Opening a dialog

Since I'm excited to have some measure of Dr. Schow's attention, and to shift focus away from the size of my penis, I would like to open a dialog about the Dialogue articles written by none other than our own Master Fob and Dr. Schow. But, mainly Schow's. We'll always have Fob to talk about.

Dr. Schow's article highlights some of the limited information we have about "mixed orientation marriages" (MOMs), and offers some guidelines to help predict which marriages are likely not to end in divorce. Overall I really enjoyed the article and found a lot to agree with. But there were little nuanced things that bothered me, so I'm bringing them up here for discussion.

Why do so many marital relationships of this kind fail? Primarily because the homosexual attraction of one spouse creates a major difficulty, despite hopes that such attraction will diminish over time. In reality, the great majority of those who are homosexually oriented cannot fundamentally alter their feelings by desire, therapy, or religious practice.
...
The reality is that homosexuality is not a choice and, except in rare cases, is not subject to change.

It's no news that the idea that change is impossible is disputed by NARTH. I'm still considering the idea of reading Schow's and Byrd's books as a set to compare the disparate data they present. Regardless, I agree with the statement here except that I would modify it to say, "...In reality, the great majority of those who are homosexually oriented have not been able to fundamentally...". Per the APA's consensus statement there have been no scientifically rigorous data to prove or disprove the possibility of even Reparative Therapy as a viable therapeutic option, let alone other therapies that could be conceived and have never been tried at all. To say "can't" is what nearly everyone does, and is to overstate our collective knowledge on the matter. Resist, people, and keep a good balance between skepticism and an open mind.

Thus, marriage seems risky for homosexuals and even bisexuals since we presume that some will end their marriages without trying therapy and that those receiving skilled professional assistance still achieve only this level of success.

I'm in total agreement that marriage is risky (for heteros too), but perhaps there ought to be inquiry into the manner and quality of "skilled professional assistance" those in the different outcome groups received. I've widely publicized my initial biases on this matter throughout this blog. The fact that people so pig-headedly refuse to find a workable therapist (and it may involve trying more than one) irks me. Well, I said it. Now you all know what I'm thinking. :-)

One of the reasons so many homosexuals enter into such high-risk marriages is that they are encouraged to do so by many LDS counselors, therapists, and ecclesiastical leaders who are ill informed about the nature of homosexuality and the dangers of homosexual-heterosexual bonding.

The idea that leaders are ill informed on this topic is one I agree with. But I'm curious about the "dangers of homosexual-heterosexual bonding"... or is this in reference to the dangers of not bonding?

The vast majority of homosexual-heterosexual marriages fail. However, as Ben attests, some, with strong determination, choose to try and beat the odds. Such hopes of success are, in part, based on claims that some homosexuals have achieved successful marriages characterized by adequate sexual compatibility. Such claims, however, must be examined in the light of (1) the complexity of homosexual feeling as it manifests itself in individuals (the HH Scale); (2) the relative importance that individuals attach to sexual intimacy as an element in the marital relationship (strength of libido and capacity for sublimation of sexual desire); and (3) other important factors such as whether individuals have personal compatibility and maturity adequate to withstand challenges to the marriage which are far greater than average.

Here's where I'm lost. First of all, as Dr. Schow mentioned in a previous comment, we don't know how many MOMs fail, because the sampling is always biased. It's a privacy issue, a fear issue, a homophobia issue... whatever kind of issue it is, to say the vast majority fail is unfounded. To say the vast majority fail for those couples willing to come forward may be okay. To say the vast majority have failed for those who have written books, opined on blogs, or otherwise inserted themselves into dialog on the topic also might fly. But I'm not aware that anyone has managed to measure how many MOMs are out there plugging away unassailably. Do I think it likely that there are droves? No. But let's be precise so as to give people the best information possible with which to make life-altering decisions.

Also, in regard to this passage, I have some questions for Dr. Schow. Are these three characteristics "common sense" or have they actually been measured as contributing to the success or failure of MOMs? They sound plausible enough, but that alone is not enough to suggest they be used as a yardstick for making this decision. And here's why: you also say, "Much pain—directly and indirectly—results when these marriages fail," but you don't even mention the joy that those who were able to make it work may have achieved. Had I (a highly libidinous, Kinsey 6, man of average maturity) not married, I wouldn't be in the enviable position I am right now of being the happiest I have ever been in my life. I don't offer this to suggest that others can or will achieve the same thing by following the same path, but as an example of the perils of presenting only one side of the data (or patchy data or no data at all).

Using language like, "the odds are against him" bothers me a little bit too. Speaking of "odds" in scientific literature ought to be in reference to odds ratios or statistical measurements where the word has legitimate meaning. To use it as it is used here gives the impression that whether a marriage succeeds or fails is a matter of luck--where you land in that distribution curve is just a matter of odds. I couldn't disagree more.

Overall, the article shares some great information and an important caution about the dangers of hastily entering a MOM without a clear understanding of the risks. Many thanks to Dr. Schow for his tireless efforts to research these issues and help engender compassion and understanding within the church and society. Unfortunately, the repeated statements that adapting to heterosexual intimacy is impossible (sometimes with caveats, sometimes caveats omitted) and statements expressing opinions as facts (who "probably" should or should not marry) leave me disappointed that people will be misinformed on these points.

Concession

August 21, 2006 - At the APA Conference in New Orleans — where APA President Koocher commented about the ethicality of sexual reorientation therapy — Clinton Anderson, director of the APA Office of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns, offered further commentary.*

Mr. Anderson said he does not dispute that some people leave homosexuality. "I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change, because we know that straight people become gay and lesbian — so it seems totally reasonable that some gay and lesbian people would become straight. The issue is not whether sexual orientation changes...the issue is whether therapy changes sexual orientation."

NARTH

That shifting moment when everyone suddenly agreed that change is possible somehow escaped me. Was someone else there? Can you describe it for me? Regardless, I hope the legions of folks who constantly reference the APA as a scientifically credible organization which has debunked reparative therapy will now fall in line with this statement that nobody "disagrees with the idea that people can change" sexual orientation! Hee.

Cogito? Really?

In his Principles of Philosophy, Descartes argues that he was attracted to cross-eyed women because, as a child, he loved a cross-eyed playmate. He says that as soon as he realized the origin of his fetish, he was freed from it and could, once again, love women with normally spaced eye-balls. This insight, says the Britannica, "was the basis for Descartes's defense of free will and of the mind's ability to control the body."... I like that Descartes has such faith in the power of the mind that he places such high value on self-knowledge. There's Cogito ergo sum, and apparently there's also "Cogito about my kinky side, ergo sum free from it." He was doing Freudian therapy on himself 250 years before Freud bought his first couch.

A.J. Jacobs in The Know-It-All

Hmmm... I don't know that I have much more to say about that. But it made me chuckle. Descartes was one of my favorite philosophers... until I had to read more than a few pages.

Repairing things

My therapist told me once that the therapy we had undertaken was not appropriately called "conversion" therapy. That, he explained, suggests conversion from one sexual orientation to another and obscures the actual internal processes taking place. The term he prefers is "reparative" therapy, not because your sexuality is broken and needs to be repaired, but because your development is incomplete and in need of repair. The repair takes place in inter-personal relationships that may seem to have no bearing on sexuality whatsoever. Relationships with parents, with others of the same gender, with friends who love and support you....

The oft publicized problem with reparative therapy is 1) that it hasn't been rigorously proven or disproven (and yes, I know there are those who disagree and I can forward you to the current body of evidence to decide for yourself if you want), and 2) the success rate is quite low even in the best case scenarios.

Any particular therapy should have a good therapeutic ratio to be useful to anyone--the chance of benefit must be high enough to justify the risks of harm. The risks of reparative therapy get a lot of press, but they are just as unverified as the supposed successes.

So, despite that I have a number of friends who have undergone reparative therapy and are still as gay as a pink tie, I wonder to myself whether there is still some benefit. What if the social relationships "repaired" during the therapy really needed to be repaired apart from any sexual consequences?

That's pretty much where I am these days. Still undergoing reparative therapy (although not intensively right now) because I see lots of ancillary benefits that have nothing to do with my sexual orientation. I've really looked at the way I view myself. I've looked at the way I view my family members. I've carefully considered what intimidates and attracts me and why. And that sort of insight is really valuable no matter how you look at it. I'm completely okay with the prospect that my sexual orientation may not budge from this exercise. And I think that sort of attitude is a far better way to mitigate the risks and increase the therapeutic ratio than to avoid the therapy altogether.

Goldilocks and the three queers

Some who misunderstand the nature of same-gender attraction would argue that one cannot experience an attraction that is so"unnatural" and still be in God's full favor. Others may claim that one should focus on "changing" and doing all within his or her power to "overcome" same-gender attraction. Although our faith in God may require us to reconcile things in our life that may influence the attraction, putting an unbalanced and unhealthy emphasis and focus on "change" as a prerequisite to happiness or divine love and favor can be counterproductive, discouraging, and emotionally exhausting.
...
People who experience same-gender attraction may often feel overwhelming pressure to "change" the nature of their attractions, or their sexuality-and they'll do anything to make it happen. There is a strong tendency to feel that no matter what our challenges may be, if we pray more, fast more, read scripture more, or attend church and the temple more, then we can and will "change." Yet, despite how often or how deeply and sincerely many have prayed, fasted, read scripture, or attended the temple, they have continued to experience feelings of same-gender attraction with little or no change in intensity.
...
We who have the challenge of same-gender attraction have a responsibility to do all we can to understand our feelings or attractions and work to alter anything that may have influenced the attraction, but it is also important to remember that those things in and of themselves cannot alter our natures in any saving way: only Christ can do that.

Ty Mansfield in In Quiet Desperation

My last post may have given the impression that I favor obsessing about changing to heterosexual orientation. I don't. I'm more like Goldilocks in that famous fable, Goldilocks and the Three Queers.

Once upon a time, Goldilocks found himself discussing same-gender attraction with three LDS friends who were same-gender attracted. The first friend, who called himself PapaQueer, took a pretty militant stance about same-gender attraction. He felt his feelings were ungodly and he vowed to do anything to change them, because that's the only way he could imagine being happy and pure. He had already been through reparative therapy, fasted til he was thin as a rail, and prayed til his knees were bloody. His eyes had a fire of determination that was both a little inspiring and scary.

MamaQueer, on the other hand, believed her feelings of same-gender attraction were completely acceptable, and indeed, a vital part of who she was. She felt that even given the chance to change her sexual orientation, she would not do it because to do so would be sacrificing an integral part of herself. Her apathy was both a little comforting and scary.

Goldilocks found himself bothered by both of these queers. PapaQueer really seemed to need some therapy. He had an unhealthy self-image and seemed to be in denial. MamaQueer was much happier, but seemed to be oblivious to the conflict between her image of herself and the eternal role Goldilocks understood she could someday fulfill.

Then the wee BabyQueer spoke up. BabyQueer's view seemed just right. He accepted his same-gender attraction as an incidental part of his identity, nothing to worry about necessarily, but also as something that needed some careful attention as sexuality is an important issue. He wanted his views to deepen and mature with healthy mental attitudes and spiritual insights, and so gave the matter quite a bit of thought. "Change" was never out of the question. In fact, change seemed like the best solution and worth some investigation. However, if change were not possible, that would be okay. He planned to spend time thinking and reading on the subject, but to avoid obsessing about it or making it the primary concern of his life. Deliberate and proactive, but not obsessive.

Goldilocks wanted to kiss BabyQueer, but realized that would be counter-productive. So, he left and went to sleep because it's going to be a long night in the hospital.

The end.

Fat and sassy

Although we may wish for all challenges to be taken away on this side of the veil, the Lord may have other plans for us. We do try, however, to encourage each young man who visits us to stop focusing on trying to change his sexual orientation. We feel that if a person focuses only on changing from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation, he or she fails to see that same-gender attraction is only a very small part of who he or she really is.

Marilyn Matis in In Quiet Desperation

Which is also why I've decided to try not to worry about weighing 400 pounds. Because focusing on that 225 pounds of fat really makes me fail to see that it's only a very small part of who I am.

No... wait a minute. [Silently doing math in my head.]

I don't see why focusing on something that concerns you is a bad thing. Sure, we may ask and be denied several times for the thorn of our flesh, whatever it is, to be taken away. But is the asking a bad idea? I don't think so at all. It's a good idea (with all the caveats and perspective fine-tuned).

And despite all the talk of learning from challenges, and how challenges are blessings, etc., at the end of the day I'm happy to be through with them. There will always be more, and if this challenge can be completely eliminated rather than relegated to the backseat, all the better. Either way, I recognize that I'm much more than this one challenge. 225 pounds more, to be exact.

P.S. I'm not that fat.
P.P.S. Many apologies to any of you who are.

The missing option

When the second season of The Office ended with Jim finally telling Pam he loved her, I had to wonder what they would do with the third season. There was no way they were getting rid of either of two of the best characters and there was no way they were going to get together. Getting together equals living happily ever after (and no more advertising revenue) while staying apart with lots of torment and sexual tension brings the hearts and spending dollars of the masses back for more and more (but would be unbelievable). I couldn't imagine the show going forward with them together or apart. There had to be a third option. When I finally saw what that option was... it was brilliant. Yet obvious enough that I felt really stupid.

Subject change to ex-gay efforts. Criticisms of ex-gays often focus on the therapy that is supposed to have accomplished it for them. Reparative therapy is extremely inefficient, even by the most favorable data, succeeding in only a fraction of the folks who undergo the therapy. Those whose blogs I've read who have tried reparative therapy in one form or another haven't found much (if any) change in their sexual orientation. But some folks reportedly have changed, and I'm left to wonder if the therapy was incidental--a confounder in the real journey that only obscures the actual events that contributed to change.

Through Sam's blog I found a great blog that discusses ex-gay ministries. The author describes her objections to reparative therapy and the psychological theories behind it in a post that concludes with a description of an alternate approach that she found more effective. While I appreciate her approach and agree that it could be workable for lots of folks, I wonder if there's not something better... something brilliant that I haven't run across yet. Maybe it hasn't even been figured out yet. There may be an option for someone like me that I'm not even aware of. I'll try to put my finger on it, but if any of you find a missing option, let me know.

Hefting hate

Protean posted and Mark commented on a book about ex-gay ministries called Straight to Jesus. I read the review article in question and it really pissed me off. I think the book sounds quite interesting, but the Solon article was a biased piece of trash. Here are a few favorite parts:

Erzen wasn't interested in collecting fodder for political battles, though, and that's what makes "Straight to Jesus" so enlightening. As an ethnographer, she made every effort to listen to and understand everyone at New Hope Ministry, whether or not she agreed with their beliefs (and it's fairly clear that most of the time she didn't). That's practically unheard of in most popular discussions of charged issues like homosexuality -- and rare in scholarly discussions, too. Nowadays, everyone's convinced that they already know everything the other side has to say and that actually having to listen to it would constitute an insupportable demand on their own patience. Everyone thinks their side of the argument never gets any exposure, yet rabid, ranting opinion of all varieties howls at us everywhere we turn.

Hey crazy lady, have you looked at yourself? You are a loon who I doubt would know a politically neutral position if it bit you on the ass. As evidence:

In fact, scandals involving the sex lives of ex-gay movement leaders are so common (even one of the straight leaders, Kent Philpott, got busted for fooling around with his adopted daughter), that it's hard for anyone outside the evangelical right to take them seriously. Add that to several prominent cases of parents forcing their gay teenage children into scary camps like Love in Action's Refuge, an "intensive discipleship program" -- and the fact that no reputable professional psychological organization endorses the idea that homosexuality is a mental "disorder" that can be "cured" -- and the image of a pack of dangerous cultists is cemented.

I have heard this same ridiculous song and dance over and over in the discussion. Attack carefully selected ex-gays' credibility, then generalize that character attack to all and conclude none can possibly be honest, have anything relevant or cogent to say, or be motivated by something good, and you should fit right in with the howling you describe. Or, better yet, go with nuance: "a pack of dangerous cultists."

Because they could never reconcile these deeply rooted beliefs with their homosexual behavior and relationships, those behaviors and relationships could never be truly joyful or satisfying, and because they had never had joyful or satisfying homosexual experiences, they assume that gay life is inherently empty and destructive.
...
Still, whatever the benefits these men get from evangelical Christianity, their religion is no more a rational choice than their sexuality is. Even when opting not to believe seems the only and obvious healthy, life-affirming alternative, these men -- some of them educated and sophisticated -- can't manage it.

Yes, conclusions about gay life are all about irrational religious beliefs by those with no positive gay experiences. It has nothing to do with statistics about suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, life expectancy, etc. Clearly because they are religious they are irrational, and because they disagree with you, they are wrong.

I commented on Protean's post a bit about this, but I wanted to go into a little more detail. I don't mind the idea of the book--it sounds like a good read. I don't even mind the author's personal position on ex-gays and reparative therapy in general. What I do mind is the incessant character attacks on the religious, reparative therapy practitioners, and ex-gay ministry leaders. It's hateful, venomous, hypocritical, and I'm sick and tired of the unfettered hate hefted out there on the public like so much flying manure to fertilize the grassroots efforts of activists.

Joseph Nicolosi, 2

Motivation to change has repeatedly been found to be a primary predictor of success in treatment. Motivation means the client is unambivalent in rejecting a homosexual identity and is striving toward heterosexuality. Other indicators of favorable prognosis are lack of indulgence in self-pity, a positive sense of self, and the ego-strength to tolerate stress and frustration. Heterosexual fantasies and dreams are also strongly favorable. Also the stronger family relationships the client has, the better his prognosis.

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

Is change something I really want? Not always, to be honest, but it's something I want to want. Premish recently got me thinking about desire to change. I've thought about it before in a more broad sense: when I'm hungry, would I rather be fed or just have the hunger eliminated altogether. Logically, they result in the same thing, satiety. But when I'm hungry, I don't WANT to have the hunger simply removed, I want it to be gratified. I suppose there's something psychological about that, but I'm far from insightful enough to realize what it is and if someone were to try to tell me I would most likely laugh them off.

Well, maybe I'll give it a try. Maybe there's something deep down that recognizes that a hunger has its basis in a real need--that just removing the hunger doesn't fill the need for sustenance. And my sexual hunger is reflective of a real need that will never be satisfied by castrating myself emotionally or physically, figuratively or literally. Further, in the case of sexual desire, the physical itch can be gratified without ever touching the underlying need for companionship and intimacy. That, I believe, is why I believe sexual and emotional needs cry to be met and it's hard for me sometimes to even WANT to change.

And I suppose that's why I find Nicolosi's theories so compelling. I'm as prone as the next person to label a person or his work as categorically good or bad, right or wrong, treasure or trash, but that's a lazy generalization. When I give him a charitable read, I realize that despite a number of flaws, I have much to learn from this man and his research. The etiology he suggest fits with my concept of neither sufficient nor necessary causes for homosexual orientation, and matches surprisingly well with events and conditions in my own past. My sexual, emotional, and intimacy needs can be met without behaving in a way contrary to what I know God expects of me. How to manage it is the game currently afoot. A game I think I'm winning, I might add.

A line at the beginning of the treatment section of the book made me stop in my tracks. He said, "I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation." I found it to be repulsive on the surface. After a moment I realized that he means merely to conclude from his psychological work that homosexuality is a symptom of other identity and developmental problems that prevent complete well-being. From a secular point of view, I don't think he has sufficient data to conclude that, nor does his theory seem to require it. But, do I really believe that is true? I surprise myself by resisting the idea pretty strongly. Why should I resist, when that is exactly the core reason for church doctrine on the subject? If I believe the Proclamation on the Family (and I do), then I can't avoid drawing the conclusion that homosexuality is an obstacle to true peace. I feel almost like I need to apologize to my gay friends for believing this, but I suppose that's my strong-willed personality traits coming through (stumbling all over myself trying not to offend, to get everyone on the same page... well you can see that I've managed to survive a number of failures on that front in the past!).

Other than my fantasies and dreams, I think I've got some pretty good prognostic indicators in my favor. I look forward to loving more, believing in myself more, and struggling for lofty goals.

Index of Joseph Nicolosi posts:
Joseph Nicolosi, 1
Sensitivity
Limitations of gay love
Causes
Affirmative therapy
Self-acceptance
Joseph Nicolosi, 2

Sensitivity

Contributing to my retreat into homosexuality was that I was one of those sensitive, "artistic" children with neither the talent nor interest in any of the usual "masculine" pursuits. I hated physical activity--sports and games most of all--and when I would make an effort to be a part of the gang I would fail so miserably to perform well that for a long time afterward I would suffer from the shame of ineptitude.... I was a classic case in that I (later) felt out of place in a man's world, and comfortable and capable in a more esoteric environment.

Willam Aaron in his biography as quoted by
Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

I got straight A's through elementary school except one C in gym. I embarrassed myself with regularity in P.E. during middle school and by the time I got to high school I was all sorts of enthusiastic to avoid P.E. altogether by being in the marching band. I hated church basketball and softball because I couldn't handle being the charity case. My mom always told me I had "thin skin" and I shouldn't worry so much about what other people think. I was too sensitive, she said. As an adult, I've been told I "throw like a girl". I hate it when conversations turn to sports or cars during social events--topics I know virtually NOTHING about.

Compare that with my less masculine abilities. I love performing in theater, singing, playing the piano, I'm quite a good artist, I have a great eye for design and photography, and I like cooking and gardening. I'm damn good at all that stuff and I know it. People respect me when I, for example, have my art in a professional show, and I'm proud of myself. So proud, I occasionally feel smarter and more sophisticated than the guys who woop at Monday night football and talk up Harley Davidsons. I find myself alternately disdainful and envious of them at odd times.

I just can't get myself to believe there is nothing to what Nicolosi is getting at. Sure, he presents his info in a way that bothers me (pretty much all social sciences do), but if I get past that, it compels me.

Instinct

In reality we have not advanced one step. I will not insist on the point that Instinct is a name for we know not what (to say that migratory birds find their way by instinct is only to say that we do not know how migratory birds find their way), for I think it is here being used in a fairly definite sense, to mean an unreflective or spontaneous impulse widely felt by the members of a given species. In what way does Instinct, thus conceived, help us to find "real" values? Is it maintained that we must obey instinct, that we cannot do otherwise? But if so, why are the Green Books and the like written? Why this stream of exhortation to drive us where we cannot help going? Why such praise for those who have submitted to the inevitable?

C.S.Lewis,
in The Abolition of Man

I cannot understand the maxim that a person’s sexual orientation touches all parts of his life. Nor that it is so intertwined that pulling it out would spiritually eviscerate a person by removing a vital part of their being. Sexual arousal and performance are complicated physiologic phenomena of a human organism. Perhaps one might say they are instinctive. There is certainly an autonomic component in the medical sense. Were that instinct to change, would the creature cease to be himself? Does a disoriented duck, having lost the instinct to fly south, become any less a duck? Does an infant lose its humanity when it grows out of the Moro reflex? People change aspects of their personality as well as their physical nature all the time without becoming a different person. Why would this be any different?

I can only conclude that I either misunderstand or that it is easy to confuse sexual orientation with romantic love, platonic love, brotherly fellowship, and other expressions of appropriate intimacy, all of which are genuine needs that would remain were sexual orientation to evolve.