Gay "Reformation"

[KAW143]

Here is a subject that has been on my mind of late, somewhat related to BoD's thread on abuses of religion and the gay marriage thread, both listed in this forum.

There are several organizations around the world that claim to be able to reform homosexuals: gays can come to these camps and, through prayer and hard work, they will be cured of thier same-sex tendencies.

My quesion is this: does anyone have *any* evidence at all that these programs have *ever* been successful with *anyone*? I know that the organizations themselves claim successes, and occasionally will list a name or two; yet, most of these examples by their own admission still have the urges, they simply do not act upon them. (Still others continue to act on them and are occasionally caught in rather compromising positions. . . ) Further, recent articles, stories and books have alleged huge abuses at the hands of certain of these spiritual healers. (I also know a few people who can tell a hair-raising story or two about the indignities they faced in one or more of these programs.) I am wondering if there has ever been a clinical study of these organizations examining their success (or lack thereof) rates.

 

[Bikewer]

Most in the psychiatric community are appalled at these "programs", which invariably leave the poor schmuck more screwed up than when he began....

 

[RandFan]

Obviously there is a flaw in the assumption that there is something to "cure".

IIRC, sexual repression of previously held tendencies often causes more desire for that tendency and not less. The problem lies in the fact that we are talking about Humans. Humans can be a diverse group when it comes to sex. A portion of us are more likely to be strictly homosexual or heterosexual. While a portion are bi-sexual with all sorts of twists in between. I read an article once in LA Weekly that talked about a significantly large section of the male population that engaged in homosexual activity but were repulsed by the idea of intimacy with other men. They don't like to fantasize about cuddling or kissing men and are quite intimate with member of the opposite sex. I don't have any data and I am not an expert. Still it seems that the notion that we can cure people of their sexual identity as dumb and without any foundation. Furthermore there is real evidence that such attempts cause allot of problems in the end with only the notion of pleasing god as a counter balance.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Good question!

I wish I was better at citing sources, but I recall reading a sucess rate of such programs at being 30% at the highest. Can't seem to remember whence that came.

Also, it's been quite some time since the American Psychiatric Association (I think it was them) ceased considering homosexuality to be a disease. In some literature today it will still be refered to as "aberant", but in as non-judgemental a way as possible, the author usually makes that clear.

For a good story on the subject, look up how Alan Turing spent the last few years of his life. The buggers sure thought of a heck of a way to repay him.

 

[Prospero]

The programs have an abyssmal success rate. This is probably due to the fact that genetics and sex-drive win out over willpower almost every time. They've done plenty of studies showing that the programs don't work in addition to empirical evidence gathered by the obvious fact that there is not a legion of reformed gays. At this time, it's considered an absurd, even barbaric notion.

 

[c4ts]

I suppose the logic of these operations must be: "if the bible says it's wrong, it must be cureable through prayer!" Sheer brilliance.

 

[Tony]

What would possess a gay person to even indulge in one of those programs? Ohh wait, the stupid belief that gayness is morally wrong.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Somewhat relevant to the topic, just scroll down a bit.

Here

The American Psychiatric Association responded that "there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation," and "The potential risks of reparative therapy are great (including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior) since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reenforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient."

Well, there you go.

 

[KAW143]

What would possess a gay person to even indulge in one of those programs? Ohh wait, the stupid belief that gayness is morally wrong.

Well, the belief that it is morally wrong is rather wide-spread and this causes many gay people to be subjected to varying amounts of hatred and discrimination. This is a rather daunting realization for a young person (or even an older person) who is just coming to the understanding about their gay-ness.

Point of fact, I have rarely met a person whose first thought at realizing they are gay was, "Woo-Hoo!" Usually, the realization is devastaing and some amount of time is spent in either denial or out-right rejection. Some of the people I have known have tried these programs to get rid of this "one, small piece of their psyche" and have suffered humiliation, violence, rape, theft and other indignities for their troubles.

My hopes in asking this question was to find someone connected to these programs and see if they could answer some of the questions I( have about them. How successful are they? Is the abuse widespread or abherrent?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

I wish I was better at citing sources, but I recall reading a sucess rate of such programs at being 30% at the highest. Can't seem to remember whence that came.

These are the most “optimistic” percentages, and I wouldn’t trust the source as it’s a number the family research institute backs (http://www.familyresearchinst.org) . (oops, I just now see you found a better source)

I think RandFan has the right idea. Most orientations seem to be immovable, but I’m sure some are more plastic. Still, I’ve not personally known any who’ve been “cured”. I’ve known those who were once “success stories” for some of these programs, and some who think they are “cured” but “lapse” every now and then. I’ve also known some who met their partners or had their first homosexual experience with a fellow member of these groups. From the descriptions they give, it seems to me the programs are like singles bars, just with a lot more guilt, self-loathing, and prayer.

One of the worst parts about these programs are the effects that reach beyond the sad life of a homosexual who thinks they must, for religious reasons, change who they are. When these programs tell these men and woman they are cured and can go ahead and marry heterosexually, they are playing with the lives of the unsuspecting heterosexuals these homosexuals might marry, and the children that could result.

I read a story a while ago about a Mormon guy who was told by his Bishop to marry as a remedy to his homosexuality. They had kids, but in the end he cheated on his wife. Because men living as heterosexuals want anonymity when they follow their sex drive, it leads to a dangerous sex life. Both the man and his wife ended up with AIDS; the most amazingly touching part was her ability to stand by him after all that. Sure, a lot of men cheat, and they all are responsible for the consequences, but I think these programs, by misleading these homosexuals, have at least part of the burden.

For a good story on the subject, look up how Alan Turing spent the last few years of his life. The buggers sure thought of a heck of a way to repay him.

I’ll say. I read his biography a couple years ago. A great man and a sad story.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Why? You already know what they'll say.

"The programs are very successful. We don't 'abuse' anyone - some of the treatments may be less than pleasant, but that's true of most medicine. Of course abuse is the exception. I wouldn't stay in the program if I thought that wasn't the case."

It's like asking a Creationist whether there's significant evidence against evolution. Redundant.

 

[BillyTK]

Here's an article about Love Won Out organisation, which believes that people can be "cured" of their homosexuality, and an article about the controversial "reparative therapy", which is alleged to be the cure:

Doctor Qazi Rahman, a lecturer at the University of East London and specialist in the biological basis of human sexual orientation, criticised the methodology of the research [...].

"My main concern is the method. He [Professor Robert Spitzer, inventor of reparative therapy] relied on self-reports from a select sample of individuals. They were not your average gay or lesbian man - they were mostly from ex-gay ministries and organisations involved in reparation."

 

[KAW143]

Why? You already know what they'll say.

"The programs are very successful. We don't 'abuse' anyone - some of the treatments may be less than pleasant, but that's true of most medicine. Of course abuse is the exception. I wouldn't stay in the program if I thought that wasn't the case."

It's like asking a Creationist whether there's significant evidence against evolution. Redundant.

Good point. I suppose I really, really want to know is why these organizations even bother with advertizing a "cure" for homosexuality. This is not a simple salve for the percieved sin; this is an attempt -- quite blatent in my opinion -- to erradicate the sin entirely. If the sin is the bothersome part -- the actual sexual practices of homosexuality -- a simple absinency support group could "transform" these "sinners" (if you will) into "non-practicing homosexuals". Yet this ain't what is happening. Even "non-practicing" isn't enough for these guys; they aren't satisfied with "non-practicing". They want only straight people, pure and simple. Why? Is it because they know that this "sin" is *not* simply behavioural? That this sin't as simple as saying no to drugs or alchohol or saying, "Shucks!" instead of "@#!!@" and, as such, harsher programs are necessary?

Am I reading too sinister a goal into these groups? Perhaps they simply think that celebacy is simply not an option for most people (and I would accapt that as a truism) and that this gives those who want to "go straight" an option for a life with sex. But I honestly don't think so. This seems like something of a progrom, to me. BUt, as I have said, I might be thinking too harshly. . . . Any thoughts?

 

[Dancing David]

There is a lot of work in sexual redirection of paraphilias but i am not sure that there is any real research into changing 'gfay' people into straight people.

First off, there is a large body of people who consider themselves to not be gay even though they participate in homosexual relations at a very high level. These peope have such wierd self image that they don't even consider themselves bisexual. the man who wrote "Low Down" was on Oprah and even though he admits to frequents sexual encounters with men , he says that he not gay.

Second this gets to the issue, it is possible for someone to redirect and to try to change thier sexual urges and fantasy images. But if you are biologicaly attracted to a certain gender, that is going to be very hard to change.

Then there is the whole issue of men who are homosexuals but don't identify themselves that way. Really crazy.

If you sexual behavior is not harmful, then you should try to accept it and not change it.

 

[Marc]

There is a movie parodying these reformation treatements. Haven't gotten to see But I'm a Cheerleader yet. Anyone here see it?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

There is a movie parodying these reformation treatements. Haven't gotten to see But I'm a Cheerleader yet. Anyone here see it?

Yes, very funny.

 

[DarkMagician]

Does gay reformation work?

I say yes. The fab five can turn into a giant robot.

*reads posts*

Oh, that gay reformation. No, then.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

If the sin is the bothersome part -- the actual sexual practices of homosexuality -- a simple absinency support group could "transform" these "sinners" (if you will) into "non-practicing homosexuals". Yet this ain't what is happening. Even "non-practicing" isn't enough for these guys; they aren't satisfied with "non-practicing". They want only straight people, pure and simple. Why? Is it because they know that this "sin" is *not* simply behavioural? That this sin't as simple as saying no to drugs or alchohol or saying, "Shucks!" instead of "@#!!@" and, as such, harsher programs are necessary?

I think you’re right. The sexual practices of homosexuals are not the only bother. I know many aging gay couples and I’m pretty sure they would not be considered “practicing homosexuals” for months out of the year, if at all, if it means sexual practices--many men simply lose interest--but these groups would still want to stop them from living together as a couple.

The perceived sin is a couple of things, it seems. First is the imagination; Christianity sees an imagined sin to be comparable to an actual sin; if you are attracted to the same sex and entertain any imagined sex act, you are sinning regardless. Second seems to be the perceived feminization of men or masculinization of women. This cuts to the heart of the misogyny some hold as sacred.

edited for clarity

 

[KAW143]

I think you’re right. The sexual practices of homosexuals are not the only bother. I know many aging gay couples and I’m pretty sure they would not be considered “practicing homosexuals” for months out of the year, if at all, if it means sexual practices--many men simply lose interest--but these groups would still want to stop them from living together as a couple.

The perceived sin is a couple of things, it seems. First is the imagination; Christianity sees an imagined sin to be comparable to an actual sin; if you are attracted to the same sex and entertain any imagined sex act, you are sinning regardless. Second seems to be the perceived feminization of men or masculinization of women. This cuts to the heart of the misogyny some hold as sacred.

edited for clarity

That is how it seemed to me, as well, but even scarier, I began to think that perhaps the people who run these programs have come to think of the very *existence* of homosexuals as sinful.

With heterosexuals, pre-mairital sex is sinful. Everything else is a grey area that varies from religion to religion: holding hands is okay here, kissing is forbidden there; dancing is alright here; BJ in the Oval Office is not technically sex. . . . . That kind of thing. Yet, my walking down the street holding my parter's hand (or even looking at him a bit too amorously) is always sinful. Even thinking of myself as homosexual is bad and wrong. Somehow, homosexuality is some kind of meta-sin, a great, big terrible sin that to even identify with it is to invite hell. Meanwhile, I can contemplate murder and as long as I "don't do it in my heart" (whatever that means) I am fine.

This got me thinking that religons, then, would have a great desire to bring in homosexuals for the purpose of reformation in a loving, caring environment to "save them from themselves" or some such. This isn't, however, what is happening. I'll reference the earlier post that likened these programs to cruising clubs with added guilt. That ain't far from the truth, from what I understand. But, from what I have seen, this is just the *brighter* side of these ministries. Rapes, beatings, theft and other such horrors seem to be very common. But why would religions lure people in with promises of understanding and a new way of life and then treat them like "just a bunch of dirty homos"? Do they really think they are going to "help" anybody acting this way?

That's why I want to know: are the problems I've been told about endemic or are they isolated incidents? If isolated. . . Well, the whole concept *still* seems a bit creepy to me. If endemic, however, there *might* be another agenda at these places. Though, goodness knows I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, this is one I just can't shake.

YOu people are skeptical. Talk me off of the walls, here!

(Understand, I am not suggesting that there are Homosexual gas chamber in these programs' basements, or some such blather. I am simply saying that my thinking on the subject has cused me to conclude: 1. they want to erradicate any kind of homosexual behaviour, not just the things that would be biblically labelled sinful. 2. if they have such a low opinion of homosexual behaviour, then they might have a low opinion of homosexuals themselves. and 3. if they have a low opinion of homosexuals, then having homosexuals put themselves in a subsurivent position to these misitries would be a recipe for disaster. Thats all. Hope that's clear.)

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

That is how it seemed to me, as well, but even scarier, I began to think that perhaps the people who run these programs have come to think of the very *existence* of homosexuals as sinful.

I don’t think I’ll be the one to talk you down. While most Christians I’ve known are not like this, some not only see homosexuals merely existing (buying groceries, mowing their lawns, and going to work) as sinful, but as physically dangerous to cultures and contagious. As I posted in this thread here this morning, homosexuality has been historically used as an explanation for natural disasters and some Christians still have this view. The most extreme proudly show a keen hatred for even “cured” homosexuals, quoting Paul’s explanation that pagan homosexuals were given to homosexuality by God for their idolatry, and so nothing can “cure” a homosexual.

But why would religions lure people in with promises of understanding and a new way of life and then treat them like "just a bunch of dirty homos"? Do they really think they are going to "help" anybody acting this way?

Maybe, to give the benefit of the doubt, it’s a break you down to build you up sort of thing. Still, much of what you mention, like rape, does make its way far into sadism, and I can’t see how anyone would consider it cathartic in any way.