Conversion therapy's elusive unicorn

From Facebook:
----------------------
In response to comments in a previous post, this describes my experience and perspective well.

Former Love in Action Director: I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual
John Smid was once the director of Love in Action a longtime Exodus International affiliate based in Memphis, TN. I have always found John’s candor refreshing. My first contact with John was at an Exodus meeting where he questioned the slogan, “change is possible.”

O-Mo Whatever the cause of homosexuality/same-sex attractions, whatever the life choices, and whatever the malleability or future possibilities of change through therapy techniques and neuroscience yet to be discovered, the reality of _today_, as I see it, is that people do not change from mostly same-sex attracted/gay to mostly opposite-sex attracted/straight. Some claim to have changed but later recant, and a few have staked their income and reputation in the claim and persist in it. But when pressed, I have found more wordsmithing and perspective reframing for functional/behavioral change or cognitive adjustment than actual change in attractions. Still, I don't believe this should be used as ammunition to shoot down someone's personal, honest, carefully considered direction for their life in congruence with their beliefs, values, desires, and goals.

Guy1 People make this so damn complicated.... :-P for me it all boils down to what gets you off. ;) I've never had a conflict of faith and sexuality, of course, so I don't really understand the intricacies involved...to me, it seems like a simple no-brainer.

O-Mo Afterthought: While my observation matches his, I would not say, as he does, that "none of this can occur with homosexuality" with a more accurate, "I have never seen it occur."

Gal1 I agree... This brings up some very intruguing differences between attraction and behavior. Attraction - well, there's no need to "repent" of that, since it's something you can't change. Behavior, however, is something you are always accountable for. People will try to reason their way out of a lot of things, but ultimately you are the one in control of your actions.
I also like the point made toward the end of the article, that it is possible to be in love with someone you are not sexually attracted to. It's an interesting thought, in a culture that overexaggerates the importance of sexuality. When it really comes down to it, there is SO much more to love, true love anyway. If it's just sexuality involved, that is lust. Big difference.

O-Mo Yeah, Guy1, I've run into that same confusion with others who either were not raised in a homosexuality-shunning church or left at an early age. I don't know how to convey it. But even without religious conflicts, I've known some to struggle with what they really want.

Guy2 This is some good stuff O-Mo. I've actually had a lot of these thoughts on my mind the past few days. I have found so much peace and happiness finally in my life doing exactly what I have always been taught was wrong. Letting go of that "battle" between good and evil and just following what I feel is right in my heart has been such a blessing for me.

Guy1 I grew up in small-town mid-america. I never knew what gay was until I got online at the age of 15... I always knew what I found attractive, though. Perhaps it was because I grew up with such a streak of individuality that being gay never really bothered me, even though family and friends spoke ill of it once it started hitting popular culture. My mom tried to get me to go to church and her side of the family is pretty religious, but it never stuck with me. I only went for the grape juice and crackers. I was never able to think of any of the stories as literal...they just seemed like good stories and I enjoyed reading all sorts of books back then.

I was certainly a prude throughout my teen years and the first couple of college, but that wasn't because I thought I should be with girls! :) They never did anything for me...

O-Mo ‎Gal1, I want my spouse to be passionate with me, and even...dare I say...lusty. ;-) I don't care to downplay sexuality as part of a whole relationship because I really do value it, particularly as an intimate and bonding (not to mention certainly fun!) experience between partners built on trust, familiarity, and mutual investment. But I also know that if I _had_ to choose between sexual passion and, say, open communication or tender affection, sexual passion does not win out as a highest priority. I just hope I don't have to choose. ;-) Incidentally, I do know some guys who, despite still being primarily attracted to men, quite enjoy sexual intimacy with their wives, even if it's often not to the same level as it had been with men. Beliefs, choices, priorities...

O-Mo More on this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/10/37766

Guy1 It's certainly not unheard of to have an open relationship wherein there is emotional intimacy with your primary partner and then the allowance of both parties to have physical intimacy with others outside of the partnership. This happens in many relationship regardless of whether the couple is same orientation or mixed orientation.... Sometimes people love each other deeply and want to build a life together but don't click physically. Certainly isn't a reason to give up the relationship if both parties want to stay together.

I think if more people accepted the idea of "nontraditional" relationships, there would be less of a problem with divorce and you'd see more families sticking together (and being stronger). Just my opinion, of course. :)

O-Mo Ha, true. But again: religious or personal conflicts can prevent that from being considered an option. But that's why I have always found strength in remembering that I am imposing some of my own restrictions and therefore am not merely a victim.

Guy1 Sometimes we must work through conflicts for the betterment of ourselves and our relationships. ;) Flexibility in life is a good thing! Flexibility and conflict...always makes for a good story.

O-Mo It does, indeed. But can you stretch too much too fast and end up spraining something? ;-) Or bend something not meant to be bent and break something you shouldn't have broken? Heh.

Guy1 TIme and lube. Everything's possible with time and lube. (per Dan Savage) :-P

O-Mo NARTH has responded to this notion without actually mentioning it at all: http://narth.com/2011/10/2061/. I see problems in such follow-up studies, mainly that I have known guys who would have put themselves in the "Success: conversion" category who, when I pressed, conceded that their new attraction to women was more a curiosity and 'openness to the possibility' than an actual drive, but since that was more than they'd ever known, they considered it an 'increase in heterosexual attraction'. And...let's just say you needed only watch their eyes at a party to see which sex caught their inadvertent gaze more often. ;-) I also wonder how many respondents are married and therefore are not only self-limited in their life choices and self-identification but are measuring their progress not by generalized attraction but by attraction to their wife, specifically. Increased heterosexual function and intimacy with their spouse is wonderful and should be acknowledged rather than dismissed for political agenda, but I just don't see it as the same thing as 'becoming heterosexual'.

NARTH » Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible
narth.com
Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible, Harm Unlikely, according to New Eviden...See More

O-Mo Let me clarify one point in my last paragraph: "appropriately and understandably self-limited". :-)

Gal1 You can be just as much a victim of your own "self-limiting" choices as you can from others'... just sayin' :P

Ted Cox presentation on JIM and ex-gay movement

I've found this presentation by Ted Cox, a straight, ex-LDS writer who went to a JIM weekend undercover and shares his experience and interpretations, pretty interesting, although he does tend to fall into the tendency to dismiss ideas based on personal choices of certain of those who espouse and promulgate them, and he clearly has a bias. But so do the creators of JIM, so...y'know. One thing I find interesting is that I've found myself nodding at many points but saying, "Eh, now wait a minute, that's not entirely on-point," at others.

If you're uncomfortable with some crude language and humor, you might want to skip over the first 2 1/2 minutes. In fact, up until about 4:45 of part 1 is just intro stuff that's not necessarily relevant. There's incidental language throughout the rest, but nothing too in-your-face, from what I've seen in the first 6 parts so far. To get to the rest of the parts, either watch this until the end and follow the links in the video, or click on the video to bring up a YouTube page with some of them listed on the right.

Rekers is not 'gay' and never has been (now with video!)

So he says, and he's reportedly threatening legal action over being defamed as "gay". Goodness gracious, has anyone bothered to ask him, then, if he "experiences same-sex attraction"? I mean, everyone knows "gay" means "actively seeking same-sex romantic and/or sexual companionship or partnership", which has nothing to do with arousing but non-sexual rub-downs by attractive, young luggage assistants for 10 days in Europe. Getting touched by a hot stud isn't "sexual" if nobody ever climaxes, never mind whether certain manparts are "at attention" because we all know that just "happens" and needn't be considered "erotic". Why don't people get that?

***waiting for the one or two of you who just said, "Amen!" to notice my tongue firmly planted in my cheek...***

Don't get me wrong: I, myself, have insisted that just because Mr. Perky says, "I'm ready!" doesn't mean you're intent on going at it, nor that what you're doing is necessarily "sexual". For example, I got all hot and bothered once while sitting on a full couch watching a movie with my mostly exposed arm pressed against the really buff, mostly exposed arm of an acquaintance with a hot physique, but you could hardly say sitting on the couch next to each other was sexual activity. Had he made a move (even if there hadn't been 5 other people there), I would've pushed him off and yelled "rape!" because my heart and brain didn't really want to go there, regardless of Mr. Perky obeying only my raging hormones. But when we're talking about nude massages daily, with genital caressing and persistent arousal throughout (a claim reportedly made by the hired young man in a phone interview with a well-known blogger), that's a whole different story, folks.

This is a bit much to defend, assuming anything the escort is saying is actually true, which is likely since Dr. Rekers, himself, hasn't denied it and has evaded clarification by using words to which he probably ascribes non-standard definitions, such as "sexual" (messy), "inappropriate" (unable to be justified against the inerrant word of Baptism using contortions of motives and pliable word definitions), and "gay" (Pride prancer).

In all seriousness...or at least sincerity, I can easily believe Rekers doesn't have "sex" ("that which finishes in spilled seed") with his escort(s). I can believe he considers their massage activity "non-sexual" by his own conscience-easing definition (as above). I can believe he hoped to teach the young man the joy of leaving the homosexual lifestyle (and instead paying for massage by hot young guys for the rest of his life). I can believe he hoped to share the "gospel" with the young man (ask any repressed BYU boy: it's much more comforting to test boundaries with someone who shares your beliefs).

I know it sounds like crazy excuses to a lot of people, but most people don't "get" the mind of a repressed, conservatively religious homosexual. He may very well be sincere. Now, if what the escort claims really occurred, it is certainly not "normal" behavior. But what's "normal" isn't always right or best or healthy. Sometimes, what's abnormal is healthy or helpful for someone in abnormal circumstances. Truly. I can even believe he might not view nude massages including genitalia as "inappropriate", which brings me to my concern. Yes, there's a point to all of this rambling!

I think one big reason I'm so interested in this story is that while Dr. Rekers' justifications or "explanations" sound foolish to many people, they're not entirely unlike lines of thinking I've heard among certain individuals in gay LDS circles. While part of me wants to defend him and tell people to stop being so presumptuous in assuming he actually had sex with the guy, as if nobody would ever hire an escort and not do the nasty with them, another part of me is concerned that some friend or acquaintance of mine may, one day, find himself in the kind of mess this man is in, either not seeing how very abnormal his behavior is or lying about secret behaviors in a double life (again, assuming what the escort describes actually happened).

Despite being skeptical of certain underlying theories, I don't oppose certain practices, such as (theoretically) therapeutic holding, which may seem "weird" to people who don't understand the circumstances, context, and underlying theory. And to be clear, "holding therapy" is a totally different ballpark from genital massages. I don't think everyone who subscribes to reparative theories or certain therapies of homosexuality is simply justifying getting his jollies and calling it "male bonding". There are practices which don't involve odd behavior and which may be helpful in certain ways despite my skepticism of the theories behind them. But some acquaintances have exerted so much effort immersing themselves in repressive lines of thought, or seeking out contact with other men in ways which definitely bring motives into question, that I worry they'll be lulled into the kind of self-deception which heaps on layers of masks and eventually reveals itself decades down the road in scandals like this. Let's just make sure we're trying to be honest and accountable with ourselves and with others and trying to keep our motives in check, OK boys? OK.

Enough about this. I'm going to the gym to hang out at the hot tub for an hour then sit in the locker room sauna facing the showers for another hour to connect with the men who chat with me. Then I'll watch an uplifting movie and spoon semi-nude with a friend for some intimate, non-sexual bonding time, and we'll caress each other while discussing how there is no joy in same-sex relationships...



Note: FYI, NARTH has released a statement on the issue.



Update: I couldn't NOT post this video from CNN's AC360:

Writer Declaring War on the JIM-Dandies

Oh boy, here we go. Sacramento writer, Ted Cox, a self-proclaimed straight, LDS-turned-atheist man, has written an article entitled My Journey Into Manhood: Undercover at a Gay Conversion Camp about his undercover involvement in what he calls the ex-gay movement, primarily an expose of the Journey Into Manhood weekend he attended in Phoenix last year in February.

A few things he says reflect a bit of bias in his approach: for example, he claims the weekends are designed to make gay men straight, which wording I'm pretty sure Rich Wyler would take issue with, since he said so in an Evergreen Conference workshop I attended a couple of years ago. But to be fair to Cox, Wyler's whole presentation centered around leaving homosexuality and offering examples of men who had gone on to marry women, a mixed message when he just said it's not necessarily about changing to straight. As always, one must read with awareness of the author's bias, and the ideas in the "ex-gay movement" are sometimes so complex (some would say convoluted?) that I'm not sure even a year is enough for someone to really have a firm grasp on it, especially if they're staunchly opposed and not really "open" to the ideas, but it's certainly enough to be dangerous. In one example, according to my understanding, he oversimplifies the theory behind holding therapy by saying it's making up for one's father not holding them enough, but I think it's as much an emotional as physical deficit, and the holding is meant to represent that deficit and affirm one's connection with and sense of masculinity, rather than make up for a lack of holding in childhood. That said, I've never participated in holding therapy and don't buy the theory behind it as I've heard it, and a lot of what he says in the introductory material I've read (I have yet to read the whole article) addresses concerns I have with the whole phenomenon of these weekends.

Again, as I've said before, most of my "SSA" friends have been to JIM weekends, and despite just a few who privately say it wasn't worth the investment or they felt compelled to join groupthink or be ostracized, they've definitely mostly come away with predominantly really positive experiences. I have yet to meet a single JIM-dandy who no longer experiences significant same-sex attraction (at least none whose income and reputation doesn't depend on saying so), and only a very, very few have experienced any lasting increase in attraction to women (and even then, it's usually their wife or a girl they're dating, not women in general, but as they say, it only takes one!), but I do know guys who have learned to leave behind unhealthy or destructive behaviors and habits and gained self-confidence, comfort with themselves, coping skills, tools for healthier relationships, paradigm shifts, etc. I don't doubt the weekends do a lot of good for a lot of people, and I'm happy so many friends have learned valuable lessons and gained self acceptance at the weekends.

I'm sure I'd learn a thing or two about myself, as well, much as I have in other workshops or self-discovery activities of a less intense variety. I won't be shelling out the cash anytime soon, however, as I have other priorities and don't trust such an intense, reprogramming experience at the hands of men who are making money from them and whose reputations and careers depend on defending what goes on there. Some friends have condescendingly stated that it's true: I probably shouldn't go if I don't trust the experience because I wouldn't get out of it what I could if I weren't willing to "give it my all" and "trust the process". I understand that's true with just about anything--you get from it what you're willing to invest--but the slightly cultish sound of it just makes me shudder a little. Then I shrug it off and laugh and move on, letting others believe I'm just all walled up and too closed for the process to do me any good anyway. What we can agree on is that it could be a great experience, whether or not it affects homosexuality at all, but that you have to want it enough to invest in it for it to be worth it. I'm OK with that.

When I've addressed the secrecy around the weekends, my JIM-dandy friends usually become wide-eyed to show their enthusiasm and confidence as they say, "It really is important to not know exactly what's going to happen. You need to go into it not knowing what to expect for the process to have the greatest impact." I think the idea is that part of the weekend is a cathartic emotional release and vulnerability that is achieved partially by blindsiding participants with challenging activities or experiences they need to respond to in a raw, unrehearsed way. But I'm not convinced hearing about the activities really would dampen the necessary reactions...but what do I know? I've never been.

Which leads to just a bit of conflict around reading Cox's article: I usually think things learned or witnessed in confidence should be held in confidence. To publish details about something you swore not to talk about outside of the experience is obviously deceptive, righteous cause or not. He says he didn't even know about the confidentiality clause until after he'd made a deposit and bought airfare, which I think he is using to imply that the deception began with entrapment on the JIM organizers' part. I suppose he, understandably, has to find a way to justify his breach of contract. But I also suppose I give some exemptions for things of a non-sacred or non-religious nature, particularly where people sincerely believe the welfare of others is truly at stake, and there seems to be no other way of getting "inside", at least none which don't involve pressuring others to breach their contracts. It almost seems better for the reporter to be deceitful than to interview others who would breach their contracts and somehow washing their hands of any wrong-doing. I can't help but question the journalistic ethics around it, but I must admit I'm probably going to read the article regardless.

In a video interview with Ted Cox, he reminds me of people I've known who have an air of objective intelligence but who really are rather egomaniacal and closed to ideas opposing their own views. To be honest, I think most crusaders are that way. But I can't know what he's like, and he seems, at least, to be trying to treat the story fairly (errors such as misstating the name of NARTH do bring into question his attention to detail, but I'm a stickler for that sort of thing, and I make the same mistakes at times, but I'd hope people wouldn't entirely disregard my thoughts because of such an oversight). I'll just digest his story as I try to digest most: openly with skepticism.

Were any of you at the weekend he attended? I actually think a couple of friends may have been. Any firsthand experience with him? I'm interested in the reactions of people who were there and knew him with the understanding that he was a fellow "journeyer" and how it feels to know he was just an investigative writer infiltrating something so emotionally sensitive and raw for most participants.




I couldn't help but grin and chuckle a bit when I read this article by Warren Throckmorton about an article published in Salt Lake's City Weekly independent (typically very liberal-slanted) newspaper. And he links to a story from the Daily Show that TOTALLY cracked me up.

Thou Shalt Not Change! ...Or Something.

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING

Well, here it is, folks. The APA has released conclusive, indisputable proof that you can't pray away the gay. I guess it's time to just go find myself a boyfriend and stop being all angsty now that the APA has come to the rescue. ...or is it?

There's more to this story than meets the eye, methinks. For a spin you might not have seen in most of the popular media, check out The Wall Street Journal's report, which emphasized the APA's acknowledgement that people should be supported in fostering their whole identity, including (not scrapping) their faith or belief system. You can also get the actual APA report straight from the horse's mouth if you're not keen on letting biased reporters filter it for you and have the energy to wade through over 100 pages.

You can even check out a response from Exodus. They seem...undeterred. Surprised? I hope not.

Addendum (16 Aug 2009): NARTH also released a study they say refutes many of the APA's claims over the years.

Despite the hard-line interpretation most people seem to take of the review as a final nail in the ex-gay coffin, and despite some whiff of political timing, I do see a concession in their comments which I appreciate, encouraging therapists to take into account a person's whole self, including beliefs about homosexual behavior, in helping them find healthy acceptance and decisions with how to deal with their own situation, rather than just telling them they're queer and should find a partner. Kudos on that front. I've always said, when people tell me to be true to myself, that I have a lot more than hormones to be true to, and I expect people to respect my choice to be true to myself, my whole self.

In relation to all of this, I'm going to ramble for a while. Follow along if you will:



EX-GAY SCHMEX-GAY?

Nonetheless, I do tend to shake my head and raise an eyebrow at organizations and individuals who hyper up into defense mode by shouting, "What do you mean people don't change?! Don't I exist? Am I invisible?! What do you mean it's harmful to use therapy to promote change? I've changed. Look at me. I've been married for years and made babies. Lots of them. And we practice just for fun." Good for you and your "tens of thousands" of cohorts (see the CNN report), but I don't see the evidence that such is the case for even a large minority of subjects who undergo therapy of homosexuality in that way.

Pardon my skepticism, but I have my doubts about actual "sexual orientation change" and tend to think of "change" more as a shift in thought processes and training the brain to think in less sexual and more relational terms, a change which I think is healthy but which I don't think is the "I'm hetero now" one-eighty ex-gay advocates' language tends to portray, even though they sometimes claim that's not what they mean. But alas, some people say they've changed from homo to hetero, and I'm in no place to call them liars, so I believe they've possibly changed as they say or believe they have, but I have some deep-seated skepticism based on my direct experiences with friends who have publicly claimed similarly but, over time, confess (intentionally or not) in private conversation that they aren't exactly hetero and explain what they really mean when they say they've "left homosexuality" or "changed their orientation". Who knows, right? I can't get into someone else's psyche enough to presume to know. Some of it may come down to semantics. I just know a lot more people who have tried it and were quite unchanged as far as attractions go (though often better at dealing with the emotions around it and controlling behavior and impulsive habits or thoughts), sometimes (not always) being quite discouraged as a result.



HAVE YOU REALLY TRIED?

Granted, you have to want change when it comes to any psychological re-programming or treatment of disorders, and you have to have solid motivation for wanting it, and you have to be willing to do what it takes. You also have to have the skills and tools to cope and process, which most often requires a really solid therapist/counselor and a solid support and accountability system. From my observations, relatively few people fit those criteria all together, which may account for much of the "failure" of treatment. I'll acknowledge that.



"IT COULD HAPPEN!"
(see this link, at :43, for the ultra-obnoxious, outdated reference)

I mean, I often defend the whole "change is possible for at least some" theory. Why reject it if people say they've experienced it? To satisfy some lustful need to make in genetic or biological? To justify demanding legal equality? To liberate myself from the expectations of friends and family that I might, someday, become straight and fulfill their dreams for me? I've considered the possibility of accepting "change", myself, if it were to come after years of emotional healing and growth and accountability and thought processing. The theory behind "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" or whatever you call the process of bringing homosexual thoughts, behaviors, and desires under control or even dissolving most (even all?) of them while possibly magnifying heterosexual inclinations is, I believe, more complex than most people give it credit for. And most people won't give it a fair hearing because the APA, for example, has said homosexuality is not a disorder or the result of any psychological problems, and that's the end of that discussion because to imply anything else is destructive and bigoted. Bah. Dogma.



YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH

But whether or not homosexual inclinations or feelings change in any given individual, I try to sympathize with the emotional trauma and hopelessness of putting one's faith in a mentor or therapist who promises something that doesn't happen and then being told it was one's own fault for not committing to the process enough. And I have my own suspicions and skepticism of the motives of those who are crusaders on the "change" battlefront. They, like their opponents, are invested. They stand to lose not only credibility but money and clients if they somehow confess they have homosexual thoughts sometimes (nevermind what they do with those or how well they "control" them).



EX-GAY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN NOT ATTRACTED TO MEN

For example, the NPR report references someone citing the numbers of those who change from "self-identifying" as homosexual as if that means they have changed their orientation. But I know several guys who have publicly renounced "homosexuality" and say they flatly reject identifying themselves as "gay" but who, when you have a private conversation with them or you observe their eyes in the gym, prove to be quite attracted to men in a more-than-straighties-are-attracted way and quite less interested in women sexually, even if they proclaim they want a relationship with a woman and are convinced that's where their happiness will be found. Identifying as gay has little to do with whether manflesh turns you on more than womanflesh.



WHAT HAPPENED TO LIVE AND LET LIVE?

My question to those who would denounce the entire ex-gay movement is this: what happened to "let me live my life as I choose"? Whether to identify as gay or whether to marry someone of the opposite sex is each person's decision to make, and as long as they're honest with their potential mates, let them choose how they want to live their lives and pursue the greatest happiness they know how. I hear cries from gay people everywhere for validation of their relationships against the moral judgement of others, and then they turn around and decry the morality or ethics of someone who chooses a "traditional" marriage and loudly proclaim such to be liars and self-deceived. It doesn't make sense to me.

Whether or not so-and-so ever looks at another member of the same sex with some "hubba hubba", or whether or not their spouse is the only member of the opposite sex that will ever turn them on, or whether or not they even have a sex life with their spouse, or whether they actually love and adore and enjoy physical intimacy with their spouse in a mutual and fulfilling way, or whether they really did shift from primarily homosexual to primary heterosexual attraction, it's their decision to make, both the "SGA" party and the straighty they're forming the relationship with.

Why does that threaten you as a gay man or woman, to have other gay men or women (who often prefer, for their own reasons, to refer to themselves as something less stigmatized) choosing alternative lifestyles? Sure it makes life harder for you when people say, "Well so-and-so married a woman, and they seem happy," but buck up and deal with it. You don't need anyone's validation to make your own choices.



BUT DO I HAVE THE ENERGY OR INTEREST TO LIVE THAT WAY?

I look around, and I personally know several who seem to be living traditional heternormative or "single" lives, many with opposite-sex partners and children or who are totally non-dating and single and truly working towards such future marriage and family. I respect these men and women and their sense of mission. I appreciate their drive to live true to their beliefs and principles. And by and large, they are respectful of the decisions of others, despite proclaiming that there are other options for those who want them, even if they regard some of those decisions as immoral or against God's will. My hesitation in wanting to follow in their footsteps is that they seem to have something in common: they seem, at least, to live and breathe the process. They may say homosexuality is incidental to their lives. They may say it's just one small part of who they are and doesn't define them. But they chair Evergreen committees, mentor others, hold seminars and speak on panels, attend and speak at conferences, write essays and books, manage web sites and discussion groups, hold firesides, attend experiential weekends over and over... I just wonder if I'd rather stay single and go about my other interests, if living a more heteronormative way comes with all of that.

But then again, I recognize that even if I'm not doing all of those things, the topic is going to be on my mind probably as much or more as it is for them. And I realize I am blogging about the topic all the time, so how can I think I'm really any different right now? At least they're framing their thoughts and focus on the issue in ways that help them live the way they want to. I have more thoughts developing on that but will save them for a later post.



OK, BACK TO THE POINT

What right does a therapist have to try to promote a person to adopt a gay-affirming perspective if the client has expressed belief against such? I do agree they should be very up front about the success rates, what "success" means, and the possibility that they can work through their questions and turmoil in the meantime, choosing a fulfilling life congruent with their most valued beliefs. I'm glad the APA is coming out in support of therapists backing off a bit and allowing their clients to determine who they want to be, helping them to process it all healthily even if they choose a sort of alternative-to-alternative "lifestyle". At least, I hope that's what they're doing.




Update: interesting analysis of the report from another blogger here.