Nine months ago, when writing about “conversion therapy,” I expressed my doubts about the effectiveness of this treatment, designed to “cure” people like us of our longings for same-sex intimacy and affection.

Despite those doubts, I believe, as I then wrote that, in a free society, “Christian groups have every right to set up . . . companies [offering such therapy, provided they do not coerce anyone to enter treatment.”  Even though in a subsequent post, I expressed the intention to address the issue of “coercion“, I have yet to do so.  Given that  many of those “coerced” to enter such treatment are minors, the issue is not as simple as it might first appear; should the state intervene to prevent this coercion, it would then be acting in loco parentis.

As a reader said when we were discussing the issue on Facebook, “It does get hairy for minors.”  On the one hand, I very much want to prevent any teen from experiencing some of the extreme treatments in such programs.  On the other, I fear the slippery slope created by any legislation removing parents’ rights to raise their own children.  Will the state then try to prevent parents from home-schooling their children or learning to hunt?

At the LA Weekly, Patrick McDonald writes about a bill pending before the California legislature to allow teens to opt out of therapies their parents choose;

Written by California State Senator Ted Lieu and sponsored by the gay rights group Equality California, Senate Bill 1172 would force psychotherapists to tell gay patients about the mental and physical harms of undertaking any so-called “gay therapies.” Therapists would also need the consent of a patient before moving forward with their dangerous work.

Most importantly, the bill seeks to stop all gay therapies of minors, regardless of the wishes of his or her parents. So you have to be at least 18 years old and sign off on treatment before a whacked-out therapist can do anything to you.

He goes on to detail some of the treatments to which young people have been subject.  The text of the legislation is here.   (more…)

I have always objected to the term “homophobia” because it means fear of sameness and have always thought those who harbored anti-gay attitudes did so out of ignorance of or hostility toward people who differed from themselves. But, now we have one study suggesting that the word’s denotation might actually be accurate:

Homophobes could be attracted to people of the same sex but are not admitting it to themselves, a series of psychology studies has found.

Researchers in New York, Essex and California say they’ve found evidence that gays and lesbians remind homophobes of themselves – which is why they develop an intense aversion and fear of them.

They claim homophobic people tend to repress their true sexuality as they’ve often been brought up in families where being gay is not acceptable.

Via Hot Air headlines.  That does sometimes seem to be the case. Do recall Joseph Campbell once saying (I’m paraphrasing here), ask a man what he hates and that is his “shadow”, the part of himself that he tries to repress.

Social media have allowed us to interact and connect in ways not possible just a decade ago.  They have made it easier for us to track down long-lost friends and to  learn about their present doings.  Even as I write this, I am chatting on Facebook with an Australian gay man who, like many of our readers, differs from the norm of our community; he reached out to me after discovering the blog.

Facebook has also allowed me to see a phenomenon I first witnessed when I came out in the 1990s, of the loneliness of many gay men, perhaps a loneliness paralleled among our straight peers, but one which, at times,seems unique to our particular situation.  And Facebook magnifies it.  Some men seek solace in identifying with a political group, fearing to differ in one iota from its ideology, lest their peers cut them off.  Others relate the most mundane items of their day, as if that will help link them to the outside world.

Here we have this means of instant (virtual) connection and yet all too many of us aren’t really connecting.

These observations have caused me to revisit some (somewhat) dormant ideas about loneliness — and that too human hunger for real connection, for friends who see us we are and in whose presence we feel part of the universe because to truly feel part of the universe, we must, all of us, feel some connection to our fellow man.  And not just the connection of their physical presence, but a meaningful bond where they delight in our idiosyncrasies — and they in ours.

Understanding that, I found it very hard to watch the 1964 Bette Davis movie Dead Ringer, a film where the screen siren plays twin sisters, with the less financially fortunate Edith Phillips murdering her more wealthy sister Margaret in order to assume her identity and live in luxury.  As soon as Edie commits the crime, then puts on her sister’s clothes and goes to her house, all I could think about was how miserable her new life would be, no longer able to spend time with the Karl Malden‘s Jim Hobbson, the cop who truly appreciates her–cut off not just from him, but from her friends in the bar she manages.

I just couldn’t believe that anyone, well into middle age, with real friends would want to give them all up for a chance at riches.  And yet some people do.

After all, what is wealth if you have no one with whom to share it? (more…)

Perhaps, it’s because Kirk Cameron is not an elected official that I didn’t make much of his comments earlier this month, calling homosexuality “unnatural“, even, as he put it, “detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”  He has a right to his opinions. And we have a right to challenge him on them.

The fact that so many have raised such a ruckus over his remarks shows how far we’ve come since he was at the peak of his celebrity.  His hit TV series Growing Pains ended its run in 1992, five years before Ellen DeGeneres’s coming out made the cover of Time magazine.  Today, homosexuality has become so mainstream that we barely bat an eyelid when a celebrity comes out.

Had he made offered similar comments at that time, his notions would have generated far less controversy.

Not just that, most of us are secure enough in our sexuality that we don’t feel threatened by a one-time teen hearth throb’s contrary opinions.

Something else to bear in mind:  the night Mr. Cameron offered his opinions on homosexuality, fewer than half a million Americans tuned into Mr. Morgan’s show.  More than twice that number were watching the openly lesbian Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.  Ellen De Generes’s daytime talk show draws nearly three million viewers.

And that’s the real change.  These “out” lesbians anchor television programs and continue to flourish in the open market.  So, let Mr. Cameron speak his mind; his opinions won’t undo the social changes of the past twenty years.

Last night, I finally got around to watching A Single Man and wish I had seen it on the big screen.  Although the script had a numerous problems, the art direction and cinematography made the flick a real treat.  And Colin Firth‘s portrayal of the solitude of gay man in the early 1960s struggling with the recent death of his life-companion paralleled Katharine Hepburn‘s portrayal of the solitude of a woman in middle age in the mid-1950s confronting her emotional longings (in Summertime).  It really was that good.

Perhaps, it is unfair to fault the film for lacking a traditional narrative.  Perhaps that was not its purpose.  It sought instead to show what it was like for a man to bear the grief of such a significant loss in a time much different from our own.

Visually it was absolutely stunning.

It did make me feel — as good movies tend to do.  And think — as better ones do.

Had I been awake enough last night to write a review, I would have offered a less enthusiastic appreciation of the film than I do today.  The plot seem contrived, the ending relationship too ambiguous, some of the dialogue (when Firth’s Falconer was teaching) too politically correct.  And it’s tiresome to see gay movies where the filmmakers portray a same-sex relationship in a good light while showing straight ones as flawed (his neighbor/close friend Julianne Moore‘s recollections of her marriage).

All that said, like the Hepburn movie, it does remind us of the power of human relationships. As George says to the Nicholas Hoult‘s Kenny, a student infatuated with him:

You know the only thing that’s made the whole thing worthwhile has been those few times when I’ve been able to really, truly connect with another human being.

Perhaps it was the power of the imagery that has caused the movie to leave such a sweet impression now nearly twenty-four hours after first I saw it.  Last night, I considered more its flaws.  Today, I remember the images.

And in a visual medium, perhaps that is paramount.  And the flick once again does remind us of the importance of relationships.

Based upon my experience as an uncle, having seen (or currently witnessing) eight nephews pass through the late single-digit stage, if an 8-year-old boy were to, of his own accord, ask a question of a presidential candidate, he might ask him to name his favorite superhero or to discuss the various characters in Star Wars. He would not ask a question about homosexuality.

Which brings me to this video:

Now, despite the attempts of the folks at Yahoo! to spin this as Michele Bachmann vs. the 8-Year-Old, just by watching the video, it’s clear his mother is putting him to telling the candidate, “My mommy’s gay, but she doesn’t need fixing.”

Now, to Mrs. Bachmann’s credit, she’s not rude; she just refuses to answer.  The real question (which our friends at Yahoo! fail to ask) is why the boy’s mother didn’t have the guts to make a similar statement to the Congresswoman.  Unlike the hestitant child, the woman could follow up with the candidate, pressing her to respond.

Despite her social conservatism, Mrs. Bachmann (in the current presidential campaign) has shown considerable reluctance to talk about her views on homosexuality.  As we reported here, she didn’t even respond to GOProud’s request for a meeting.  And that is a serious strike against her.

It is legitimate to ask the candidate about her views on homosexuality.  It’s pathetic when a mother puts up her son to speak on her behalf.  And it’s telling that the media eager to make a martyr of the boy don’t call the mother out on her cowardice.

Yesterday, Bruce e-mailed me an article about a straight rugby player who, after “breaking his neck and suffering the stroke”, woke to find that he preferred men to his fiancée.  After attempting a back flip, the then-straight man “fell down a grass bank” where he sustained the injuries:

He was taken to hospital where his fiancée and family spent days waiting anxiously at his bedside before he delivered the shocking news.

Mr Birch recalled: ‘I was gay when I woke up and I still am. It sounds strange but when I came round I immediately felt different.

‘I wasn’t interested in women any more. I was definitely gay. I had never been attracted to a man before – I’d never even had any gay friends.

It’s doubtful we could learn much about the nature of our homosexual feelings by studying images of his brain unless scans had been taken before he sustained the injury (then we could see what parts had changed).

And this is not the only case where strokes have changed individuals’ personalities — or given them (gave them access to?) skills which they previously lacked — or of which they had previously been unaware.  Wonder if there are other stories of strokes changing an individual’s sexual orientation — and what scientists learned from that.

Time to e-mail my favorite neurosurgeon (my older brother).

In a thoughtful post over at his blog Canadian Rattlesnake, Naamloos, a young gay man, contends he lacks “any loyalty to the gay community,” contrasting sexuality to race:

Unlike race, sexuality is not hereditary.  My father is not gay.  Nor is my mother.  Most black people have at least one black biological parent.  I wasn’t born into the gay community.

I haven’t known that I have been gay for my entire life.  Some of my characteristics, however, I have known about, or have become aware of prior to my acknowledgement of my homosexuality.  Such as my conservative political views.

Although I do use the term “gay community” quite frequently, sometimes I wonder if there is such a thing.  With my fellow gay men, I share an attraction to our own sex.  And I do tend to get along well with lesbians, well, the ones like Ellen DeGeneres and Mary Cheney who don’t define themselves by their sexuality.  But, does that a community make?

I also tend to get along well with my fellow conservatives, but rarely hear the expression, “conservative community.”

So, let me leave you with a question, why should we have a community based on our sexuality, but not our ideological inclinations?

This really isn’t news.  We’ve read about it already in Mary Cheney’s wonderful book, but we haven’t heard much praise for example set by the immediate past Vice President of the United States, particularly from the supposed advocates for the gay community.

Seems they don’t want to be seen praising a man who has been designated a demon by the arbiters of correct political opinions.  In his book, In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir, where the Wyomingite details his rise to power, in sparse prose (as is his wont throughout), Dick Cheney describes how he reacts to his daughter’s coming out.

Talking about his travels during his “congressional years” when he frequently took one of his two daughters with him on trips back to Wyoming,” this good man writes:

It was on one of those trips–in the Denver airport, to be precise–that Mary told me she was gay.  I told her that I loved her dearly and that what was important to me was that she be happy.

So should all parents react.  Nice to see this leading conservative setting such a fine example.

If you’re aware of the heads of any gay organizations praising the Republican for setting the standard for responses to a child’s coming out, please let me know so I can update this post accordingly.

As I was attending various family events and traveling, I won’t have much time to blog, so will put a quotation out there which, I hope, will spur some discussion. I first read it in Andrew Ferguson’s piece in the Weekly Standard on the newest entrant into the Republican presidential contest, Texas Governor Rick Perry.

For now, I will say that while I am (with one major concern in terms of policy* and a number of concerns about his style) impressed with the general tenor of the the Air Force veteran’s campaign, a number of conservative bloggers and pundits have raised some questions about his record. (Jennifer Rubin has offered perhaps the best critiques of his candidacy.)

So, here’s his comment on homosexuality which I trust our readers to consider with spirit, insight and intelligence:

“Though I am no expert on the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate, I can sympathize with those who believe sexual preference is genetic,” he wrote. “I respect their right to engage in the individual behavior of their choosing, but they must respect the right of millions in society to refuse to normalize their behavior.”

“We must draw a line in the sand: People have the right to decide for themselves what they will believe in the core of their being, and how they will live,” he wrote. “For those who want to throw stones at homosexuals in the name of calling out sin, may they be just as loud about adultery among heterosexuals and pornography among their own churchgoing friends.”

I do like the libertarian tenor of his views and expect to have more to say on this anon.  They are in the same vein as comments by from his fellow candidate Herman Cain.

* (more…)

In an extended, but thoughtful, rant today on human sexuality, R.S. McCain questions our modern notion of sexual expression:

. . . with the Desire Is Destiny theory of sexuality, promulgated so relentlessly (first by Kinsey, then by Hugh Hefner, and then by damned near everybody) that we cannot think about sex in any other terms. What is overlooked is that this liberationist theory denies the power of human will and human choice. If we desire someone, the liberationist argument would have us believe, we must act on that desire or else suffer psychological trauma as a result of the (harmful) repression of our desire. The only “moral” standard by which any such pursuit may be judged is whether the resulting sexual encounter is between consenting adults.

Read the whole thing.  I don’t say that because I agree with everything Stacy has to say, but believe he has made an important contribution to the current debate begun when allegations were leveled against a certain presidential candidate’s spouse.  And, well, given his style, it’s always a delight to read his posts.  (Familiar with his puckish nature, I know that he seeks to engage rather than offend.)

We do have a choice.  And sometimes in refusing to act on our desires, we strengthen another bond, a bond which often helps secure our own happiness.  Frustrated desire does not necessarily make us miserable.

His critique of the modern notion of Desire as Destiny dovetails nicely with my thoughts on the fluidity of our sexuality.  Both of us take us issue with societal assumptions about sexuality.  He that we need indulge our every desire, I, that our sexual orientation is fixed.  For some of us, it may well be, but it’s important to keep an open mind about these things. (more…)

In a thoughtful critique/commentary of my post on On Marcus Bachmann and “conversion therapy”*, Jim Burroway explores those programs’ supposed one-third success rate.  Let me stress that in my post, I provided multiple caveats because I believe it to be inflated.

While I don’t agree with everything Burroway says in that post, I do recommend it as he raises a number of important issues.

In his first paragraph, he writes that I “didn’t exactly defend ex-gay therapy per se”.**  I trust he recognizes that my expression about the right of Christian groups to set up such programs stems from my basic libertarian principles, the rights of individuals to establish their own organizations and associate with whom they please.

That said, as per my previous post, I remain dubious about the effectiveness of these programs.  I believe it is an open question whether their “therapy” is even effective in the handful of successful “conversions.”  Were they successful in changing these individuals sexuality or would that change have occurred organically, that is, without their intervention?

Given the complexity of human sexuality, I lean toward the latter view, that some people have a more “fluid” sexuality than others.  And these individuals seek out such programs because they feel that while the word “gay” once described their emotional/sexual longings, it no longer works to describe their changing emotions.

* (more…)

Before I post on the accusations leveled against the “Christian counseling business” of Michelle Bachmann’s husband Marcus, an outfit that (allegedly) uses “a controversial therapy that encourages homosexual patients to change their sexual orientation,” let me reiterate my views on such outfits.

First, Christian groups have every right to set up such companies, provided they do not coerce anyone to enter treatment.

Second, critics of such outfits continue to have the freedom to question the methods of said companies and should continue to exercise that freedom.

While many programs do claim some success in “converting” their charges, they are dealing with a self-selected group; those who have “succeeded” in changing their orientation may have already been disposed to such change, that is, their sexuality is more fluid that it is for most of us.  Whereas in their youth, they found themselves drawn to their own sex, as they age, they find themselves drawn to the other sex.

Could it be that they didn’t so much convert them as they helped them accept the change that has already taken place? (more…)

Let’s hope this one inspires a spirited non-political discussion without polemic or ad hominem.

In the past few weeks, I have become increasingly friendly, in the sense of stopping to chat with three fetching young men in the course of living my life, but none in environments which are specifically gay.  I am pretty certain (but not entirely so) that one of the three is gay.

With the other two, I get very mixed signals.  A gay friend is convinced that one of them is straight, but each time I become so convinced, he gives some sign suggesting he might prefer, um, well, shall we say “intimate” relationships with his own sex.

A straight friend agrees that it is hard to tell with the last individual.  And I asked him the other day if he thought it was okay just to go up to him and ask if he were gay.

He suggested instead I should ask if he’s dating anyone and see how he responds to that.

Did my straight friend give me good advice?  How would you handle these situations?  Do you think it’s appropriate to ask someone if he’s gay?

(In the comment thread, I will address how I handled another recent situation when I learned that my interlocutor was indeed gay.)

One again, the outspoken governor of New Jersey doesn’t mince words.

Now, I’m sure some folks will call this good man a “hater” for holding to the traditional definition of marriage. What stands out here is that he publicly dares to differ with the doctrine of his church and has come out clearly in favor of same-sex civil unions.

All that notwithstanding, he’ll still remain a folk hero to many straight conservatives.

(Via Jimmy LaSalvia on Facebook.)

To those who study history, it becomes annoying when contemporary writers, considering the sexual proclivities of great men from other eras, rush to label as “gay” any figure from the past who once enjoyed sexual relations with members of his own sex.   In the process, they both blind themselves to evidence that that individual also enjoyed sexual relations with the opposite sex and to the mores of his time.

The notion that our sexuality is fixed in one direction is relatively recent one.  Many in other cultures, particularly in the ancient Mediterranean world, even where different-sex married couples were a defining institution, accepted — and often celebrated — men’s attraction to their same-sex fellows.  They saw sexuality as more fluid than we do today. We are guilty of presentism, interpreting historical events in light of modern notions, when we ignore that fluidity.

Perhaps, the greatest example of this presentist worldview is how all too many treat Alexander the Great.  He had to be “gay,” they claim because he and Hephaestion were lovers.  And, to be sure, some historians, eager to show that no great man could have sexual proclivities toward his own sex, write off allegations of his same-sex relations as historians’ embellishments or perhaps just metaphorical descriptions of intense emotional bonds forged in the heat of battle.

In his biography, Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness (a book which explains what its subtitle describes), Guy Maclean Rogers addresses the ambiguous nature of Alexander’s sexuality:

But modern sexual categories such as “homosexual” and “heterosexual” cannot be usefully applied to describe the sexuality of Alexander.  He belonged to a culture in which the erotic impulse (eros) was not necessarily assumed to be confined to feelings or acts directed to either men or women that, if they were consummated, thereby placed individuals in one category or the other.  Rather than striving to fix Alexander within one modern sexual camp or another, it is far more illuminating to examine the evidence for the trajectory of the erotic impulses he acted upon. (more…)

When yesterday, in the “Meet the Press” debate between the two major party candidates vying to represent Colorado in the United States Senate, Republican candidate Ken Buck was asked “by host David Gregory to elaborate on a statement he made in an earlier debate about gays in the military,” he should not have entered the fray on whether or not being gay in a choice.

But, he did and he put his foot into it.  He said it was a choice, adding

“I think that birth has an influence…like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically, you have a choice.”

Speaking to reporters after the debate, Buck sought to clarify his comments.

“I am not a biologist and I haven’t studied the issue, but that’s my opinion,” Buck said. “I wasn’t talking about being gay as a disease. I don’t think that at all and I hope that no one would be that insensitive to try to draw that…I certainly didn’t mean it that way.”

Well, we do have a choice in determining how we act on our emotional and sexual attraction to members of our own sex, but we don’t have a choice in feeling that attraction.

In answering the question, he should have said simply said such issue should not be a matter of federal concern.  But, alas he did not.

It it too soon to tell whether or not this comment will hurt him, but it certainly won’t help him win the votes of fiscally conservative/socially liberal voters in the Denver suburbs — where this race may be decided.  Most such folk believe the state should leave gay people alone.   (more…)

Due to the work I needed complete on my dissertation before I set off on my journey, I was unable to devote as much time to the George Rekers story as I would have liked.  Earlier this week, he “resigned from the board of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)”.

Because NARTH promotes the idea of “reparative therapy,” the idea that through treatment, we can overcome our same-sex attraction, this notion is once again in the news.  And Rekers’ recent behavior, like ex-gay activist John Paulk’s 2000 visit to a Washington, D.C.-gay bar, suggest that their “best” efforts notwithstanding, many “ex-gays’” (or social conservatives obsessed with homosexuality) longing for intimacy, emotional, sexual, sensual or otherwise, with men does not always disappear through therapy.

Now, I have occasionally met some men who acknowledge having had (sexual) relationships with other men in their high school, college and early post-college years and then find themselves dating women in their mid to late 20s.  That suggests that for some people, their sexuality is less fixed than it is for others.  So, I wonder if when the ex-gay groups (like NARTH) tout their “success” rate, they are merely citing those men (and women) who found their sexual attraction shifting naturally, or, find that while they’re bisexually inclined, when it comes time to choosing a life-partner, they want someone of the opposite sex.

After studying the ancient Greeks, who were remarkably tolerant of male homosexual behavior, I am aware that only rarely do they talk about homosexual relationships as being on the same plane as traditional (yes, even back then) marriage.  We do get that in the Symposium, with the relationship of Pausanias and Agathon and Aristophanes’s speech.  Otherwise, they accept that married men will, from time to time, seek sexual relationships with other (usually younger) men.  Or, that some men, like Alexander for example, often had relationships with both men and women.

All I am saying here is that while for many of us, our attraction seems fixed in one direction, for some it is not. (more…)

This morning, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, Glenn links two posts, the first by 1970s bombshell Raquel Welch who observes:

In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, “sexual freedom,” has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune.

But, what really caught my attention was this in neoneocon’s (must-read) post:

Now we have to worry about rampant promiscuity among teens and even preteens, and the deep psychological and even physical damage it can cause (such as STDs). Girls who once were protected by the mores of society and their own fear of the shame of pregnancy are free to enjoy sex—but how many of them are really having all that much fun, and at what cost? How many of them have the maturity to understand what they want and with whom they might be happy? How many are giving in to the age-old pressures of popularity and the needs of teenage boys?

Emphasis added.  I would say the pill has been a mostly good thing.  It helped launched the sexual revolution which, in turn, made it easier for gay people to start being more open about our sexuality.  But, this revolution while mostly a good thing, was not entirely a good thing.  It did have some downsides.  And these two smart women get at some of the issues we all wish to brush under the table when discussing sexuality.

Past social mores, while often oppressive, did serve a certain purpose.  But, some served only to censure folk like us.  We are grateful for the lifting of the social stricture on homosexual conduct.  But, I wish to draw your attention to the part of neoneocon’s post that I emphasized.  Too many of us try to write off the psychological consequences of hooking up.  We say that the shame we feel is only a social construct and so try to wish it away.

But, it’s real and often recurring.

I just think we need to consider the psychological consequences of hooking up.   (more…)

If I were no so deep in dissertation mode right now, I would devote more attention to the George Rekers story because there is far more to it than the bloggers covering it have considered.  First and foremost, the story reminds us of the pseudo-science behind much of the “scholarship” folks like Rekers use to address the causes and supposed “cures” of homosexuality.

It’s unfortunate that all too many of those who have written about it have been determined to focus on the tawdry aspects of the relationship.  And unfortunate that gay bloggers have taken it upon themselves to track down the young escort, make public his profession and torment him with their questions.  They should have left him out of this — or at the very least not made public his name.

The (very) young man is caught in the crossfire, so to speak, while Rekers acts out one of the oldest pathologies in the book, seeking solace with a younger companion to fill the emptiness in his own life.

The real story here is not just the contrast between Rekers’ public life and his private passions.  It’s too easy (though, in this case, not entirely inaccurate) to call him “self-loathing” (as at least one person has done) or to dwell on his hypocrisy.  The real story is what human beings do to address their loneliness, to feel connected with our fellows.

George Rekers is, by all evidence, a very lonely man.

As I have been reading about his European travels with a young escort, I am reminded of a passage describing such loneliness John Steinbeck’s Travels with Charley.   (more…)