Video "It's Not Gay" Only Serves To Further Reinforce Idea Of "Exgay For Pay"
By Daniel Gonzales on May 25th, 2006
Since 2000 the American Family Association has been peddling a video about exgays titled "It's Not Gay." Ex-Gay Watch reader Jim Burroway recently threw $10 at the AFA's discount-bin for a copy of the video.
In his book "Anything But Straight," author Wayne Besen coined the term "exgay for pay" which describes how virtually every publicly visible person proclaiming to be healed of their homosexuality makes it their liveliehood. I refuse to assert any exgay is getting rich off this, infact many exgays take offense to such a suggestion. Possibly the most touching and relatable moment of exgay Stephen Bennett's Straight Talk Radio show was when Stephen said sometimes he struggles just to pay his family's health insurance each month.
But back to the video… Nine exgays appear in it. How many make/made their living exgays? You guessed it, every single one of them. Here's the breakdown: (in order of appearance)
Michael Johnston – Founder of Kerusso Ministries, chair of National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day, and spreader of HIV.
KC Winters – Former counseling Assistant at Love In Action who is currently pursuing a counseling degree from Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis and teaching a Sunday school class at Central Church in Collierville, Tennessee. Central Church is among a list of supporting churches on Love In Action's website. I was unsure if KC was on staff at LIA when the video was made so I emailed LIA graduate Peterson Tocano to check. Peterson wrote back,
"KC entered LIA in 98 I believe. It was during my time there. He entered along with Bob Painter. They both worked for the program. Bob is now out and just has begun to share some of his experience. KC went off to seminary and has been VERY quiet ans off the radar. I have a sense that he wants to live a private life. As far as I know he is still ex-gay but no one I know has talked to him in some time. In 2000 I belive ABC 20 20 did a piece on LIA and KC was interviewed."
Kermit Rainman – Social Research Analyst at Focus on the Family.
Bill Curnow – Director of LIFE Coaching International a Christian counseling service which "seeks to help individuals and families live as God designed them to live." Areas of specialty listed on website include "marriage and family issues" and "gender identity."
Richard Cohen – Unlicensed therapist and President of PFOX.
Bruce McCutcheon – Counselor at Quest Ministries.
Ray Jackson – Director of Quest Ministries.
David Pruden – Executive Director of Evergreen International.
Yvette Schneider – Co-leads Victory Ministry with her husband Paul.
Does anyone else notice how the video's captions don't fully disclose the true involvement of most participants in the exgay movement?
AFAMoviesPFOXScandalsUncategorized
— Daniel Gonzales
Falwell/Robertson: Sincere But Misguided — Or Fraudulent?
Review of "Fish Can't Fly" By T Joe Murray
You Belong To Me: The Truth About Sexual Abuse
Update: Link Changed on Recent Video
BostonBud says:
I bought the tape about two years ago (and hence got stuck on the AFA mailing list!) The tape was just bad. We were thinking of using it in somekind of way, i.e., make a parody or something, but it was just awful. For the life of me I can't even remember what was on the tape since it wasn't even noteworthy.
Isn't it interesting that only unattractive people are in the ex-gay movement? Are they bitter because they couldn't get laid as gay men?
Tom3 says:
Unlicensed therapists are illegal in Colorado.
Somebody should bust this Dobson operation.
They are dangerous and could hurt a lot of people.
ck says:
Posted by: Joe at May 25, 2006 11:22 AM
That's your opinion about their appearance, for one thing. For another, I don't think that's the kind of joke we want to be making here. It makes our discussion look mean-spirited instead of factually-based.
bud says:
I'm afraid there might just be a lot of truth in your statement, Joe. It's either that or a "very small" problem, if you know what I mean…
Jim Burroway says:
The video is pretty slick, in ways that ought to make all Christians ashamed. What you've exposed is just the tip of the iceberg.
gaymafioso says:
Many of these ex-gays don't ever explicitly go on the record saying they are "cured" of their homosexuality — they simply say they have chosen Jesus instead. In a way, that's admirable. But the fact they remain silent when the leaders of the hate groups with which they associate (and from which they draw salaries, in many cases) manipulate their images and identities — using them as a poster children for a "cure" — is an affront to their dignity and integrity, the "higher" values they claim to represent and — ultimately — the religious "truth" to which they purport to aspire.
Posted by: bud at May 25, 2006 11:54 AM
Again, I think that reducing gay/ex-gay to attractive/unattractive is not helpful. Aside from entirely (again!–this happens constantly in discussions I have online) ignoring lesbians who don't suffer from a "very small" problem, you're playing into their hands by making it sound as if being a "successfull gay" equals "getting laid."
Not helpful.
Not insinuating anything of the sort, ck. But leaving aside the lesbians at this point, because, after all, this Cohen guy works primarily with men, isn't is POSSIBLE that these "ex-gay" men are in their situation because of the bitterness of being rejected by those they most wanted to be a part of? Think about it…
Bud, I concede the point about Cohen's work being with men. The video does include a "former lesbian", though, so that's why I mentioned what I did.
Stated the way you put it, that ex-gay men are bitter about being rejected, I could see that might be a possibility. I would have to subject that to empirical testing along with the claims that gay men are where they are being they're rejected by their fathers.
It seems too anecdotal for me to hang too much on it.
As well, some of the famous ex-gays have stories about orgies and strings of lovers.
The biggest reason I responded as I did was because it seems like we were resorting to ad hominem arguments. We get enough of those coming from the ex-gay side; we don't need to perpetuate the cycle.
Slappy says:
The "they're ex-gay because they're ugly and couldn't get laid and probably have small dicks" accusation is childish. For starters, a couple of the "ex-gays" pictured seem to be physically attractive to this breeder. More importantly, it declares that important ideas and beliefs (and ways of being) couldn't be held out of integrity of some kind but only for dishonest, base reasons. Let's try: "Feminists are only feminist because they're ugly and can't get laid," or "Liberals are only failed Republicans — they weren't smart enough to get rich." Stupid, shallow, and objectively untrue, and it's not like their straight supporters couldn't find something mean to say about you.
Sure, it's POSSIBLE that they're "ex-gay" because they weren't cool or pretty enough to hang with the cool kids. It's also POSSIBLE that they're all "ex-gay" because they all slipped and fell in the shower, hit their heads, and became insane and conservative from the damage. The world gives gay men dillions of reasons why being gay sucks. Also, I've seen plenty of butt-ugly gay men with boyfriends. Really, getting laid in the gay community doesn't seem to be that difficult.
Timothy Kincaid says:
ck, bud, Joe,
I'm with ck on this one. Joe, your post was not a thoughtful presentation of a hypothesis about the factors leading to an ex-gay identity. Rather they appeared to me to be dismissive and snarky.
Too, some of the ex-gays shown above have been ex-gay for quite a while and it's hard to guess what they looked like when they were "living the homosexual lifestyle". I've forgotten which one it was, but I seem to recall one of the ex-gays bragging about how he knew he was becoming less homosexual when he stopped caring what his body looked like and packed on some lard.
Also, some folks don't photograph well but have a personal presence that makes them attractive. And even if they aren't beauties, it just isn't all that hard to get sex – there are desperate people who really don't care how you look. I don't think that not being a hottie means that you aren't getting any.
Further, your assumption is very similar to a position taken by anti-gay activists: that being gay is simply about "living a homosexual lifestyle" and focused solely on sex. It implies that if it weren't for sex, we would have no reason to identify as gay.
And that's just wrong. My orientation is based on attractions, dreams, and desires far more than it is on how frequently I engage in sex.
The one area in which I might concede some correlation is in how they perceive themselves. If, for example, gay men felt themselves to be undesireable, perhaps that might play in to their desire to "change". In other words, feeling as though they were unattractive might also heighten their feeling that they were "bad" and "sinful" and could leave them succeptable to encouragement to try to reorient.
But I don't know this to be true. And I think self perception has little to do with how a person looks.
"Also, I've seen plenty of butt-ugly gay men with boyfriends."
So true. The slightly-less-than-beautiful guys seem to be relationships more that the hotties (just my observation). I guess they are willing to settle for the guy who is loving, caring, intelligent, and a beautiful person inside while sometimes a hottie feels that he needs to hold out for someone as hot as he.
Now people, people…I know we can do better than this with this string.
I am more concerned with the fact that there is a majority of men participating in these ministries. And this one lesbian is married to another minister and she's his sidekick.
Many of them establish MINISTRIES….or some other enterprise.
They all write books or record music.
They may not be rich, but a lot of commercial evangelism HAS made other avowed Christians rich.
Very.
Perhaps they don't have the charisma or there is too much competition among them.
Our nation has schools that are inadequate, a lot of layoffs and health insurance is hard to come by.
To be immodestly rich, while your outreach audience struggles with a whole lot more than homosexuality, would kind of kill the agenda, wouldn't it?
I do have to wonder why becoming a straight person has to be a commercial thing?
I'm straight, and it's not big deal. If their acquisition is deep enough,enduring enough and authentic…they look like they are trying WAY too hard, and making it look like to do all this, it must not be so wonderful or strong.
It's like they are jumping up and down with a more and more insistant attitude…
"I'm STRAIGHT dammit, I TELL you I'm STRAIGHT! Can't you see I"M STRAIGHT?! See look, wife, kids….straight, straight, STRAIGHT and HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY!"
And straight folks like me are going….yeah so what?
Timothy, thanks. I also spotted Grace's recent post about comments on her blog. I thought she did a good job of describing how to interact (here and other places):
GOOD – assertions based on your own personal experience which do not generalize to all people, empirical studies (with quotes/citations) which describe facts we all can check/debate
BAD – assertions based on stereotyped generalizations (even if those stereotypes are your own 'experience' of others), Biblical proof-texting (or scientific proof-texting without sensitivity to context).
And on top of that, some civility and putting yourself in the other's place is nice. Would you like it/consider it legitimate if someone argued that gay men are gay because they are not endowed well enough to please women and then get rejected? I don't think so….
Jayelle says:
I have an issue with the "couldn't get laid while gay" thing, too. After all, Michael Johnston got laid as an ex-gay, and that's why some other poor man has HIV now.
Regan…excellent, excellent call…and I've already given my cheap shot for the day, so I'll resist the Tom Cruise jokes!
Regan: ""I'm STRAIGHT dammit, I TELL you I'm STRAIGHT! Can't you see I"M STRAIGHT?! See look, wife, kids….straight, straight, STRAIGHT and HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY!"
Sometimes, Regan, you really make me chuckle. That was so funny and so on point. Now that you've said it, I can actually visualize some guy sitting on his couch holding a beer with a puzzled look on his face saying "huh? so what?"
ck: "Would you like it/consider it legitimate if someone argued that gay men are gay because they are not endowed well enough to please women and then get rejected? I don't think so…."
Oh dear. I hate to say it but… for what it's worth (very little) what little research is available suggests just the opposite.
http://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.html
But your point is well taken. These sort of wild assertions are the favored method of the anti-gay folk who love "common sense" but hate hard science.
This stuff about folks going ex-gay because they were "too ugly" to hack it in the gay world is wrong on so many levels. I, for one, would like to see people not go into ex-gay ministries in the first place. So instead of making fun of people because of their looks, maybe we ought to look at those other three fingers pointing back at ourselves.
I do think there is a looksism that is completely wrong within much of the gay community. There is also an intolerance for folks who want to retain their faith. I see this all the time, and it drives me crazy.
It's a catch-22 for these folks. They get told they should dump their religion because it's harmful, they are (possibly, and not talking specifically about these folks in question) not accepted because they don't have beautiful, perfect looks (or they feel they wouldn't be able to fit into the youth-identified gay male culture) – so they pursue change and ex-gay ministries.
Then they get trashed by the gay community for being ex-gay and the "ugly" comments just reinforce that they've made the right decision to be ex-gay. Because at least they are ex-gay and in churches or in marriages where they are celebrated for their wonderful testimony and allowed to fit in and in many cases, "minister" or help others.
All the gay community ends up looking like is a bunch of a******s, imo. And it just feeds into their schtick about how the gay "lifestyle" is so shallow and looks-oriented and worthless.
I think that we can do better than that. I think that we need to call folks out on this looksism culture that we've created. That, and the fact that mainstream gay culture does not often seem like a safe space for those who are trying to keep their faith intact, drives people to these ministries. I think we should be looking at that and asking ourselves how can we be more accepting to folks so that they don't go to these extremes to feel they fit in somewhere?
Hava Israel says:
Regan's made a point that has been bothering me for a while now. I never went to a group to try to become straight, so I don't know what the approach is to 'why women become' lesbians. The emphasis is really on men and male issues. I've tried to read some of the personal stories on the Exodus site (I didn't get too far..). Many of them make it look like they'd gotten involved in some kind of lesbian cult that they had to escape from or they say they didn't like being female (kind of easy to feel in a sexist world, as a child…). Are there purported studies or statements specifically about lesbianism like Cohen offers about male homosexuality? In a weird kind of way, I guess I'm feeling left out and offended and kind of curious if they practice putting on makeup and dresses and baking cookies in the mirror image of the emphasis on playing sports and doing 'manly things' on the male side. Does Schneider focus on specifically lesbian issues and is that the main reference to lesbianism in the film?
Christine, not to make this a gay v lesbian issue, but I don't see as much lookism in the latter culture. At least not in MissourAH where I am. Okay, St. Louis, where it's pronounced MissourI. Probably in the rest of the state, too.
If anything, many lesbians are okay with being unhealthy and overweight. From a fashion standpoint…yipe. (Not that I am the best-dressed woman out there…)
Anyway, maybe it's a different kind of lookism?
I guess I'm feeling left out and offended and kind of curious if they practice putting on makeup and dresses and baking cookies in the mirror image of the emphasis on playing sports and doing 'manly things' on the male side.
Hava, the short answer is yes. Track down some of Melissa Fryrear's testimony. Her comments about tummy tucks still haunt me.
I don't want to be the victimized feminist lesbian here, but I do think that it is a man's world… even when it's a gay man's world. The focus is not on our sexuality because it's complex. That's part, I think, of why there aren't studies.
As well, we make up a smaller percentage of the population than even gay men. Add in the fact that many women seem to be more bisexual than at one end of the Kinsey scale…yeah, it's easy to just call them unfeminine and suggest they need to wear more skirts and trust men.
Hava, I totally understand your point on this. They really don't "get" lesbians at all. I think there are a lot of reasons for this which I have been exploring with some others (which is why I get so excited when I meet other female ex-ex-gays). I think honestly a lot of it is sexism, and is the notion that lesbians don't have "real" sex since it doesn't involve a penis. We just aren't as important to the Christian right as those gay men are. I know there is a book being written now by someone who is trying to write the definitive book on helping lesbians, so that ought to be interesting. There's also Anne Paulk's books.
The other thing I notice, like you've mentioned, just like Exodus can only seem to talk about more effeminate men and how to help them, they only seem to be able to deal with the more masculine lesbian and how to soften them up. But what about the femmes out there? They are already secure with their femininity (mostly) and so that tactic doesn't quite work with them.
CK, yes my comments about lookism is mostly about gay men. However, I do find some of it in the lesbian community – oddly enough, against those who look "too feminine" oftentimes. There seems to be different subgroups that experience things differently. For instance, in clubbing/bar type circles (mostly women in their 20s and early 30s it seems), the women seem to be much more into putting each other down, competitive, etc, in a sort of ugly way. In the older groups of lesbians it seems they are more accepting of all sorts of fashion and looks. Not that this holds true for all people in these groups of course. I think in the lesbian community the anti-Christian or anit-faith thing is more predominant, while in the gay male community it seems to be an issue of looks and youth. Of course, these are gross generalizations, and I could be misreading things.
Regardless, I just wish that gays and lesbians could be much more accepting (more like "family" since that's what we like to call ourselves) of those who are different – those who want to preserve their fath – etc. I think that that, combined with a way to help those who are struggling with issues of sexuality or past abuse, would be a way that we as a community could combat the ex-gay groups' attraction to more marginalized folks in our community.
Christine,
1. My experience in bars is limited. I met my partner in one three years ago, and haven't been back except occasionally since. So I defer to your experience.
2. I agree about accepting differences. I had never heard the term 'family' until I came to the Midwest. I thought it was a term indigenous to this area, but perhaps not. Some differences, though–I mentioned health concerns as examples of anti-lookism need to be discouraged. But through positive examples and not bigotry.
3. I enjoy getting a chance to interact with older couples–I know a few in my church and from elsewhere, and it's refreshing to be around someone who has been partnered for a few decades and is comfortable with herself. I wonder, though, how much of what you describe is just part of the 'scene' of adolescence/dating. Sex and the City seemed pretty snarky…and that was about straight women.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Thanks, I just surfed over to Focus on the Families bookstore. Can I stomach reading this stuff? We'll see. I think I'll go pretend I'm a Sociologist for a while!
Hava, can you get those books through your library, or buy used on Amazon? I just shudder at the thought of any more money going to Focus on the Family. But that's just me…
CK, I don't have a lot of experience in bars (I don't drink) but have experience with the folks who frequent them. I do think you're probably right about it being mostly an age thing, not necessarily a gay thing. I wasn't saying that gays are unlike straights in this way, just saying that when gays behave this way it plays right into the hands of the ex-gay groups.
Christine, I've got two plans. First, I'm going to e-mail the LGBT librarian at the University of Michigan and tell him I'm doing a study on the Ex-Gay movement :). If he can't help, I'll go the public library and overcome my embarassment over asking for these specific books by feigning academic learning needs. My new pretend career is now Sociology and Sociologists don't make much money, so I have to borrow…
Hava,
I recommend "Out of Egypt" which you can get through Amazon.com. The cover I have is awesome–lots of lavender and a sad-looking schoolmarm gazing across a desert. It looks like they've replaced it with something that's supposed to be erotic or disturbing, not sure which. Anne Paulk is another one to look up. You can probably find lots of reading on the Exodus website, though. Regeneration Books out of Baltimore is where I used to get resources. They may not be around anymore.
Not trying to imply you're a barfly:) And I completely agree with you–just trying to toss in a little clarification. I am dorky enough that I don't get that much of an update about what goes on in the women's bars here (all both of them!) A while ago, I went to see the premiere of the L Word at one of them, but I was so lost and confused, and the bar was so smoky, that I just gave up! 🙂
Michael Hamar says:
This article demonstrates the total disingenuousness – or should we say outright lying – that is the hallmark of Focus on the Family and other "family values" organizations of that ilk. No lie is to outrageous for the Christianists.
For the article exposing Michael Johnston as a fraud see:
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2003/8-1/news/breaking/exgay.cfm
I get most of my trashy ex-gay books from Amazon.com, from one of their used booksellers. You can save a lot of money that way, and not put any money in the pockets of the ex-gay ministries.
Also, I've never gotten any strange looks in the library. Maybe because I have that professorial air about me. Yeah, that's it. 😉
Michael Hamar at May 25, 2006 05:32 PM
Are you the same Michael Hamar quoted in the article?
I live in Studio City where lookism is a religion, so I may not be one to judge it among gay folks in other parts of the country.
I just figure it has to do with how much repression a person, or group is responding to.
Respect for individual style isn't a part of strict religious communities. Indeed, the dress is deliberately austere.
However, let someone who started out in that environment get free of it, they bust out all over the place until they settle down into something that can be easily managed.
In any given culture where, maybe all you can control or have the ability to do is be less threatening by way of your expression, one can develop a certain protective attractiveness.
And perhaps gay people are responding to pockets of repression in different parts of the country by cultivating their looks, manners…intellect…whatever.
My grandparents, long exposed to Jim Crow segregation developed an impeccable way of living, I emulate to this day.
It helped them both get work during tough times and if a white person barged in on their home, it was well cared for and immaculate.
And so were their children.
Exodus and other ex gay groups are excruciatingly hung up on gender and it's role in demeaner and how we relate to each other.
This is where they don't seem to understand or respect it's variations of it from individual to individual.
As I've said before, nothing in nature is so pure, binary or precise along gender lines and never has been.
Indeed, what they consider to be 'natural' is in fact for them, and exercise in making people behave the MOST unnatrually.
CPT_Doom says:
Although I agree that the "they were too ugly and too 'small' to get laid" argument is unhelpful and somewhat insulting, I certainly think this thread may be on to something concerning the motivation of those who enter the "ex-gay" movement.
Many of these ex-gays don't ever explicitly go on the record saying they are "cured" of their homosexuality — they simply say they have chosen Jesus instead.
It certainly seems like many people who join the more "intense" religions – those that require a huge amount of commitment on the parts of their followers and dedication to a specific world-view – are looking to fix something in their lives or fill perceived gaps in them. Those who claim to be "ex-gay" often describe their homosexuality as what was "broken" in their lives, but it is certainly possible that the slights/rejections/challenges of living openly gay were what was really wrong.
I have often heard gay men, and I am no exception, complain about how jaded and cynical gay men get within a few years of coming out. Certainly that is a stereotype, but one that I believe is founded in a reality. The "lookism" that has already been discussed is certainly a factor, but I think it also relates to the challenges of dating in an all-male environment, which only exaggerates many of the negative qualities that straight women often complain of – the lack of emotional availability, the difficulty in maintaining monogamy. Add to that the inherent problem in finding a compatible mate in the gay community – where the sheer number of available partners is limited, even in urban areas (I often tell my straight women friends they are lucky – even in San Francisco something like 80% of the men in the city are straight), and you set up the parameters for a lot of heartbreak, leading to cynical gay men.
It is certainly possible that at least some of the men (and men by far get the most attention from the "ex-gay" movement) who enter the "ex-gay" movement misinterpret that heartbreak and cynicism for the "natural" tendency of the "gay lifestyle" and take it as proof that the "lifestyle" is inherently wrong.
Regan, I agree with much of what you've stated, but I think there is more going on with this issue than a lot of people suspect.
I grew up fairly tom-boyish – not into sports, but much of my childhood was spent climbing trees and digging around for natural clays to make things with, hanging out in the woods building forts and down in the basement making large drawings of animals (I grew up to be an artist) and reading non-fiction books, so my journey into religious observance (which started in my mid 20's, before I became Orthodox) involved a discovery of my feminine side which was very healing in many ways. There's a strict dress code in the Orthododox world – women wear dresses or skirts down to below the knees, cannot wear short sleeves, elbows need to be covered and tops have to reach up to the collar bones. Married women cover their hair. My experience of that was to have the experience of being feminine with a sense of respect for myself as a female person, not as a potential sex object for a man or a form of prurient street entertainment for cat callers. It was quite empowering, for a while at least, though I ran into issues with the stereotyping of women as 'emotional beings' rather than as beings capable of intellectual activity as well and other stereotyping galore. It did accomplish a kind of balancing act, though. It made me a more complete person, ultimately, as if it reclaimed a portion of myself I hadn't been able to express before, though now I expose my elbows, knees and collar bones with quite reckless abandon 🙂
Many men don't realize the pressure that women go through to 'look good', from the time we are little and how our value as people revolves around how we look rather than how we think (in fact we are often socialized to believe that being smart is threatening and non-feminine) and what size we are. Working at a University allows me to talk with a number of students and it's really surprising how many young women in their early 20's have already gotten breast implants. I'm also repeatedly startled by how the standards for what is 'dressing up' for women as compared to men. It's easiest to see at graduation, as well as on any awards show on television. Men wear more clothes to dress well, women uncover more skin. So this brings in the idea of modesty which is central to many fundmentalist religious circles as well as to feminists who recognize the objectification of women as sex objects in this phenomenon.
What I hear in many of the testamonials on the Exodus site, aside from healing from the damage of molestation and rape – blatant forms of damage – is the effect of a discovery of a feminine side and a coming to terms with being female in a world that emphasises external beauty as a default for being accepted as women, devalues womens intelligence and the damage that that represents for women who do not fall into the accepted 'norms' of our culture in terms of beauty and who often feel they need to choose between intelligence and strength and being a non-threatening female who can only strive to the level of helpmeet and the issue of sexualization of womens' bodies as the norm for attractive beauty. There's a sacrifice either way, and depending on what needs healing, women are often faced with having to focus on one side or the other in a very complex situation. There's an empowerment to reclaiming the feminine side that many women really do need – and it's not just lesbians. It's a women's issue on many different levels, for straight women as well as bi-sexual and lesbian women.
This issue was recently brought up in a post by Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon:
http://pandagon.net/2006/05/11/femme-inist/#more-2876
One of the most telling statements in it is this:
"…a lot of bookish women probably had hostile relationships with the Cult of Beauty as teenagers, when the tradeoff really did seem to be between being respected as smart or being treated like a dumb but pretty bunny. Handsome but respectable isn't generally a look available to the under-18 crowd. It's understandable to reject the dumb bunny thing, but for a lot of women you end up walking away with the belief that you can't both have a sexual self and an intellectual life at once, I think.
That's why, problematic as it is to buy into feminine drag, it feels empowering for so many women to finally, finally feel free to embrace the skirts and make-up. For me, being able to wear a skirt and some lipstick and even some nice shoes is a victory of sorts, a demonstration that I'm finally self-assured enough about my intellectual equality with men that I can let my guard down and enjoy looking girly."
Since I'm fairly convinced that humans, both male and female, contain both masculine and feminine traits, the idea of actualizing latent masculinity for some men may also be very appealing and healing, especially because there is a long social history of devaluing feminine traits and more feminine men and people who attempt to make themselves straight are often functioning with very low self-esteem because they've been taught that being homosexual is disgusting, wrong and unhealthy. The problem in the Ex-Gay movement and the Right Wing 'family values' , as most people reading this know, is that gay people, like straight people, express both sides of the gender continuum. There are very masculine gay men and very feminine lesbians. They are functioning within an illusion of stereotypes that fit into a particular worldview but are reflected in reality. Most people would probably experience a healthy balancing of themselves as individuals if they could express the traits within them that have been repressed through socialization. None of this, however, has any effect on changing a person from homosexual to straight, or vice versa. There are, I'm quite certain, bi-sexuals who can 'convert' either way if they have identified exclusively heterosexually or homosexually, but that's a very different situation.
here´s my 2 cents: in some psychologic studies, when we analyse an individual´s behavior and his life decisions, we should try to understand the gains that this behavior/decision brings to the subject. Looking at this ex-gay guys, it´s clear that the need to belong to a group (usually religious, but not necessarily) and to please people they consider important in their lifes plays a major part of it. Even to the point of subduing their own desires and their true identity in order to please others. Many of us, gay people, know what it feels to be rejected and how much it hurts, but most of us find a decent solution by bonding with other gay people, and/or restructuring our relashionships with our familys when its possible. Sure enough its nothing about good lookings, but about the inner feelings of rejection and the crave for acceptance.
This ex-gay guys, it seems, didn´t or couldn´t attain meaninfull relastionships with other gay people, and quite possibly because they had it in the unconcious level that this wasn´t possible. And please keep in mind that I´m not talking about getting laid, but about friendship, companionship, and meaningfull social relations. We all heard along our lifes the "gays are lonely" and "gays are unhappy" speech. This guys bought it hook, line and sinker and unconsciouly selfboycott their gay relationships. As the sad outcome, their way to gain social acceptance is to deny their very own true and their life in order to please someone else. But this doesn´t happen without a great cost, the true can´t simply be ignored, it is always there, and that´s why they need to keep jumping up and down all the time, not just to convince everybody else, but also to try to convince thenselves of this faux "straightness". Its already tough to a real straight male to keep with the social standarts of the gender roles (remember: just a wrong angle between the forearm and the hand and a guy´s masculinity is in serious trouble… poor straight guys), then try to imagine what is it like to a gay guy trying to pass for straight! its a nightmare. The solution? jump, jump jump, talk, talk, talk, show, show, show, and make you life (and your earnings) around it just to keep it safe. As a necessary convincing technic they also HAVE to attack gay people, how else would their peers believe they really have nothing more to do with the "sin"? The more virulent the ex-gay, the more fragile his straight persona must be, since it requires this extreme efforts to keep in place.
They can say whatever they want, but they ARE still gay, just very unhappy gays living in permanent tension and distress to keep their feeble "straight" appearence to please others. At the end of day it´s really about appearence and looks, but not about good looks. Not at all.
Hava…I bet if we'd grown up together, or even now, we'd be close friends.
You're reminding me of how I grew up and the best friend I had since.
I grew up around traditional Jews.
I live in and go to areas where all sorts of Jewish people are influential in the neighborhood.
I am so familiar with the different dress and customs.
These issues regarding women's lives in the world seem six of one and half a dozen of the other.
The world seems so primitive in some quarters and intractable for catching up.
The United States has never elected a woman president as other seemingly less likely countries have.
Homophobia is a kind of misogyny,perhaps the most intense kind of the spectrum.
Jim Burroway,
Yes I am the same Michael Hamar as quoted in the Washington Blade article. I worked with Wayne Besen and my client to get the Michael Johnston story in the news. Needless to say, in my opinion it's criminal that Johnston is still making money claiming to be ex-gay after what he was doing in the Norfolk area
I have challenged Warren Throckmorton (whose own article in the APA Journal some time back failed to prove the "cure" programs work), Peter LaBarbera, Robert Knight at CWFA (who in my opinion is a self-hating closet case), et al, with their outright lies on may occasions. Unfortunately, they could care lees about telling the truth and continue to cite discredited experts such as Paul Cameron for their outrageous statements.
If you read Nicolosi's statements carefully, he does not say reparative therapy really works in more than a small number of cases (I suspect he doesn't want the APA to go after his license). Rather, it's his wife who usually makes such unsubstantiated claims.
Timothy Kincaid,
Sorry, I meant to respond to you as opposed to Mr. Burroway.
I would also add for those ex-gays who point to their wife and/or children as "proof" that they are now heterosexual, I was married for 24 years and have 3 children and was in the closet the whole time. A wife and children prove nothing.
everettattebury says:
I am pretty sure that the main motivation for all of these people to become "ex-gay" was their inability to reconcile their homosexuality with their religious beliefs. They see them as totally incompatible and feel they have to choose one or the other.
What a shame.
grace says:
Everettattebury: It's really not a shame…it's just the way it is for some and you don't need to pity them. That is a pretty big chunk of the motivation for many ex-gays (including my husband)…but…there are so many other factors which motivate him. I understand where you are coming from when you say that…but….really, for people like my husband who have found joy, peace, and rest within the process of changing attraction and lessening same sex attraction…there's not reason to pity them. But I do know what you mean.
It's also very true, as someone stated earlier,(but in different words) that just because one lessens same sex attractions and increases opposite sex ones (or in our case "me" sex ones!) it doesn't mean there's a complete change in "orientation", "proclivity"….whatever you want to call it. And yet…again…that's perfectly okay for some people (like my husband). We really just need to all have respect for one another on this.
OH…and my husband is really cute…and I've had it confirmed by several of my gay friends. 🙂
Jeff Barea says:
After some of the comment stream I wonder if I'm cute enough to even post on here.
Fine, so you believe the ex-gay movement is destructive and the rest.
The argument that they should be distrusted because they are making a living on it, could also be used against the many workers and boards receiving money from the Ryan White grants.
Be careful of the richochet effect when you try to come up with reasons why people are untrustworthy.
Mike A. says:
I'm cuteness-challenged and, in my capacity as the XGW administrator, my finger is on the "ban" button for any witless idiot who boasts of his own cuteness or judges others for how they were born.
I agree that people should be careful of the ricohet effect. However, reputable social service agencies and fund-raisers practice full disclosure of their activities and any potential conflicts of interest. The opportunists who appear in "It's Not Gay" did not practice full disclosure.
grantdale says:
Possibly Jeff, but I'm not sure anyone working with AIDS claims also to cure people. Or (these days) treating them like witches to be condemned and burned. Or claiming "love", but also turning up at legislatures wanting PLWA alone to be excluded from anti-discrimination laws, legal marriage etc etc etc.It's not just that the public face of exgays are near always also exgay-for-pay. That raises questions, sure, but feel free to trawl around here and absorb some of the documented dishonesty. Please note, as example, how very different it is when someone is being sincere and open (grace, that would be you!)And, leaving aside even discussing the complete wrongness of earlier comments by some, please don't worry about not being photogenic enough. There's prolly a VERY reason we don't have a "Meet The People Who Post" page at XGW… (selves included!)
Regan, didn't see your post earlier. I've considered you a friend for quite some time, as I've been reading your posts regularly for about a half a year, now. You're an inspiration and anyone who's been a circus clown and dances is clearly a kindred soul!
Michael, sometimes I get embarrassed for the ex-gays described as "Joe Exgay has a wife a two children". It makes the spouse and kids sound like possessions or accessories.
What seems very clear is that there is not a single person to be found – not one – who has genuinely changed sexual orientation from gay to straight through any kind of deliberate "therapy" process.
If they're out there, they are terribly, terribly shy about coming forward. The people who DO come forward, as others earlier in this thread have pointed out, do not in fact say that they have completely changed orientation or desire. And of course, as the article demonstrates, they make a living of sorts out of saying what they DO say.
I just found this blog after googling for the name of the DVD; I received an ad for it in my email box.
What these ministries are doing is downright evil. Think of all the teenagers who are gay who are going through a living hell. People are telling these kids that they can change. Then when the kids find they can't (how can one possibly change their orientation? come on), the kids are undoubtedly filled with guilt, and possibly, fear of eternal damnation. These so-called christians should be ashamed of themselves for doing this to people.
This is a great video! I've used it to help show people the corruption of the gay lifestyle and all that it leads. Highly recommended only needs more publicity!
Surely you jest (O_o)
I agree that the video clearly illustrates corruption. However, the corruption is on the part of the man featured in the video (he's on the cover) who claimed to be ex-gay while he was having unsafe sex orgies and lying about his HIV status.
It also clearly illustrates the corruption of those who know about the deceipt and still continue to distribute it. And the corruption of those who "use it to show people the corruption of the gay lifestyle" even after they become aware of the dishonesty of the video.
All that corruption is so sad.
Brian Boru says:
As an fairly ugly gay man I can perhaps have some quasi-understanding of the argument about "can't get laid". I get reject a lot and have found it impossible as a 27 yr old to establish any relationships. I only get attention when someone is really desperate. In that context I often tell people who know my orientation that I would prefer to be straight, because ugly straight men are in with a much better shot given the ugly men we see holding hands with beautiful women as we walk down the streets and I know of one extremely ugly man with an okay-looking wife. As it is I feel condemned to perpetual loneliness like this, but I would not join some "ex-gay" outfit because sexual-orientation is something genetic – you can't change it by any sort of 'aversion therapy' or quasi-religious brainwashing. But I empathise with anyone who says that its extremely tough being gay if you're below average looking.