Countering Ex-Gay ClaimsThis page, countering ex-gay claims, includes an exchange with the editor of Psychology Today regarding their ad policy for “ex-gay” advocates. A helpful resource for those who would like to learn more about this issue: Sexual Conversion Therapy, edited by Ariel Shidlo, Michael Schroeder, and Jack Drescher (Haworth Medical Press, 2002) is a collection of essays and studies that provide an indepth consideration of ethical, clinical, and research perspectives on ex-gay claims, and attempts to change sexual orientation. For a more humorous spin on ex-gay claims, and attempts to change gays to heterosexuality, check out my novel: The God Squad (a spoof on the ex-gay movement). Click on the cover for a link to an excerpt! Psychology Today exchange: Psychology Today published an ad (December, 2002) for a book called A Parents' Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, by Joseph and Linda Ames Nicolosi, who are advocates of "reparative" (or conversion) therapy to cure gays of homosexuality, and who make many ex-gay claims for their practice. I wrote a letter to the editor to question their policy of accepting ads supporting ex-gay claims, and advocating "reparative" therapy, and the editor wrote me back. I've included my initial letter, followed by a summary of his reply, and my response to his defense of ex-gay claims. Dear Editor: I find it very disturbing that Psychology Today would take an ad for A Parents' Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, by Joseph and Linda Ames Nicolosi, who claim that homosexuality can be "cured." There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality can be prevented or "cured." I am a licensed clinical social worker, and have seen the harm done gay clients who attempted to deny their sexual orientation through ex-gay claims, including this type of "conversion" or "reparative" therapy. Yes, there are some gay people who feel bad about their sexual orientation, but that's because of the homophobia of many religions and the harmful practices of therapists such as Nicolosi. Holding out hope for a false "cure" and encouraging clients to pretend they are not really gay only aggravates and extends their suffering, often leading to self-hatred, substance abuse, and even suicide. Psychology Today, as a journal providing psychological insights for a popular audience, has a responsibility not to mislead readers about such a harmful treatment, which has been discredited by all the mental health professions, plus the American Medical Association. I hope you will review and alter PT's policy re: the acceptance of ads encouraging this outmoded and harmful form of treatment. Sincerely, Rik Isensee, LCSW Robert Epstein, editor of Psychology Today (who declined to have his reply quoted verbatim), responded with the following points: as a commercial publication rather than an academic journal, Psychology Today maintains a separation between its editorial and advertising departments, therefore they don't necessarily agree with the ex-gay claims of their advertisers. He quoted the American Psychology Association's 1997 resolution on sexual orientation, which states that we are obligated to "respect the rights of others to hold values, attitudes, and opinions that differ from our own"--even if that includes unsubstantiated ex-gay claims. Epstein also cited a review of outcome studies and other ex-gay claims that challenges the view that reparative therapy is not effective. Finally, he wondered if some advocates of gay rights are unwilling to respect any opinions (including ex-gay claims) that differ from their own. Following is my reply: Dear Dr. Epstein: Thanks for your note in response to my concerns about your ad for Nicolosi’s book. I appreciate hearing back from you, and I’m glad you’re considering a piece on reparative therapy. It seems that you were taken aback by the reactions you’ve received on this matter. You have to realize this isn’t an idle intellectual debate for gay people—you might want to take a look at the film, One Nation Under God, which documents the abusive history of reparative therapy, in case you’re not familiar with this story. I think it’s somewhat disingenuous to claim you don’t necessarily agree with your advertisers. Even if advertising is a separate department, you must have some guidelines and standards for accepting appropriate ads. If Scientific American, for example, took an ad for a book promoting creationism through “intelligent design,” I’m sure they’d get a flood of letters from beleaguered biology teachers. Is there room for reasonable people to disagree? Perhaps on the fluidity of sexual expression over time, but not about the basic question of whether homosexuality is an illness, that needs “prevention” or a “cure.” Yes, I’m familiar with Throckmorton’s review, whose conclusions were contradicted by another study in the same issue of the journal you cited: "The results indicated that a majority failed to change sexual orientation, and many reported that they associated harm with conversion interventions. A minority reported feeling helped, although not necessarily with their original goal of changing sexual orientation." (See “Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers' Report,” by Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, June, 2002.) Throckmorton is a professor and counselor at an evangelical Christian school called Grove City College. He also offered a slide presentation at the American Psychiatric Association in 2001 (“Ethical Issues in Attempts to Ban Reorientation Therapies”), in which he states, “For some, it is easier, and less emotionally disruptive, to contemplate changing sexual orientation than to disengage from a religious way of life that is seen as completely central to the individual’s sense of self and purpose.” I think it’s fine to offer treatment for a conflict between religious beliefs and sexual orientation. We can help clients sort through their beliefs, and empower them to decide what makes sense in their own lives. “Disengagement from a religious way of life” and “changing sexual orientation” are not the only options for resolving this dilemma. If they are also exposed to the fact that not all religions believe homosexual relationships are sinful, they may even be able to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sexual orientation—a far less drastic (and potentially more integrated) approach than the false dichotomy offered by ex-gay proponents. Throckmorton apparently sees celibacy as a reasonable alternative to gay sexuality: “Those who were highly successful in attempting change of behavior and maintaining celibacy reported positive mental health on a variety of measures of happiness, loneliness, self-acceptance, and depression.” In the same presentation, Throckmorton also acknowledged “In another study by the same team comparing ‘ex-gays’ and LGB persons, ‘ex-gays’ reported positive mental health in their identity synthesis, with LGB persons reporting greater happiness, self-acceptance, and less loneliness and paranoia.” (emphasis added) If religious leaders insist their followers must avoid same-sex contact because it's sinful, that's one thing; gay people can then decide whether that makes sense to them (although I would still question whether it's all that healthy to suppress their true feelings for the sake of an ancient tribal taboo). But ex-gay treatment providers insist that same-sex contact is a mental illness they refer to with the condescending acronym of "SAD" (Same-Sex Attraction Disorder), and claim reparative therapy can help gays overcome their homosexual feelings and become “straight.” It may be that some religiously-motivated gays see a celibate lifestyle as their only option, while some who are actually bisexual may even get married. But let’s look at the heart of the matter: while some “ex-gays” may be “ex-gay” in the sense that they are avoiding gay sex, very few (if any) are ever “ex-gay” in the sense of no longer experiencing same-sex desires. This continuing struggle is commonly acknowledged in much of the ex-gay literature, and in interviews with both ex-gays and their counselors. Since homosexual attraction is not a mental disorder, I believe it is misleading, potentially damaging, and unethical to offer a fundamental shift in sexual orientation as a goal of psychotherapy. I’m aware of your stewardship of Psychology Today, and your concern that prior to your tenure “Almost anything could get in,” and “It lost respect among therapists, scientists and professionals.” (From your interview with Biotech, June 29, 2001.) Psychology Today could better fulfill its mission as a reputable resource by enforcing responsible standards in your advertising, as well as in feature articles. Sincerely, Rik Isensee, LCSW * * * * * * * Get your free copy of my article on: Just enter your email in this Newsletter sign-up, below, and I'll send you announcements of upcoming workshops, new releases, and other events you might be interested in (along with your free article)! * You can e-mail me with questions about my practice, or schedule an appointment by clicking on this link: Contact Rik! You can also reach me directly at (415) 821-7665 during regular business hours.
Check out Site Build It! for your own webhosting!
|
