It's been far too long since I blogged. This has mainly been because I've been busy with work, family stuff, coven stuff, and illness. However, I hope to get back to things soon. For right now, I just wanted to share and comment on a recent French McDonald's ad that has been receiving some attention lately.
Personally, I think it's sweet, classy, and absolutely perfect. I know some detractors have asked what it has to do with eating at McDonald's. Well, to be honest, I don't think it has much to do with eating at McDonald's other than it's a way of saying that everyone from all walks of lives are welcome, which is the point of the greater "come as you are" campaign of which this ad is a part. But even if we don't accept that argument, let's be honest here. So much of the grist for so many of today's advertising campaigns have so little to do with the product or service being promoted, it's hardly reasonable to single this one ad out. People never bothered asking what a talking gecko driving a sports car really had to do with car insurance, just to point out one example. (And don't get me wrong, I adore that little green guy!)
And personally, I think the gay theme is done so tastefully and almost understated, that people like Bill O'Reilly just look all that much more stupid for making a fuss over it.
Recently in Gay Issues Category
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
This is also an important issue because while some manifestations of homophobia are easy to spot, some are far more subtle, easily rationalized, and therefore more insidious in some ways. It's easy to spot and speak out against thugs who go around beating up gay people. It's pretty easy to spot and stop the school bully who calls smaller boys "queer" and otherwises taunts them. It's much harder to spot and address the more decent, mild mannered person who still manages to be homophobic in subtler ways, the person who might not even be aware that what they're doing is homophobic.
Some will complain -- and quite loudly -- that believing that same sex sexual relationships are wrong or immoral is not homophobic. Most days, I'm inclined to agree with them. I think that such a belief is wrong and wrong-headed. But I don't think taht such a belief in itself homophobic.
However, beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, and one of the biggest problems with such a belief is that it usually leads to actions that are homophobic. So while keeping in mind that believing that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong is not homophobic, I'd like to point out some of the subsequent homophobic pitfalls that someone who holds such beliefs might fall into.
Refusing to befriend, get to know, and actually listen to gay people simply because they are gay is homophobic. If concern for maintaining the purity of your beliefs gets in the way of being a friendly and personable individual, that's something you will need to address.
Having "gay friends," but quickly changing the subject whenever they start discussing their love life or romantic interests is homophobic. Real friends don't get to pick and choose what aspects of their friends lives they're open to. They don't even ask for such a privilege.
Making assumptions about what gay people are like, what they value in their relationships, and what their sex lives are like (and if you're spending that much time thinking about that last one, ew!) is homophobic. Gay people are people too, and we can be very diverse. Making assumptions based solely on who we are attracted too is wrong on a number of levels, including the homophobic level.
There are many other such examples. In short, any way in which someone treats or thinks of an LGBT person differently from other people -- often in ways that are dehumanizing -- is homophobic.
The good news is that people can do something about homophobia. We just need to work on making people aware of its existence and the need to change the way things are.
Image by tdietmut via Flickr
Their "survey," however, is instructive. It demonstrates just how willing they are to put out leading questions that are worded in such a way that they practically beg to be answered they way PAUS wants people to answer them. It's much like using the infamous "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and only giving the options to answer yes or no. What idiot is going to answer that question "no," even if he's never beat his wife.
So with that in mind, I want to take a moment to examine their five questions, dissect them, and demonstrate just how manipulative and misleading they are.
1. Should homosexuals receive special job rights and force businesses, schools, churches and even daycares to hire and advance homosexuals or face prosecution and multimillion-dollar lawsuits?
I believe that all employers should base their hiring decisions on exactly one thing: The applicant's ability to perform the duties of the job being applied for. And that's exactly what non-discrimination legislation is about. It's not about "special rights." It's a way of telling employers that, "Hey, if the guy applying for that job happens to be gay and that's the only reason you're not giving it to him, that's discrimination and you're breaking the law." Personally, I'd add that any employer who turns down a highly candidate for such a reason should not be an employer because they're probably not a very good one. They certainly don't have the best interests of their business or organization in mind. That also tends to make them rather immoral, in my book.
But rather than own up to discriminating, engaging in bad hiring practices, and being and incompetent and immoral employer, it's much easier to pretend it's about "special rights" and being "forced" into everything. No one wants to oppose a victim, so they'd rather play the victim. And hey, what's a little dishonesty? Like I said, they're just against sex.
2. Do you support the use of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to fund homosexual "art", so called AIDS-awareness programs and homosexual research grants that are frequently funneled to political advocacy?
I'm a strong believer that all art should be supported, and I find it interesting that these guys are only opposed to "homosexual" art. I can understand and respect those people who believe that all art should be privately funded (though I disagree vehemently with them) because they're being consistent. These guys, however, are going for the shock value of funding "gay art."
And I really would like to ask PAUS about what they would do about AIDS? Just let everyone who becomes infected die? Not very compassionate. That's another traditional values failure on their part.
3. Should homosexuality be promoted in school as a healthy lifestyle choice, while information about the life threatening consequences are ignored?
The only life threatening consequences of "homosexuality" are the same life-threatening consequences of that anyone of any sexual orientation potentially faces. Straight people contract HIV and other STD's as well. What's more, the approaches to address and decrease those dangers is also the same for gay and heterosexual people alike. People like the PAUS simply like to pretend that there's bigger risks for gay people. However, the only support they have for those claims comes from outdated and/or bad (junk) science.
And no one's suggesting that we shouldn't have a frank talk about health risks and ways of preventing illness. I'm all for talking about the very real risks of sexual activity. The difference between me and PAUS is that I don't want to use that talk to scare and manipulate (that's another values failure, for those keeping track) people into doing what I want them to do. I simply want them to be able to make informed decisions. The PAUS wants them to make the "right" (determined by the PAUS, of course) decision based on misleading or outright false information.
4. Do you support same-sex "marriage" for homosexuals or "marriage-like" rights, like homosexuals being able to adopt children and raise them in their "lifestyle"?
Oh no! The gays are raising children. You can almost hear the implied screams of "They're recruiting" buried in this question. There's just one problem. There's absolutely zero evidence that a child raised by gay people is any more likely to be gay than those raised by straight people. And let's be honest here, gay people just aren't going to care whether their kid is straight or gay. This is more fear-mongering by PAUS.
5. Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn traditional marriage between one man and one woman?
The problem with this question is that it ignores the fact that the "traditional family" that people like PAUS keep touting is a fabrication of the 1950's. People two hundred years ago did not marry for love, something that is big these days. They often were involved in arranged marriages, and they were often for political reasons. They also often involved paying a dowry. Like the bumper sticker says, "I believe in traditional marriage. How much do you want for your daughter."
In fact, the Bible makes it pretty clear that a one-man, one-woman marriage was far from the only possible or acceptable arrangement. The number of Biblical heroes -- men established as God-fearing men and mighty instruments of Jehovah's will -- had multiple wives and even concubines. And to top that off, considering that the only two Biblical prohibitions against polygamy were directed at specific groups of individuals (namely kings and ministers), one could argue that the underlying implication is that polygamy is perfectly acceptable. Somehow, I don't think the PAUS will be looking to support quite such a "literal" interpretation of those passages, though. ;)
But the PAUS would rather have you believe that this is the first time our understanding of love, marriage, and relationships has undergone any sort of shift. This is because they want to let you believe that this will spell certain doom. If gay people start getting married, existing stable families will magically crumble to dust (I never understood how that's supposed to work, anyway) and no one will ever want to raise a family again. Because if you let us gay get married, your desire for a spouse and 2.5 kids will get absorbed by the resulting gay mojo that will be released or something. Hey, the PAUS doesn't need to make sense. They just need to prey on your fears enough that you do whatever they tell you to.
So there you have it. That's how moralistic groups that like to pretend they're about "traditional values" spin and manipulate the facts to try and get people to agree with them. But don't believe it for a second. You won't find any true morality in them.
I've watched a number of movies that have dealt with the theme of young men coming to terms with being gay. However, it is the rare movie that explores that theme with the intensity and rawness as Shank, the British film directed by Simon Pearce. In this film, Pearce gives us a glimpse into the life of Cal, a teenage gang member who is trying to hide his sexual orientaion from his fellow thugs.
The movie quickly introduces us to Cal, who copes with his feelings by engaging in random sexual encounters, drug use, and gang violence. The first few scenes show the gritty nature of his life in the gang. However, Cal's life suddenly changes when his best mate, Jonno, and their de facto leader, Nessa, decide to pick on poor Olivier, a French exchange student who is stereotypically and somewhat flamboyantly gay. In a moment of conscience and fear -- and perhaps seeing too much of himself and his potential fate in Olivier and the treatment he receives -- Cal stops the pair from beating the French boy, allows him to escape, and then abandons his fellow thugs to apologize to Olivier and offer him a lift home.
Cal attempts to return to his gang's hideout later, only to discover that he is not only unwelcome, but an acceptable target for his former comrades' anger and violence. Cal escapes and returns to Olivier, and the pair soon get involved in a rocky, tenuous relationship. However, Nessa and the other gang members discover Cal's secret and begin to hunt down the pair.
This movie is a masterful blending of grit (to rival FAQ's and Ethan Mao) and tender sensuality, demonstrating the storm of emotions that Cal experiences as he is tugged in different directions. All of the actors play their parts well, filling each scene with emotion through words, tone of voice, body gestures, and expression. Even characters like Nessa, whose deeper motives for her anger and rage towards Cal are beautifully fore-shadowed toward the beginning of the movie, are given a great deal of attention and depth.
One particularly interesting piece of cinematography in this movie was the use of the cell phone video footage. The gang always recorded their acts of violence via cell phone, and this fact was used in the movie to hint at violence to come at times. It was an interesting way of adding a bit of suspense at critical moments.
My one criticism of this movie would be that there's a bit more synchronicity in the movie than is really reasonable. For example, it's entirely too convenient that the first sexual encounter Cal has with the movie is with Scott, who later turns out to be one of Olivier's university instructors. There were other coincidences involving Scott, which I will not go into, as it would reveal too much about how the movie concludes.
As a final note, I would warn readers that this is a very violent movie and even includes sexual violence. Those who are bothered or emotionally trigger by such things should either skip this one or take appropriate precautions when sitting down to watch it.
Image via Wikipedia
Fire Lyte makes the sound observation that different jobs allow for different levels of being open about one's spirituality and sexuality. I know that as software engineer, I'm in a position of great comfort. An old coworker once summed up the engineers' situations when he commented that he once overheard a conversation between two managers discussing the engineering department on a previous job. The older manager told his junior, "They're a weird lot. But they get the job done, so leave them alone." My own experience has verified the truth of that mentality, that most people in charge of engineers are willing to overlook just about any "personality quirk" as long as the person in question proves themselves an invaluable resource. As such, I can be relatively open about both my sexuality and my spirituality without worrying about my job. Someone who is in a teaching position or -- to go back to Fire Lyte's example -- who is working for children in a governmental capacity may not be so lucky. To them, an alternate spirituality or sexuality could be a liability to them.
Fire Lyte's advice on the matter is to be conscious of this, both when making decisions about how out to be in their current job or in deciding what job opportunities to pursue. This is certainly sound advice from an individual perspective, and I support the idea that an individual's first concern should be his or her own well-being. Principles don't matter as much when you can't afford to buy food.
However, the down-side to that advice is that it does tend to reinforce the status quo rather than challenge it. And as an idealist, this is one area where I certainly would like to see the status quo challenged and eventually broken. To accomplish that, someone somewhere -- quite probably a lot of soemones in a lot of different somewheres -- are going to have to push their luck and take risks.
Part of the problem, as Fire Lyte noted, is that people have all these strange ideas about Pagans (and gay people), and that if you happen to be the only person that your employer or others know that is Pagan (or gay), then you have an uphill battle to fight, and one that your employer or others in power may not be willing to let you fight.
The problem is, there's ultimately only one permanent solution to that scenario: Pagans (and gay people) need to become more visible. As long as we stay hidden because it's easier, then people will remain unconfronted with and uninformed about us. As I said, we only reinforce the status quo.
This doesn't mean that I think everyone should run out and tell their boss, their neighbors, or anyone else that they are Pagan (or gay). I don't think everyone should slap a pentacle or pride flag on their desk at work, their car, or their living room window (my landlord made me take mine down due to a lease violation). I may be an idealist, but I'm not a moron. But there are those of us who can take risks -- and there are different levels of risk that different people can take -- that would go a long way.
There are those of us in jobs where we are secure, either due to the nature of the job or the fact that we are invaluable to our employer. And I'd encourage those who have been at their job for five years or more (yes, such loyal employees still do exist, though they're rare) to think about how they might have the job security to push the boundaries a little. Because the only way we can gain more visibility and more understanding is to be more visible.
I'll also note that the advantage of having been at a job for a long time before coming out is that you're an established person. Rather than being an unknown individual who is a "weird Pagan," you become a known hard worker who happens to be a "weird Pagan." And ultimately, I think that's what we need. We need to be seen as full individuals.
As I said, there are different levels of risk. This most directly translates into different levels of being "out." "Coming out" at work can be something as simple as telling a couple of trusted coworkers (or even a trusted manager) in confidence. The whole office doesn't necessarily need to know, and even the increased awareness of one or two people can have positive and radical results in the long term. I'm reminded of the job I had in Ithaca. During the four years I was there, I kept a picture of my boyfriend on my desk. The only two people who commented on it the entire time I was there originally assumed it was a picture of my brother. I politely informed them each that the handsome man was my boyfriend. The one said nothing more, while the other became a better friend. I'm not sure what anyone else in the office made of the picture. For all I know, the others still assumed he was my brother, and I was content to let them assume that.
In the end, each person must make their own choices when it comes to the closet(s) and how "out" they want to be at work, in their community, or in other aspect of their lives. Each person must decide what level of risk he or she is willing to take, and I would not dream of dictating such important choices to others. Bu I would encourage everyone to consider again what level of risk they might be willing to live with if it means a long-term improvement for all Pagans (and/or gay people).
Image by Megadeth's Girl via Flickr
The other morning, there was a knock on my door. A couple in their late twenties stood there with a clipboard, and asked to talk to me about domestic violence. They showed me some frightening statistics about the number of men and women who are abused and beaten by their spouses. They had both statistics for the nation and our own county. They then asked me to help put an end to domestic violence, showing me a petition in support of new legislation that would call for stricter sentencing for those convicted of domestic violence, budget for the creation of programs to better train police officers to respond to and investigate claims of domestic violence, and other measures.
I decided not to sign the petition. Instead, I decided to hand them a card, that says the following:
I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.
I strongly believe that domestic violence is wrong and I would never hurt another person, even my own spouse. So I'm offering my pledge to the golden rule in response to the issue of domestic violence.
The point:
I suspect that many of my readers are having a rather predictable reaction to the above story. I can just hear people like Eileen (assuming she still reads me) getting ready to type a lengthy comment about how serious domestic violence and simply promising to treat others well in accordance with the Golden Rule isn't nearly enough. And I'm in total agreement with her.
I've had the exact same reaction the last two years when Dr. Warren Throckmorton began to propose the Golden Rule Pledge as an appropriate response to The Day Of Silence, an annual event meant to raise awareness of anti-gay bullying and other mistreatment of gay people (or people who are merely perceived as gay) that takes place all over this country and to advocate for such bullying to stop.
Now, in Dr. Throckmorton's defense, I will note that his response to The Day of Silence is far superior to other responses proposed by other conservative Christian groups. The Golden Rule Pledge is far better than The Day of Truth or merely proposing that all Christians avoid school during The Day of Silence. And I give him credit for not trying to paint a day dedicated to the idea that it's wrong to bully and mistreat gay people as some horrible, immoral idea.
But in the end, I find it a weak response at best. It's great that Dr. Throckmorton and those with him are willing to promise to treat others well. However, I also want to know what they're going to do about the bullying and mistreatment being propagated by others who don't share their commitment to the Golden Rule. Saying you won't mistreat gay people while still standing by while others do so just doesn't cut it in my book. In my mind, justice demands that right-minded people stand up to the bullies and say, "What you are doing is wrong and you must stop." Confronting the injustice head-on is absolutely essential. And in that respect, I feel the Golden Rule Pledge fails miserably, just as such a pledge in response to domestic violence fails miserably.
I'm going to take a break from analyzing Patrick Strudwick's article about conversion therapy. I decided that I wanted to take some time to instead address a more personal invitation to the person who found my blog using the following search phrase:
Hello, dear reader. I want to take a moment to welcome you to my blog and my greater site. I'm glad you found me, and I hope you find my writings helpful to you. To be honest, your search phrase suggests that you need a great deal of compassion, understanding, and encouragement. I hope that you find some small portion of it here. After all, it's one of the reasons I write this blog and work on some of my other writing projects.
You see, I have a pretty good idea of the kind of inner turmoil that caused you to type in that search phrase. I've probably felt the same way, myself. In fact, I found myself in a pretty dark place when I was first struggling with my sexuality. So I can tell you that as dark as things may seem, things can get better. There is light at the end of all that confusion.
Granted, it can be a difficult process getting there, and like any life, yours is bound to have it's sad and painful moments. But anyone who promises you a life that's devoid of such moments is a con artist. And I believe that in time, you will find that the beautiful and joyful moments. And you'll discover more about yourself, and might even be surprised by the strength and other qualities you have inside of yourself.
Most importantly, you'll find that even while confused, you don't have to be alone. There will always be people you can turn to and talk to. (You'll even find friends you can turn to in "real life.") There are other sources of comfort. Even little chance encounters can be a source of surprise and comfort in their own little ways. And in time, you'll find that it will help you a lot.
So if you come back and read this, I'd invite you to stick around. Please explore what I have to say. Please visit some of the friends' blogs I list in my right sidebar. You may find many of them quite helpful and inspiring as well. I know I have. And if you're really daring, please feel free to contact me. (There should be a link to email me at the bottom of this post.) I promise to listen. I promise to answer any question as honestly as I can, even if that answer is "I don't know."
Again, dear reader, I want to welcome you to my blog. I hope you find something to help you with your confusion and inner turmoil, even if it's just a moment's respite.
oh god please help me i'm gay and confused iwant to feel loved i can't stand working: i don't.
Hello, dear reader. I want to take a moment to welcome you to my blog and my greater site. I'm glad you found me, and I hope you find my writings helpful to you. To be honest, your search phrase suggests that you need a great deal of compassion, understanding, and encouragement. I hope that you find some small portion of it here. After all, it's one of the reasons I write this blog and work on some of my other writing projects.
You see, I have a pretty good idea of the kind of inner turmoil that caused you to type in that search phrase. I've probably felt the same way, myself. In fact, I found myself in a pretty dark place when I was first struggling with my sexuality. So I can tell you that as dark as things may seem, things can get better. There is light at the end of all that confusion.
Granted, it can be a difficult process getting there, and like any life, yours is bound to have it's sad and painful moments. But anyone who promises you a life that's devoid of such moments is a con artist. And I believe that in time, you will find that the beautiful and joyful moments. And you'll discover more about yourself, and might even be surprised by the strength and other qualities you have inside of yourself.
Most importantly, you'll find that even while confused, you don't have to be alone. There will always be people you can turn to and talk to. (You'll even find friends you can turn to in "real life.") There are other sources of comfort. Even little chance encounters can be a source of surprise and comfort in their own little ways. And in time, you'll find that it will help you a lot.
So if you come back and read this, I'd invite you to stick around. Please explore what I have to say. Please visit some of the friends' blogs I list in my right sidebar. You may find many of them quite helpful and inspiring as well. I know I have. And if you're really daring, please feel free to contact me. (There should be a link to email me at the bottom of this post.) I promise to listen. I promise to answer any question as honestly as I can, even if that answer is "I don't know."
Again, dear reader, I want to welcome you to my blog. I hope you find something to help you with your confusion and inner turmoil, even if it's just a moment's respite.
In this post, I continue my examination of Patrick Strudwick's article where he describes his first-hand investigation into the world of conversion therapy. Just as my last post focused on Patrick's sessions with Lynne, this post will explore the sessions that he had with David.
Patrick starts this section of the article by indicating that he and David are conducting these therapy sessions using Skype and webcams. Just as I noted the strangeness of Lynn holding a scheduled therapy session over the phone, I find the idea of holding therapy sessions over the Internet to be highly questionable. Once again, I fin myself wondering how well a therapist can handle a situation from a distance if something particular difficult or traumatic comes up during the session.
David starts the sessions by giving Patrick a highly positive prognosis. In fact, David indicates that one third of people seeking reparative therapy face complete change, while another third experience significant change (a phrase that is rather vague). The problem with David's claims here is that there is no evidence to substantiate them. There are no comprehensive studies on the success rates of conversion therapy. In fact, the only recent study on the topic doesn't match up to David's claims, despite the fact that some have heavily criticized that study. So here we have a therapist who is making promise based on claims that are not backed up by evidence. Again, this is nothing less than playing into a client's insecurities, and is rather unethical.
David then moves into the same talk about both religion and masculinity. Apparently, conversion therapists are still trapped in this notion that homosexuality and not being "masculine" are somehow inextricably linked. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of both sexual orientation and masculinity. Part of David's therapy involves Patrick examining himself in the mirror while affirming and touching his own body. I find this a very strange practice and don't see any psychological model that would explain how this would affect one's same-sex attractions.
David's approach to conversion therapy is odd in that he asks Patrick to reinterpret all of his actions and feelings. David suggests that there must be some hidden meaning behind every attraction and emotional experience he has. He interprets everything as a manifestation of some hidden wound. Again, I find this a strange practice rather than simply accepting one's feelings and attractions for what they are until a reason to look for another interpretation arises. I certainly find his idea of "homosexuality as cannibalism" a rather weird notion, and seems to say more about conversion therapists' needs to pathologize something as natural as desire and love.
Like Lynne, David looks to Patrick's relationship with his parents as possible cause for his homosexuality. Unlike Lynne, David does seem to pay attention to what Patrick says and tries to mold his theories to Patrick's life rather than trying to rewrite the client's history to fit the model. Particularly, David suggests that Patrick over-identified with his mother due to the fact that he was creative and extroverted like her and under-identification with his father. David suggests that this pattern led to a lack of masculine identity in Patrick, which he then sought to compensate by latching onto strong men in a sexual relationship. Again, we find ourselves circling the conversion therapists' inability to separate their notions of masculinity from sexual orientation. It is perfectly possible for a gay man to be masculine, and I have known more than one heterosexual man who didn't meet such rigid notions of masculinity. (In fact, such heterosexual men are often the biggest critics of such narrow concepts of masculinity.)
In the next session, Patrick indicates that he's had sexual feelings for David. David seems rather unphased by this admission. David -- a self-identified ex-gay himself -- also acknowledges that he still has "echoes" of sexual feelings towards men. This makes the next part of Patrick's therapy session particularly shocking -- as if what happens next isn't shocking in its own right.
I suppose it comes as little surprise that David reveals that his supervisor is associated in some way with Richard Cohen. Patrick notes in his article that Cohen was expelled from the American Counseling Association. He doesn't note that many ex-gay ministries and conversion therapists distanced themselves from Cohen for a while when Cohen's disturbing "holding therapy" got strong media attention. Cohen's approach to therapy seemed inappropriately sexualized and intimate, so it's unsurprising that other therapists associated with him would have equally problematic practices.
Related articles by Zemanta
Patrick starts this section of the article by indicating that he and David are conducting these therapy sessions using Skype and webcams. Just as I noted the strangeness of Lynn holding a scheduled therapy session over the phone, I find the idea of holding therapy sessions over the Internet to be highly questionable. Once again, I fin myself wondering how well a therapist can handle a situation from a distance if something particular difficult or traumatic comes up during the session.
David starts the sessions by giving Patrick a highly positive prognosis. In fact, David indicates that one third of people seeking reparative therapy face complete change, while another third experience significant change (a phrase that is rather vague). The problem with David's claims here is that there is no evidence to substantiate them. There are no comprehensive studies on the success rates of conversion therapy. In fact, the only recent study on the topic doesn't match up to David's claims, despite the fact that some have heavily criticized that study. So here we have a therapist who is making promise based on claims that are not backed up by evidence. Again, this is nothing less than playing into a client's insecurities, and is rather unethical.
David then moves into the same talk about both religion and masculinity. Apparently, conversion therapists are still trapped in this notion that homosexuality and not being "masculine" are somehow inextricably linked. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of both sexual orientation and masculinity. Part of David's therapy involves Patrick examining himself in the mirror while affirming and touching his own body. I find this a very strange practice and don't see any psychological model that would explain how this would affect one's same-sex attractions.
David's approach to conversion therapy is odd in that he asks Patrick to reinterpret all of his actions and feelings. David suggests that there must be some hidden meaning behind every attraction and emotional experience he has. He interprets everything as a manifestation of some hidden wound. Again, I find this a strange practice rather than simply accepting one's feelings and attractions for what they are until a reason to look for another interpretation arises. I certainly find his idea of "homosexuality as cannibalism" a rather weird notion, and seems to say more about conversion therapists' needs to pathologize something as natural as desire and love.
Like Lynne, David looks to Patrick's relationship with his parents as possible cause for his homosexuality. Unlike Lynne, David does seem to pay attention to what Patrick says and tries to mold his theories to Patrick's life rather than trying to rewrite the client's history to fit the model. Particularly, David suggests that Patrick over-identified with his mother due to the fact that he was creative and extroverted like her and under-identification with his father. David suggests that this pattern led to a lack of masculine identity in Patrick, which he then sought to compensate by latching onto strong men in a sexual relationship. Again, we find ourselves circling the conversion therapists' inability to separate their notions of masculinity from sexual orientation. It is perfectly possible for a gay man to be masculine, and I have known more than one heterosexual man who didn't meet such rigid notions of masculinity. (In fact, such heterosexual men are often the biggest critics of such narrow concepts of masculinity.)
In the next session, Patrick indicates that he's had sexual feelings for David. David seems rather unphased by this admission. David -- a self-identified ex-gay himself -- also acknowledges that he still has "echoes" of sexual feelings towards men. This makes the next part of Patrick's therapy session particularly shocking -- as if what happens next isn't shocking in its own right.
"Close your eyes and focus on that arousal you're feeling down in your genitals," he says. "I want you to hear, as a man, as I look at your body, I see strong shoulders and a strong chest, I see a man who has an attractive body and I want you just to notice the arousal you feel as you hear me talking about that. Imagine an energy and picture that energy as a colour, and make the brightness of the colour relate to the intensity of the sexual feeling, so you might be starting to get a bit of a hard on, you might be starting to feel an erection and that sexual energy, but I want you to just picture that as a coloured light. What colour would it be?"This kind of talk strikes me as very intimate and sexualized. It certainly is not the kind of conversation I'd want to be having on a webcam session with my therapist during my second therapy session with him. And I certainly would not want to be going through this with a therapist who in one breath claims to be "cured" of homosexuality and admits he still has the occasional sexual thoughts about men in the next. David's entire approach to therapy seems highly sexualized and even voyeuristic. That alone strikes me as disturbing.
I suppose it comes as little surprise that David reveals that his supervisor is associated in some way with Richard Cohen. Patrick notes in his article that Cohen was expelled from the American Counseling Association. He doesn't note that many ex-gay ministries and conversion therapists distanced themselves from Cohen for a while when Cohen's disturbing "holding therapy" got strong media attention. Cohen's approach to therapy seemed inappropriately sexualized and intimate, so it's unsurprising that other therapists associated with him would have equally problematic practices.
Related articles by Zemanta
Today, while browsing the latest entries on Box Turtle Bulletin, I ran across a post that examined an Independent article. The Independent article, written by Patrick Strudwick, discusses reparative therapy. For the article, Strudwick had therapy sessions with two reparative therapists, Lynne and David. The bulk of the article describes what he was told in those therapy sessions.
After reading the article, I felt that these therapy sessions deserved careful consideration and analysis. The things that Strudwick was told by both Lynne and David are very telling about the whole conversion therapy process and the problems it poses. To that end, I want to take a close look at the therapy sessions with Lynne in this entry. I hope to do the same with the sessions with David in a future entry.
Lynne starts out the first therapy session by affirming that she believes homosexuality to be a mental illness, an addiction, and an anti-religion phenomenon. Bear in mind that the first two classifications are in direct contradiction to the position of every psychological and psychotherapy association out there (with the exception of NARTH, which was created specifically to peddle the notion that homosexuality is a mental illness) and all peer-reviewed research. This is important, because Lynne and other conversion therapists are already on shaky ground because they are seeking to treat something which doesn't apparently need to be treated. However, such therapists rely on the fact that their clients (or worse, their clients' families) are willing to believe their sexual orientation is an illness in need of correcting. In effect, they are playing off of their clients' own insecurities to sell an unnecessary (let alone ineffective) therapy. This willing to play to their clients' insecurities is highly unethical, and will play a bigger part in these therapies as we consider Lynne's investigation into the "causes" of Patrick's homosexuality.
Lynne then opens the session with prayer, the first sign that her therapy is going to be intermingled with a lot of religious material. This is evident when she asks Patrick if he is lustful about his same-sex attractions. That word gets thown around a lot in conservative religious circles, and I tend to think it's abused. Truth be told, there should be a certain amount of sexual desire in any romantic relationship. However, things get worse when Patrick also points out that he also felt what he considered sincere love in some of his relationships. Lynne dismisses this out of love, referring to it as "darkness." The conversion therapist's willingness to discount any feeling simply because it doesn't fit their model is unconscionable.
As is common among conversion therapists, Lynne starts asking about Patrick's family. Those familiar with the theories of Joseph Nicolosi will recognize that Lynne is trying to establish the distant father and overbearing mother that is so often given as a major cause of homosexuality. (I've always found this theory silly, since I have yet to meet any teenager who doesn't consider his mother overbearing at one time or another.) Patrick indicates that he had a loving family life. However, Lynne is not willing to let this particular theory go yet:
"Well, there was something happening within your family dynamics that led to your depression," she says.
The depression that Lynne is referring to is the depression that Patrick indicated that he was depressed as a teenager. What is notable about this, however, is that Patrick already stated the reason for this depression:
I tell her that I was depressed as a teenager because I feared I would face prejudice for the rest of my life.
Fearing that one will face prejudice for the rest of one's life is a perfectly legitimate reason to be depressed. However, Lynne discounts Patrick's explanation for his depression and inserts her own, based on nothing more than her desire to make Patrick's psychological profile fit her predefined notions about how homosexuality forms. This is questionable at best and downright unethical at worst. Again, bear in mind that most of Lynne's patients are coming to her in an emotionally vulnerable state. By disregarding the explanations they give her and inserting her own, she is pushing her own theories and views on them. In effect, she has ceased to be a therapist at all, but has become something much uglier. This desire to push her clients in the direction her theories say they should go will appear uglier later on.
After exploring rather curious theories about difficult births, neonatal intensive care, and the "spiritual effects" of Freemasonry (I'd love to see an attempt at peer-reviewed research on that last one!), Lynne begins asking about sexual abuse. Patrick indicates that he's never been abused. Once again, Lynne is unwilling to accept Patrick's analysis of his own life:
"I think it will be there," she replies, dropping her voice to a concerned tone. "It does need to come to the surface."
And so, she prays for me again. "Father, we give you permission to bring to the surface some of the things that have happened over the years. Father, enable your love to pour into that place of isolation in that little boy, whatever age, we give you permission to go there, with your healing power and your light, go into those parts, open all the doors, and access each one with your light."
She looks up. I ask her again about this abuse. "I think there is something there," she says. "You've allowed things to be done to u." In the next session I ask if she thinks the abuse would have taken place within my family, because I can't remember it. "Yes, very likely," she replies.
Once again, the therapist is trying to force her client to fit some predefined model rather than observing the real life story he presents and analyzing it honestly. And this is where her clients' emotional vulnerability come in. By pushing this idea that her client must have been abused, she is setting up the perfect situation for creating false memories. False memories have ruined lives -- both the lives of the supposed abusers and those of the victims. False memories also end up hurting those who really have experienced abuse and have forgotten or repressed, as it makes professionals more cautious about accepting even valid recovered memories. In short, Lynne is hurting a huge number of people simply for the sake of making a client's history fit her preconceived notions of what it should look like.
Patrick indicates that his next session with Lynne is over the phone. This single sentence makes my head spin. While I can certainly understand why a therapist might need to deal with an unexpected crisis with a client over the phone, I cannot imagine holding a planned therapy session over the phone. It strikes me as inefficient, and potentially risky. If any powerful or troubling emotions arise, Lynne is not present to handle the situation. It seems to me that it would make more sense to postpone or reschedule the session to a time when it can be held face-to-face. The fact that Lynne chose not to do so leads me to wonder if Lynne is the kind of person who puts conferences and lectures over the well-being of her clients. If so, then I hope someone will encourage her to leave clinical practice.
Lynne's first two suggestions during this session is that Patrick should (1) distance himself from his gay friends and (2) take up a sport, possibly rugby. First, I find it strange that any therapist would presume to have the kind of authority to make such suggestions. I understand that being critical of a clients' friendships and other relationships is not uncommon, especially if the relationships and friendships are unhealthy or promote unhealthy behavior. However, it's also my understanding that a therapist generally points out how they're unhealthy and/or promote unhealthy behavior and then allows the client to make their own choice. To actually suggest a course of action like Lynne has strikes me as assuming too much control.
Of course, there's also the fact that it's questionable whether Patrick's gay friends are promoting unhealthy behavior. Nothing in the article suggests that Patrick has given Lynne any reason to believe such a thing. It again strikes me as Lynne making assumptions rather than analyzing the person and relationships at hand.
The suggestion about taking up a sport always makes me laugh. Conversion therapists seem to have strange beliefs about the relationship between homosexuality and masculine stereotypes. Truth be told, they're two different subjects. Locally, we have a large number of gay men who are into volleyball and other sports. Many gay men are into body-building and other "masculine" activities. Others of us don't care for such activities, but it has nothing to do with our sexual orientation.
Lynne's idea of therapy involves trying to force her client's life stories into her preconceived models, throwing out a lot of religious jargon, and playing with irrelevant notions of masculinity and sexuality. And she's doing this with emotionally vulnerable clients. And we're supposed to consider this valid therapy?
Image via Wikipedia
One such movie that stands out in my mind is Shelter, the 2007 movie about a young man, Zach, living in California. Where Shelter differs from other great coming out movies, like Latter Days and Rock Haven, is that Zach's major conflict isn't so much about his religion, but his family.
Zach lives with his older sister, her live-in boyfriend (at least I don't get the impression their married) and his five year old nephew. Zach works at odd jobs to help support his sister and little Cody, who sees his uncle as a major father figure. Zach's life begins to change when is best friend's older brother, Shaun, comes to town for an extended stay. Zach and Shaun fall in love, and quickly finds his desire to be with Shaun quickly coming into conflict with his family obligations. His sister, Jeanne, is concerned about her son being around all that "gay stuff" and doesn't think it's healthy environment. (Strangely, Jeanne isn't all that concerned that her live-in boyfriend is asking her to go to Oregon for six months and leave Cody behind.) Despite Shaun's undying adoration of Cody and his willingness to make Cody a part of any plans he and Zach might have, the family conflict leads to problems in the couple's budding relationship.
In addition to the conflict between love and obligations to a family that doesn't approve of gay relationships, this film weaves in the extra dimensions of different family backgrounds. While Zach and his sister have lived a difficult life with plenty of hard luck and few breaks, Shaun comes from a well-to-do family. This difference leads to differences in perspective and different approaches to their problems, adding to the conflict.
All of these elements are handled well, or at least as well as they can be in a 97 minute movie. It makes for a touching and heartfelt story, and one that I could personally identify with on many levels.
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
So an average weekday looks like this for me:
7:00am: The first alarm goes off. I hit the off button.
7:30am: The second alarm goes off. I hit the off button.
8:00am: The third alarm goes off. I hit the snooze button. I keep hitting it each time it goes off.
8:30am: The third alarm won't let me hit the snooze button any more. I turn it off and get up.
8:35am: I wash up and get dressed.
8:45am: I check email, visit my social networking sites, and read my favorite blogs.
9:20am: I hop in the car and head to work, stopping at the 7-Eleven to grab something to eat and something for lunch.
10:00am: I arrive at work. I spend the next eight hours attending meetings, writing code, answering emails, and fielding the occasional technical question for the sales team.
6:30pm: I leave work. If it's open, I run to Psychic's Thyme and hang out with friends for a bit.
7:00pm: Dinner time.
8:00pm: If I'm curently dating someone, I ask my boyfriend if he's free. If so, we get together, watch a movie, talk, make love, and cuddle. If I'm very lucky, we spend the night sleeping in each others arms.
8:00pm: If I'm single or my boyfriend is busy, I check email, respond to any outstanding ones, read blogs, do some blogging of my own, and/or or work on my writing.
In my life, there's no such thing as a typical weekend. I may go see my parents for the weekend. Or I might head up to Toronto for a dance class and a show with Marina for Saturday. Or I might go back to Psychic's Thyme to hang out with friends. I may go to dinner with friends. I may go dancing Saturday night. If I'm dating someone, I may spend time with my boyfriend (going to a movie, staying home and cuddling, making love, talking, going to a party together, whatever). Trying to fit that into a single "daily schedule" would be impossible. There's just too many possibilities.
What inspired me to write this, however, is that I've notice something about many "gay lifestyle" posts: most of them say absolutely nothing about sex. In many cases, that's perfectly understandable. There are a lot of gay people out there who are not sexually active for one reason or another. They may simply be too busy right now for a sexual relationship. Or they may be waiting for that one special someone they want to spend their lives with. I totally get that and respect that.
What I don't get or respect, however, is the underlying message (or so it seems to me) that the only way to prove that all gay men spend their weekends at the bathhouse or bring home a different guy every night is to show that we're not having sex at all, or at least hiding the fact that we're having it. I'm sorry, but "total celibacy" and "having 100 sex partners every year" are not the only two possibilities.
In many ways, I'm reminded of the first American Pie movie. I loved that movie because it was a great commentary on the pressure (heterosexual) guys feel about having sex in their teen years and how it can become an obsession. The other thing I like about that movie is that the way the "quest to lose their virginity" ends differently for the various main characters. Two of them end up having what basically amount to random hookups (though the one ends up falling in love with his partner and marrying her in future movies). One ends up having sex with his long-term girlfriend (who breaks up with him in the next movie). And the fourth ends up in a relationship and he and his new girlfriend decide to put off having sex for a while longer. The movie ends up demonstrating a diversity of responses to human sexuality.
I think we need more of that in the gay community and how we present ourselves to the outside world. We need to get rid of the "celibacy/promiscuity" dichotomy altogether. There's a far more complex range of choices when it comes to human sexuality and human sexual behavior, and I think we need to start demanding that our detractors acknowledge that in our own communities.
I won't pretend I'm a sexual prude in order to get acceptance. But that doesn't mean I'm totally devoid of a sexual ethic or standards, either.
The following is from the first chapter of a new story I'm working on:
If you like it, please read the rest of the chapter and follow the story using the links above. I hope to write more soon. And of course, feel free to check out the rest of my portfolio on Writing.Com. Though I'll warn you that some of the other stories are sexually explicit.
Josh awoke with a start. He let out a strangled gasp before his mind began to process his surroundings. He looked round, finding himself in his own bedroom. His sheets were pushed off to one side, probably due to him moving around in his sleep. He took a few deep breaths to calm himself. He willed his heart to return to a slower rhythm. "It was only a dream. Only a dream," he whispered. "It doesn't mean anything. Guys dream about all kinds of things."
He knew that was true enough. He had done a bit of research online, and found that a lot of young guys dreamed about having sex with other guys and still grew up to be heterosexual. He'd even read that some experiment with male friends before going on to get married. So he tried to reassure himself that this one dream didn't mean he was one of those terrible homosexuals.
However, his mind kept nagging at him. This wasn't just one dream, after all. He had been having a few dreams like this since he turned fourteen nine months ago. He wondered if there was a point where it quit being something any normal teenager might experience and starting being the sign of something more serious.
"And it's not just the dreams," he whispered to himself as he lay there, confused and frightened. "After all, I've been getting those feelings when I'm awake too." He thought back to that afternoon he and Tim went skinny-dipping. While it had been innocent fun when they had actually gone swimming at age eleven, it morphed into something more sinister-seeming whenever he thought of it now. Tim had even suggested they go skinny dipping again this past summer. But the thoughts and feelings it stirred in Josh kept him coming up with excuses to put off such an excursion.
Josh lay there, feeling more miserable the more he thought about everything. He wondered how his parents, who raised him to be a good little Baptist boy, would react if he told them he was attracted to other guys. He wondered if they would send him to counseling or even disown him. He was too afraid to find out.
And yet, he yearned to tell someone, anyone. He hated having to keep this secret. It felt like a terrible burden - a burden he didn't want - to carry alone. And yet, he didn't know anyone he could tell. He was pretty sure everyone he knew would react badly.
"No, you're on your own on this one. Just try to make the best of it," he told himself. Then he added in a quick prayer, "God, please help me. And forgive me. I don't want to be gay. I want to do what you want me to." He rolled over and waited for sleep to claim him again, to give him a break from all his worries and doubts.
If you like it, please read the rest of the chapter and follow the story using the links above. I hope to write more soon. And of course, feel free to check out the rest of my portfolio on Writing.Com. Though I'll warn you that some of the other stories are sexually explicit.
Image via Wikipedia
It's this last policy that I'd like to talk about briefly. Although I am no longer a Christian and don't foresee returning to that faith (and if I did, I'd be more inclined to join the Orthodox church anyway), it's something that in some ways is near and dear to me. As someone who loves to help and serve others, it pleases me to see new opportunities being provided to GLBT to help and serve others. And as someone who once felt called to ministry, I admit some pleasure in knowing that such an opportunity has come in my lifetime, even if I no longer plan to take it.
As I've read various people express both their joys and their concerns about this decision in the ELCA, I began to consider my own time of serving in my old (American Baptist) church back home. While I was not an ordained minister, I spent time as a Sunday school teacher, the leader of the youth group, and even the superintendent of the children's Sunday school program. (I also did speak from the pulpit as a lay leader a handful of times.)
I came out to myself as a gay man towards the end of my senior year in college. When I graduated and returned home, I also returned to my small rural church an quickly found myself pulled back into leadership. I almost immediate took over the Sunday school class for grades 7-12 as well as the youth group. That summer, I also co-led our church's Vacation Bible School program. A few months after that, my aunt stepped down as superintendent of the children's Sunday school program and I was asked to take over.
At the time, no one in my church (with the possible exception of a couple of family members) knew that I was gay. To be honest, I'm not sure how the other members of the church would've reacted if they knew, and I was too afraid at the time to find out. So I kept my sexuality a secret and focused on doing my duties as a leader in the church. And I suffered in silence.
Yes, I suffered. Those first few months to a couple of years after you come out to yourself can be quite difficult emotionally. You find yourself sorting through a lot of feelings and trying to understand what it means to be gay and all the implications it has for your life. So here I was trying to act as a leader in my church and deal with my own problems, and I was afraid to turn to any of the other church leaders to seek help during this time of my life.
At one point, I began having trouble upholding my responsibilities as a church leader began to sag due to the issues I was trying to work through. (And things got even worse the few months before I finally left the church -- as I had also begun to add in the complications that come with one's first real relationship.) I started to procrastinate and forgot to do certain things. A few of the other leaders began to get upset, especially as they relied on me for certain things and I let them down on more than one occasion. And I was frustrated because they never once asked what was going on with me or why I was becoming less dependable. But to make matters worse, even if they had asked me what was wrong, I doubt I would've had the courage to tell them. I just wasn't comfortable.
As I think of my experiences, I think of the ELCA's decison with some pleasure, knowing that at least some GLBT people who wish to serve in a Christian community will now be able to do so openly. And this means that they will be able to get the support I felt was denied to me back when I was serving as I felt called. And that is something that pleases me greatly.
Now that it's past, I thought it would be good to do a review of yesterday's synchroblog event. It was an excellent experience and overall, I felt it went quite well. Wendy and her sponsors did a fantastic job putting it all together and the participants wrote some wonderful posts, some of which I will highlight in a moment.The one thing I was somewhat disappointed in was the fact that despite the efforts of a couple of us (including Wendy), the event seemed primarily geared towards Christians. As far as I know, Christine Bakke, YewTree, and I were the only three non-Christians who participated. This is probably due to a number of reasons. For one, those who sponsored this event were Christian and therefore had the most Christian contacts. Then there's also the fact that it's much harder to convince a non-Christian to participate in an event to encourage Christians and gay people to talk to one another. On the whole, we non-Christians probably don't see as big a need for such conversation.
More troubling, however, is that I did feel there was a certain undercurrent even among many of the participating bloggers that this was about gay and straight Christians talking with each other. I saw more than one post in which the sentiment seemed to be that the foundation for such conversation was the fact that those involved were all "brothers and sisters in Christ." While this is a fine sentiment and I'm glad that some people were able to find that common ground, that doesn't extend the conversation to the rest of the gay community -- those of us who don't consider ourselves "brothers and sisters in Christ." So perhaps it may be a while longer before the entire gay community will find a welcome in the greater community.
Having said that, I wish to be clear that I don't mean to be too critical because of this. I think that this synchroblog was a great next step in the overall dialogue process. And I have confidence that even my concerns can be addressed as that dialogue continues. I think we all just need to keep plugging away with patience, compassion, and a bit of understanding.
One of my favorite posts was over at Focused Conversations, which demonstrated a deep and practical understanding of the Golden Rule. Sandy tells of her own wedding and the people who supported her and helped her with her wedding, despite the fact that they felt she was making a bad choice. In retelling that story, she comes to a conclusion which she applies to same sex marriages:
I understand the desire to declare your commitment to your loved one in a formal ceremony. Whether or not I think it is the right thing doesn't take away from that. As a Christian I live with that tension.It sometimes takes a special person to realize how her own situation at one time mirrored that of another person's and to place herself in that person's shoes. Sandy's willingness to be such a person spoke a lot to me.
Over at Based on a True Story, Nathan takes a similar approach and draws parallels between his own relationship with his wife and same-sex relationships:
My relationship with my wife runs very deep and there are plenty of factors that play into it. If my relationship was all about sex, it would not be much of a relationship. We know though, that a part of marriage and relationships runs a lot deeper than just what happens with our bodies. One of the more beautiful parts of a marriage is the commitment and covenant to each other no matter what life brings. We should be affirming and blessing mutual covenants of love between any person and not denying them of a basic human need. We need to focus on what we affirm rather than what we want to get rid of. Why are we so bent on taking away all the good in a relationship? Is it just to prove our theology? Is it just to satisfy our own desires for holiness to be met around us?In doing so, Nathan actually attacks one of the most damaging stereotypes about gay people: The idea that our relationships are just about sex. Nathan's willingness to challenge that stereotype and then ask very hard questions about the implication of opposing relationships that clearly have a lot of good in them is superb.
Of course, not everything was perfect. Despite some great posts, there was the occasional argument in some comments. Some people wanted to argue over what constituted compromise or capitulation, while others wanted to discuss who (usually the other side) needed to do what in order for their to be dialogue. Some even questioned if dialogue is possible in the end. But that's okay. This conversation is long overdue and it's the kind of conversation that is never going to go perfectly smoothly. And that's okay. The important thing is that people are still talking. Hopefully, that will remain the case.
And hopefully, people will continue to listen.
Recent Comments