).
"Sexual orientation is a deep-seated, unalterable part of who people
are; it runs as deep as the soul; it is the very core of being" (p.
192).
"In general, ex-gay groups have a near total failure rate" (p. 40).
"Nobody has 'changed'" (p. 38)
Supporting his viewpoint, Besen contends that everyone who claims to
have experienced change is either lying or deluded: "For a time,
through faith and mental repression, a person may even believe he or
she has become the straight person being portrayed" (p. xvi, emphasis
added). But he claims those who say they have experienced change will
inevitably have to face the "truth" one day that they really
haven't changed at all.
Besen's greatest concession to the possibility of change comes in
this qualifier-packed sentence: "I would not rule out the remote
possibility that, in some very rare circumstances, a few people may be
comfortable and honestly function as if they have changed their sexual
orientation" (p. xvi, emphasis added). (Would it be possible to
hedge this sentence any more without it collapsing under the weight of
its own equivocation?)
But Besen sets up a precarious predicament for himself by taking the
extreme position that change is always impossible and in fact nobody
has ever changed - precarious because it requires only a single
success story to debunk his thesis. By contrast, the ex-gay ministries
and reparative therapists are on much firmer ground by defending the
position that some people have experienced some degree of change, and
are happier for it, and if change is possible for some people, it is
likely possible for some others as well. This position is not subject
to the Achilles Heel of Besen's absolutist perspective. It is not
subject to collapse from a single case, or any number of cases,
countering its claims.
So let's consider (since Besen certainly doesn't) the abundant
evidence that some people have experienced at least some degree of
change in their sexual attractions.
In more than 50 years of research, including 48 studies referenced in
this paper, there are data and published accounts documenting easily
more than 3,000 cases of change from homosexual to heterosexual
attraction and functioning. With one notable exception - a chapter
dedicated to railing against Dr. Robert L. Spitzer's 2001 study of
successful sexual reorientation clients - Besen disregards this
entire body of psychological literature, preferring to pretend it
doesn't even exist.
But he is in good company. Besen approvingly quotes the American
Psychiatric Association's medical director as saying, "There is no
published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative
therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation" (p.
235). With that, Besen can safely skirt the debate, and avoid
confusing the poor reader with the facts. After all, even the experts
say there is "no published evidence."
But is that true?
"Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change" Project
New Direction Ministries in Toronto, Canada, has collected and
critiqued 31 clinical research studies, individual case studies and
surveys on homosexuality and the possibility of change published in
books or academic journals between 1952 and 2003#. The reviewers
looked for reported changes, and supporting evidence for changes, in
behavior, attractions, fantasy and self-identification by the subjects
of the various studies and surveys. On their Web page, they summarize
the collective results of 28 of the studies, and discuss the other
three separately.
Collectively, the 28 studies present information on 2,252 subjects. The
reviewers with the "Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change"
project selected for analysis only those subjects for whom enough data
was available in the published reports to assign the subjects
approximate before-and-after Kinsey sexual orientation scores of from 0
(exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). They
eliminated from consideration those subjects whose "before" scores
were lower than 5 (where 5 is "predominantly homosexual") or for
whom insufficient information was available to assign any scores at
all.
The reviewers found that using even this conservative before-and-after
analysis, the published research clearly supports at least:
45 cases of people who were exclusively or predominantly homosexual (a
6 or 5 on the Kinsey scale) making a full shift in sexual orientation
(to a 0 on the Kinsey scale).
287 cases of people who were exclusively or predominantly homosexual (a
6 or 5 on the Kinsey scale) making a partial shift in sexual
orientation (to a 1 or 2 on the Kinsey scale).
86 cases of people who were exclusively or predominantly homosexual who
transitioned to satisfying heterosexual relationships. (This third
group of studies measured change by external behavior and reports of
satisfaction, rather than reports of levels of attraction.)
Thus you have at least 418 cases in the published psychological
literature of heterosexual orientation shift, according to the criteria
used by the "Possibility of Change" project. However, the studies
themselves actually report at least 563 subjects who experienced
varying degrees of change toward increased heterosexuality. (The lower
number is due to the project reviewers applying uniform criteria, years
after the fact, to summarize more than 50 years of published studies,
and thus excluding reports that didn't fit their criteria for
analysis.)
Besen would argue, of course, that many of these studies are old, and
thus outdated. But old and outdated are not synonymous. Research
doesn't "go bad" with time alone, like old bread. Older research
can be confirmed, expanded, reinterpreted or contradicted by new,
better designed or more thorough research. But age alone never
invalidates a research study. And it is striking that these 31
studies, conducted over 50-some years, consistently show at least some
evidence for sexual orientation shift, every time.
NARTH Survey of Reparative Therapy Clients#
In addition to the 28 studies summarized above, the "Homosexuality
and the Possibility of Change" project reports on three others. The
first, conducted by the National Association for Research and Therapy
of Homosexuality in 1997, is a survey of 882 individuals who had been
in reparative therapy or other intervention programs in an effort to
effect a sexual-orientation change.
The anonymous survey found that, before counseling or therapy, 581 men
and women out of the 882, or 66%, considered themselves exclusively or
almost entirely homosexual (Kinsey 6 or 5). Another 188 (21%)
considered themselves more homosexual than heterosexual (Kinsey 4)
before treatment.
After treatment, only 111 (13%) considered themselves exclusively or
almost entirely homosexual (Kinsey 6 or 5). That's 470 fewer
individuals who placed themselves in this category, post-treatment.
And in fact, 282 individuals (32%) described themselves as either
exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual after treatment (Kinsey 0
or 1).
Those surveyed also reported significant decreases in the frequency and
intensity of their homosexual thoughts - from 63% indicating "very
often" before treatment to 3% after treatment. The same was true of
sexual behaviors with a partner: 30% had homosexual sex "very
often" before treatment, while only 1% did so afterward.
NARTH Survey of Therapists#
The second survey was also conducted by the National Association for
Research and Therapy of Homosexuality in 1997, but this one surveyed
206 therapists and counselors who have counseled individuals who sought
to change from a homosexual orientation. Collectively, these 206
professionals had worked with a total of at least 9,702 homosexual
clients seeking sexual reorientation.
More than 40% of therapists said that the majority (61% or more) of
their clients had either "adopted a primarily heterosexual
orientation (not just behavior)" or "experienced a significant
decrease in unwanted homosexual thoughts, feelings and behaviors" or
both. At an average of 47 clients per therapist, that would represent
more than 2,350 clients who experienced a significant
homosexual-to-heterosexual shift, according to the therapists who
counseled them.
Spitzer Study#
The last of the 31 studies summarized by the "Homosexuality and the
Possibility of Change" project was conducted by Columbia University
psychiatrist Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, who studied "the self-reported
experiences of individuals who claim to have achieved a change from
homosexual to heterosexual attraction that has lasted at least five
years." (This study was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior
in October 2003.) He located and interviewed 143 men and 57 women who
had had a predominantly homosexual attraction for many years (defined
as at least 60 on a 100-point scale of sexual attraction, where 0 is
exclusively heterosexual and 100 is exclusively homosexual), and who,
after therapy, had experienced a heterosexual shift of no less than 10
points, lasting at least 5 years.
Spitzer found that the average level of reported homosexual attraction
among the 200 interviewees dropped from 90 (on a 100 point scale) in
the 12 months before the change effort began to 19 in the 12 months
just prior to the interview. Also:
37 (19%) of the respondents reported "complete" change, with no
lingering homosexual thoughts, fantasies or desires.
119 (60%) met Spitzer's criteria for "good heterosexual
functioning" (which included never or rarely having same-sex thoughts
during heterosexual sex).
Other Studies
In their book, "Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the
Church's Moral Debate," psychologists Dr. Stanton L. Jones and Dr.
Mark A. Yarhouse present summary data on 30 research studies conducted
between 1954 and 1994. Of these, 13 are also included in New
Direction's "Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change"
summary, but 17 are not. These 17 additional studies#, conducted
mostly in the 1960s and 1970s, present data on 327 subjects. Of these,
108 men and women made a successful shift from primarily homosexual to
primarily heterosexual attractions and/or behaviors.
One of the more recent publications on the topic is in the American
Psychological Association's June 2002 issue of Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice. An article by Dr. Warren
Throckmorton, "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the
Change Process for Ex-Gays," summarizes 11 studies and concludes:
"My literature review contradicts the policies of major mental health
organizations because it suggests that sexual orientation, once thought
to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many
people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry for others
and spontaneously for still others."
Personal Experience with Change Efforts
What is Besen's response to all this published research by scores of
professionals, published in dozens of books and journals, over several
decades? Quite simply, to ignore it. To pretend it doesn't exist.
And to present instead anecdotes of seven former ex-gay leaders who
either relapsed into old patterns or left their ministries altogether
and recanted their claims of change.
These seven cases of failed (or in John Paulk's case, incomplete)
change efforts are supposed to counterbalance all the data collected on
3,000-plus individuals in 48 published studies over 50 years. This is
the equivalent of saying that the experiences of millions of people who
have found sobriety in Alcoholics Anonymous throughout the world are
invalid simply because some people who succeed for a time later fall
back into drunkenness. This is a ridiculous leap. Remember, Besen's
thesis is that nobody succeeds at change, not that some people fail.
He has, at a bare minimum, hundreds more cases to attempt to discredit
before he gets anywhere close to proving his thesis.
And he can't have it both ways. He can't present the anecdotal
accounts of failed change efforts as proof of universal failure while
dubbing all personal accounts of success as fraudulent. Why should we
believe these seven individuals are representative of everyone who
seeks change while disregarding the personal experiences of so many
others?
Consider also the many men and women who have published
autobiographical (or combined autobiographical and educational) books
relating the authors' personal experiences with overcoming unwanted
homosexuality: Scott Anderson, Richard Cohen, Andy Comiskey, Joe
Dallas, Bob Davies, Erin Eldridge, D.L. Foster, Janelle Hallman,
Jeanette Howard, Dennis Jernigan, Jeff Konrad, Alan Medinger, David
Morrison, Jason Park, Anne Paulk, Sy Rogers, Barbara Swallow, and Frank
Worthen, among others. In addition, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi has written
a book of eight case studies,# and Bob Davies has compiled a book of 14
personal testimonials.# In addition, scores of personal accounts of
change can be found on the World Wide Web.#
But never mind all that. In Besen's world, every last one of them is
lying, faking or self-deluded.
ALLEGATION: ONLY A 180 DEGREE SHIFT "COUNTS" AS CHANGE
A linchpin of Besen's argument that no one ever changes is the
self-created tenet that change must be a 180 degree shift from 100
percent homosexual to 100 percent heterosexual in order to be
considered (by him) to be legitimate. It makes for a convenient
stipulation, one that neither reparative therapists, ex-gay ministries
nor we who have experienced change have ever made ourselves.
With this manufactured provision, Besen discounts claims of change by
those who had any degree of heterosexual interest prior to pursuing
change. Criticizing the Spitzer study, for instance, he claims that
"many of the 'success' cases may have been bisexual or
heterosexual prior to therapy" (p. 238) and wonders "whether a
change in sexual orientation occurred or whether the subjects simply
sublimated their homosexuality in favor of their heterosexual side"
(p. 231).
At the other end of the scale, Besen disregards the experience of
anyone who still has any degree of homosexual feelings or
susceptibility to homosexual "temptation." He takes advantage of
the honest candor of certain ex-gays who admit to not being "totally
healed" or who confess that in times of stress, they sometimes think
about resorting to past homosexual behaviors. See, they haven't
really changed, Besen gloats. But one wonders why people who are
supposedly lying or self-deluded don't just go all the way and claim
complete change. Why tell half a lie?
Given Besen's harsh criteria for defining change, he would have to
argue that no one has ever gotten sober in Alcoholics Anonymous. After
all, even after 20 years or more of sobriety, AA members always speak
of themselves as "recovering," never fully recovered, to remind
themselves that they may always be vulnerable to backsliding.
So according to Besen, anyone who shifts from a Kinsey 5 (almost
exclusively homosexual, but with some slight heterosexual interest) to
a Kinsey 1 (almost exclusively heterosexual, but with some slight
homosexual interest) hasn't really changed. The person wasn't
"truly gay" before, and isn't really "straight" now, Besen
maintains.
At the same time that splits hairs over the definitions of "gay"
and "straight," Besen is critical of therapists and ministry
leaders who can't agree on a clear definition of "change," and
thus describe or measure it in varying ways. But of course. Sexual
orientation is an extremely amorphous concept. Warren Throckmorton
writes, "There is no consensus of a direct, physical means of
assessing sexual orientation...Self-report is the most common means of
assessing sexual orientation, with all of the limitations known for
this assessment method."# And Throckmorton quotes John Gonsiorek and
James Weinrich: "Given such significant measurement problems, one
could conclude there is serious doubt whether sexual orientation is a
valid concept at all."#
And to Besen, behavior change doesn't count, of course. "Remember,
reparative therapy changes sexual behavior, not sexual orientation.
People can learn to act straight and repress their sexual urges, but
they rarely, if ever, change their fantasies, attractions or capacity
to fall in love with members of the same sex" (p. 189). This claim
once again ignores the psychological literature, which draws quite a
different conclusion. But it also shows Besen's ignorance of the
fact that, for many who seek change, sexual behavior is the real
problem, not sexual attraction. They seek to bring their behavior in
line with their values and beliefs, as a means of eliminating internal
conflict. If they can accomplish that, living with an attraction to
the same sex oftentimes is not particularly burdensome to them.
What Besen doesn't realize is that for most people who seek change,
heterosexuality is not actually the ultimate goal; happiness is. For
them, happiness is not contingent on sexuality alone, but on living a
life congruent with their values, beliefs and life goals. So, unlike
Besen's unreasonable demand for a 180 degree turn or nothing, the men
and women who actually seek change are often quite content with a much
subtler shift. To be free from the constant pull of homosexual
desires, to have a happy marriage, to have children, and to live a life
they believe to be in line with God's will for them - many ask for
nothing more. Never mind where they fall on anyone's Kinsey scale or
what critics like Besen expect.
ALLEGATION: THERE'S NO SANE REASON TO WANT TO CHANGE
Besen's portrayal of those who seek to alter their sexual attractions
shows a deep misunderstanding - or more accurately, a mocking
misrepresentation - of this sincerely motivated population.
According to Besen, only homosexuals who are emotionally unstable,
homophobic and victims of societal oppression would want to change
their sexual orientation, This is Besen at his most vicious.
"Unlike many other communities, the GLBT community is blessed with
unparalleled freedoms. One can comfortably choose from a plethora of
lifestyles that span the ideological, theological and fashion continuum
with minimal condemnation,...from conservative Log Cabin Republicans to
flamboyant drag queens. For those who are centered, this unbridled
liberty and diversity can make for an incredibly rich and fulfilling
life.
"However, for those who are weak-minded, mentally unstable, or
lacking in self-esteem, the dearth of clearly defined rules in the GLBT
community can be a nightmare... Without unambiguous strictures
dictating every detail of their lives, they have to make choices for
themselves, and, often, they make terrible choices that lead to
addiction, misery and, in many cases, death.
"When these people hit rock bottom, they often mistakenly blame the
GLBT community for their own personal failings. When these individuals
say they 'hate the so-called gay lifestyle,' they really mean they
disdain a world with limitless options. To thrive, these individuals
need clear guidance - a roadmap for life...
"To join the ex-gay ministries, one has to accept a hard-core,
right-wing fundamentalism that outlines every minute detail of one's
life. This almost always means joining an authoritarian, right-wing
church...(that appeals) to those who are mentally unstable" (p.
47-48)
Here again, Besen's duplicity is jaw-dropping. He praises the
"unparalleled freedoms" and "limitless options" of the GLBT
community, in which one can "comfortably choose from a plethora of
lifestyles," but absolutely precludes from this plethora the choice
of which sexual orientation to pursue or develop. This, apparently, is
the one area of choice that should be prohibited and universally
condemned. All else is open season, a celebration of wonderful
diversity.
Including gender. Notice the subtle inclusion of the "T," for
transgender, in his use of the GLBT acronym. By slipping it in to his
defense of limitless options, he is subtly arguing for the choice to
determine one's own gender. Was anything ever more hardwired, more
genetically encoded, then gender? And yet Besen and his ilk adamantly
defend the rights of gender-benders and gender-switchers, including the
right to undergo mutilating surgery and take chemical hormones to alter
the body's natural hormone production. All this is celebrated as
diversity and choice.
And yet sexual attraction - something that is far less biologically
based, that may only have a possible genetic component, yet to be
discovered (as may just about any human inclination) - is not to be
consciously channeled, according to Besen. This is where he abruptly
slams the door on tolerance, diversity and choice. He clearly is no
purist when it comes to these values. Rather, he merely uses them to
bolster his only real value, which is homosexuality itself. If
tolerance, diversity and choice collide with a pro-homosexual stance,
they must fall by the wayside. Otherwise, he would have to tolerate the
choice of some people to pursue a heterosexual shift, and respect their
diversity. But there he draws the line.
Now, according to Besen:
"Most (ex-gays) are desperate, depressed people who have decimated
their lives through irresponsible choices and now find it easier to
blame their sexual orientation rather than themselves" (p. 30)
"One of the major reasons people join the ex-gay ministries is
because they believe gay life is bars, drugs, and sex. This has more
to do with their personal moral failings than those of the (gay)
community" (p. 268).
"These individuals cannot handle freedom" (p. 52).
Did Besen ever ask even one individual why he wanted to change his
sexual orientation? When Robert Spitzer asked that question of 200 men
and women who said they had changed, the number one answer was that
they did not find a homosexual life to be emotionally satisfying (81%
of respondents), closely followed by 79% who said it conflicted with
their religious beliefs. Fifty-eight percent said that gay life was an
obstacle to their desire either to marry or remain married.#
These responses are consistent with my own experience supporting men
who seek change. When I asked the question (open-ended) on one of the
People Can Change online support groups, the most frequent reasons
given for seeking change were:
Living as a homosexual felt wrong and conflicted with my moral beliefs
(10 responses)
It conflicted with my religious beliefs or my beliefs about God's
will for my life (10 responses)
I wanted to one day have a wife and children (8 responses)
I felt emotionally unfulfilled in a gay life; it didn't meet my
deeper needs (8 responses)
I wanted to hold together an existing marriage and family (5
responses).
For me, homosexuality was addictive, obsessive or compulsive (5
responses)
I couldn't find "Mr. Right" and stopped believing he existed in
the gay world (5 response)
I feared disease and early death (5 responses).
Seventeen additional responses were volunteered by one or two people
each. Only two people responded that one reason they were pursuing
change was that they feared societal rejection and wanted to fit into
mainstream society.
These are not the life goals of mentally unstable people who "can't
handle freedom" or have "decimated their personal lives."
Seeking emotionally satisfying relationships, working to live in
congruence with one's moral belief system, seeking to do God's will
as they understand it, desiring to get married and have children or
hold an existing family together - these are hardly the desires of a
mentally unstable fringe group. If Besen truly wants to welcome these
men and women into the gay fold, he needs to consider what, if
anything, the homosexual community has to people with this particular
set of moral values and life goals.
Despite Besen's insistence that gay life is not just bars, sex and
drugs, the research indicates that, in fact, much of it is. No wonder
that Spitzer's respondents - an unusually spiritually oriented
group - said they found homosexual life to be so emotionally
unsatisfying. It should be obvious to even the most casual observer of
gay culture that the homosexual community emphasizes sex and promotes
promiscuity, which in turn leads to notoriously short-lived
relationships, casual and risky sex, drug use, and untold health
problems.
Speaking among themselves, gays are generally quick to acknowledge
their culture's celebration of unrestrained sexual expression. (As
one man described it to me, he was once scolded for his abstinence,
"Quit screaming gay if you're not going to put out." Then there
is the gay advocacy group "Sex Panic," which considers anonymous
sex with multiple partners to be a defining value of gay culture.#) It
is only when they attempt to propagandize conservative heterosexuals
that gay apologists sometimes profess that homosexuals are no more
promiscuous as a group than heterosexuals. (At other times, they take
a completely different tack, freely admitting to gay promiscuity but
insisting that it is the non-promiscuous who are sexually repressed and
thus mentally or emotionally unhealthy.)
So let's look at the facts. A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in a 1978
study#, found that:
74% of male homosexuals reported having more than 100 partners during
their lifetime, 43% more than 500 partners, and 28% more than 1,000.
75% reported that more than half their partners were strangers.
65 percent reported that they had sex with more than half their
partners only once.
A study of several hundred A study of several hundred male couples
published in 1984# found that:
87% of those who had been together less than a year were non-monogamous
91% of those who had been together more than five years were
non-monogamous.
A Kinsey Institute study# published in 1990 found that:
79% of homosexual male couples reported at least one instance of
non-monogamy in the previous year, compared to 10% among married
heterosexuals and 23% among cohabitating heterosexuals.
In 1984, gay researchers McWhirter and Mattison published a study of
156 male couples in relationships that had lasted between one and 37
years. Only seven of those couples (4%) were monogamous, and all seven
had been together less than five years.# More recently, surveys
published in 2001 of more than 13,000 gay men in Seattle showed the
number reporting six or more partners in the previous 12 months
increased from 45 percent in 1994 to 58 percent in 2000.#
Drug abuse in the homosexual community is likewise well documented. A
study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in
1989# found that:
89% of gays used marijuana (compared to 25% of heterosexuals)
72% used poppers, an illicit nitrate inhalant used as a sexual
stimulant (compared to 2% of heterosexuals)
50% used cocaine (compared to 6% of heterosexuals)
50% used LSD (compared to 3% of heterosexuals)
and 33% used barbiturates (compared to 9% of heterosexuals).
A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1992#
found that, between 1985 and 1988:
80% of 481 homosexual men studied had used marijuana
70% had used poppers
60% had used cocaine
30% had used amphetamines
and 20% had used LSD
And a study published in the British Journal of Addiction in 1992#
found:
58 times as much use of poppers among gays as among the general
population
4 times as much tranquilizer use
3.6 times as much marijuana use
2.3 times the cocaine use
and 1.5 times the alcohol use.
The health consequences of all this indiscriminate sex and illicit drug
use are all too predictable. Surveys published in 2001 of gay men in
Miami found 16% of 23 to 29 years olds and 34% of those over 29 were
HIV positive.# Meanwhile, a six-city study by the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention in 2001 found 30% of gay black men in the
23-to-29 age group were HIV positive, as were 12% of 23-to-29 year-olds
overall.#
But the health risks go well beyond HIV and AIDS to include all forms
of sexually transmitted diseases as well as intestinal diseases,
Hepatitis, anal cancer and rectal trauma. Rowan and Gillette's Gay
Health Guide devotes eight chapters to common diseases among male
homosexuals. Studies have found:
an estimated 75% of gay men have a history of at least one sexually
transmitted disease#, compared to 17% of the general population#
65% have a history of Hepatitis B#
25% or more report a history of syphilis or gonorrhea#
Putting all these numbers into perspective, Thomas Schmidt summarizes,
in his book Straight & Narrow? (p. 127):
"Suppose you were to move into a large house in San Francisco with a
group of 10 randomly selected homosexual men in their mid-thirties.
According to the most recent research from scientific sources, whose
authors are without exception either neutral or positive in their
assessment of homosexual behavior, and with the use of lower numbers
where statistics differ, the relational and physical health of the
group would look like this.
"Four of the 10 men are currently in relationships, but only one of
those is faithful to his partner, and he will not be within a year.
Four have never had a relationship that lasted more than a year, and
only one has had a relationship that lasted more than three years. Six
are having sex regularly with strangers, and the group averages almost
two partners per person per month. Three of them occasionally take
part in orgies. One is a sadomasochist. One prefers boys to men.
"Three of the men are currently alcoholics, five have a history of
alcohol abuse, and four have a history of drug abuse. Three currently
smoke cigarettes, five regularly use at least one illegal drug, and
three are multiple drug users. Four have a history of acute
depression, three have seriously contemplated suicide, and two have
attempted suicide. Eight have a history of sexually transmitted
diseases... At least three are HIV-infected, and one has AIDS."
All of this has led one health professional to ask: "Can anyone
refute that increased morbidity and mortality is an unavoidable result
of male-with-male sex - not to mention the increased rates of
alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide and other maladies that so
often accompany a homosexual lifestyle? ...My primary question is: why
isn't homosexuality considered a disorder on the basis of its medical
consequences alone?"#
When we look at what all this "unparalleled freedom" and
"unbridled liberty and diversity" have brought the GLBT community,
we have to ask Wayne Besen: Just who is it really who has decimated
their lives through irresponsible choices? Who is it really who
can't handle freedom?
And how can the desire to avoid a culture of promiscuity, infidelity,
drugs and health problems be considered anything but sane?
ALLEGATION: THEY'RE FORCING CHANGE THERAPIES ON THE UNWILLING
But Besen thinks he knows better what truly motivates people to seek
change.
"People go to these 'doctors' only because they are made to feel
terrible about themselves," he writes. "They are convinced that
they will go to hell if they do not change, and many believe that
suicide may be the only alternative. They are lied to - told that
there are no happy, productive gay people and that the so-called gay
lifestyle leads to only 'death and destruction.' These dejected
individuals also fear that coming out will mean a loss of status,
family, friends, and church. Under such duress, how can one argue that
these people are freely making the choice to change?" (p. 142,
emphasis added).
Since Besen has proven that he believes "these people" are weak
minded and mentally unstable, it should be no surprise that he also
thinks they are not capable of freely making the choice to change. In
fact, he sees "Nicolosi and his cohorts (using) deceit and guile to
bully desperate people into reparative therapy" (p. 141). (One
imagines Nicolosi donning a motorcycle jacket and beating up gays in
West Hollywood until they beg for mercy by agreeing to pay for unwanted
therapy.)
This may be one of Besen's most ridiculous claims in the entire book:
that people are somehow being forced to pursue change against their
will. One wonders: How would that even be possible, short of cult
kidnapping and brainwashing? But Besen insists:
"My opinion on reparative therapy ... (calls for) the discontinuation
of forced medical 'treatments' designed to 'cure'
homosexuality" (p. 142).
"There is also the matter of coercion and forced participation.
Although I have found no evidence of adults being forced to attend
therapy, adolescents - and even toddlers - are often dragged into
Nicolosi's clutches against their will" (p. 142, emphasis added).
"Unfortunately, bad science has not stopped Nicolosi from convincing
parents to force kids into his programs" (p. 142).
Surely, if he knew of any such cases of forced therapy, Besen
wouldn't hesitate to document them. The best he can offer is
anecdotes of teenagers being escorted by their parents to a reparative
therapy conference, or asked to read ex-gay literature - hardly cause
for court intervention in family life. But yes, Nicolosi does offer
counseling on issues related to gender identity disorder in children
and youth# - a diagnosis that has long been recognized by the
American Psychiatric Association (although it is under heavy attack by
the gay lobby).
The fact is that the large majority of people pursuing change are in
their twenties and thirties at the time they begin the change effort.
(In the Spitzer study, the average age of interviewees - who had
maintained a heterosexual shift for at least five years - was 43.)
Relatively few are teenagers or living under their parents' roof. A
significant number are married, with children. (Twenty percent of
Spitzer's subjects were married before beginning therapy.) They have
matured enough and struggled, often silently, long enough to know what
they want in life and what they don't want. (Three-quarters of
Spitzer's subjects were college graduates.)
In fact, in the People Can Change online support groups, members often
express frustration at the lack of support for their change efforts -
from the psychological community, certainly, but also at times from
family members, peers, fellow church or synagogue members and even
pastors and rabbis. They tire of people telling them to "just accept
and enjoy" something they consider to be a cancer in their lives.
Recognizing that "gay" is not who they truly "are," that these
unwanted desires, in their case, largely come from unmet emotional
needs, they diligently search the country for the too-rare professional
who is knowledgeable and experienced enough to help them in the way
they want to be helped.
As morally aghast as Besen is at the fantasy that some people are
forced into reparative therapy against their will, he sees nothing at
all immoral with outlawing reparative therapy for those who freely seek
it. In fact, that is what Besen argues for - an outright ban. Never
mind what the client wants. Never mind that reparative therapy is
often successful. Never mind that many say they have benefited from
it. If it isn't pro-gay, it should go away.
Besen asks rhetorically, "Would these people want to change if they
were not subject to religious persecution, legally sanctioned
discrimination, and social condemnation - if not outright physical
danger?" (p. 142).
The answer, inevitably, is an emphatic yes - as a matter free will by
those who are strong-minded enough, mentally stable enough, and
determined to create for themselves constructive, moral and fulfilling
lives that are congruent with their own, deeply held values.
ALLEGATION: REPARATIVE THERAPY THEORIES HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED AND
DISPROVED
For as many times as Besen beats this drum throughout his book, you
would think he would provide some evidence. He repeatedly labels
reparative therapy principles and research as "old, outdated ideas"
(p. 136), "outlandish, unproven therapies (p. 171), with
"anachronistic data" (p. 131), "outdated notions" (p. 132) and
"outdated psychoanalytic techniques" (p. 172). He claims
"reparative therapy is rooted in outdated and disproved
psychoanalytic thought" (p. 183) and the so-called "discredited
works of Bieber, Socarides, Moberly and Nicolosi" (p. 172).
Yet Besen offers virtually nothing in the way of evidence that the
research and principles supporting reparative therapy have actually
been disproved or discredited.
He claims that findings from Dr. Irving Bieber's 1962 study of 106
homosexual clients (which found, for instance, that all 106 men
experienced profound disturbance in their relationship with their
fathers) "could not be replicated and were disproved by more diligent
researchers" (p. 127). But Besen doesn't offer so much as a
footnote to support this claim.
He writes that "Dr. Charles Silverstein released an exhaustive survey
(in the early 1970s) that showed that previous research on
homosexuality was either skewed or biased" (p. 130). Again, he
offers not so much as a footnote to reference this supposedly
exhaustive survey. And he certainly doesn't bother to mention, lest
it should bias the reader, that this is the same Charles Silverstein
who wrote the illustrated, erotic handbook, "The Joy of Gay Sex: An
Intimate Guide for Gay Men to the Pleasures of a Gay Lifestyle."
That's it. That is all Besen can do to back up his repeated claims
of "outdated ideas" and "discredited works." In contrast, in
his seminal work, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New
Clinical Approach (1991), Dr. Joseph Nicolosi references no fewer than
300 books, academic studies and journal articles as he lays out the
core principles of reparative therapy. These principles, and the basic
profile of the "typical" reparative therapy client, have been borne
out in the clinical experience of hundreds of therapists and counselors
working with thousands of clients over the years. And as we've seen
in the surveys and clinical studies of thousands who have participated
in these therapies, they work. Not always, and not perfectly, but much
of the time they produce the desired outcome.
Reparative therapy has not been discredited. It has simply fallen out
of favor since the 1973 vote by the board of the American Psychiatric
Association to remove homosexuality from its official encyclopedia of
mental disorders. What Besen sees as outdated is simply out of
fashion. The research hasn't been disproved; it has simply been
disenfranchised by the political correctness of the times.
ALLEGATION: CHANGE EFFORTS CAUSE PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM
"The ex-gay ministries can be a soul-shattering experience that leads
to low self-esteem, depression and sometimes suicide," Besen claims
(p. 59).
He quotes several people who failed to change, who felt like they had
wasted time and money, and that the whole effort only prolonged an
inevitable "coming out." These are unfortunate cases, but what do
they prove? Only that that particular therapy or ministry was not
helpful or appropriate for those particular individuals at the time.
It doesn't prove that they are not helpful to or appropriate for
anyone ever - any more than the grumblings of a few lapsed Catholics
would "prove" that Catholicism is harmful to all. Especially when
there is significant evidence of others who benefit.
Dr. Robert Spitzer found no evidence of harm among the 200 individuals
he surveyed on their experience in reparative therapy and ex-gay
ministries. He has stated, "To the contrary, they reported that it
was helpful in a variety of ways beyond changing sexual orientation
itself." #
The NARTH survey of 882 men and women who had pursued change said the
therapy was beneficial to their mental health and helped them cope with
and reduce their homosexual attractions. They also overwhelmingly
rated their experience as positive on a range of variables, including
self-acceptance, trust of the opposite sex, self-esteem, emotional
stability, relationship with God, and depression. Only 7% of survey
respondents said they were doing worse than before the therapy on three
or more of 17 measures of psychological well-being.#
In fact, if there is one consistency in the scores of published
testimonials by those who have succeeded at change, it is the universal
claim those that their lives are better now:
"Tremendous rewards followed - fulfilling friendships with other
men, better health and greater confidence with my body and emotional
freedom and power."#
"The journey has been the hardest thing I've ever done, but it was
worth it. Today, I am a different man - stronger, healthier, happier,
more loving, more confident, more mature. I am a better father, a
better husband, a better friend, and a more devoted son of God. I would
never trade the peace, growth and healing I have experienced for
anything in the world."#
"I am at the point in my life now where homosexuality is no longer a
struggle. I'd have to go through a lot of barricades -
psychologically, spiritually and emotionally - to get to the point of
acting on any temptation. I am very fulfilled in my life. I no longer
want homosexuality in my life. I no longer need it. Today, I identify
with other heterosexual men as my peers, my brothers and my equals. I
am in love with my wife. I love being a husband and a daddy."#
"Finally, I am at peace with myself as a man. I am at peace in the
world of men, grounded and connected. I have finally experienced
unconditional love - from my wife, my mother, my therapist, my
'adopted' father and brothers and family. These are men and women
who know my secrets and love me more, not less. I no longer yearn for
sexual experience in order to feel love."#
"I now feel I have successfully transitioned from gay and bisexual to
straight. The change is immensely satisfying and rewarding. I started
dating women again because I wanted a healthy relationship that would
last. I will settle down with one, eventually. I am a stronger man now,
better prepared to be in a close relationship, with more to give as a
whole man."#
"More and more, I was coming in to therapy sessions reporting joy
instead of hurt, anger or fear, sharing my increased sense of identity
and power as a man, reporting on new friendships I was building and new
risks I was taking to test my increased inner strength....Now I could
be in honest relationships with others. I could make friends. I could
ask for help. I could be real. And more than anything else, I could
love. I had learned to give love and receive love from other men as my
brothers, and trust them with my heart. In this, I truly had found what
I had been looking for all my life."#
These and countless other personal stories of change do not "prove"
that reparative therapy and other change efforts are right for everyone
or will work for everyone. But they do disprove Besen's thesis: that
they work for no one and are harmful to everyone. Virtually everything
he has to contribute to the debate on the value and efficacy of sexual
orientation change is politically motivated propaganda in the service
of that discredited and disproved thesis.
# Source: New Direction Ministries, "Homosexuality and the
Possibility of Change" project, Toronto, Canada.
http://www.newdirection.ca/a_change.htm and
http://www.newdirection.ca/research/index.html