It is neither! The term "reparative therapy" seems to be a
catchall phrase for therapy intended to heal or prevent
homosexuality. Its roots stem back to the work of a British
theologian and self-proclaimed psychologist, Elizabeth
Moberly. Moberly wrote a couple of books in the early
1980's that the early "ex-gay" movement found very
intriguing. By far the most readable but not the easiest
book was titled Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic.
Her "research" involved no subjects! She simply did an
extensive literature review of the outdated works of Irving
Bieber, Lawrence Hatterer, and Sigmond Freud and came up
with a relatively minor reinterpretation of their findings.
Moberly, a proponent of psychoanalytic and psychodynamic
theories, moved away from Freud's emphasis on the
"domineering mother" and focused on the effect of the
"passive" or "distant" father. Moberly determined, by her
reinterpretation, that the homosexual men in the studies
were suffering from what she termed "defensive
detachment" and "same sex ambivalence". The theory
presumes that the young boy, for any of a variety of
reasons, did not bond with his father in a meaningful way.
Thus, the term "reparative" came into play. It is interesting
to note that there is almost no attention paid to lesbianism
or bisexuality in the literature put out by proponents of
"reparative therapy".
Moberly saw homosexuality as a "reparative drive" to meet
the heretofore-unmet needs of the child for love and
bonding and thus "identification" with males. The theory
continues to assume that the male child "defensively
detaches" from relationships with boys out of selfprotection,
not wanting to experience another rejection. An
attitude of false superiority develops and the homosexual
male portrays himself as "better than" the boys. The
assumption is the boy, in actuality, is feeling estranged and
left out or left behind. At puberty, when the hormones start
raging, the adolescent mistakenly identifies this longing for
love and acceptance and sexualizes it.
It is assumed by reparative therapy proponents that a
longing to find self-acceptance and self-identification as a
“real man” fuels the perceived “promiscuity” of gay men.
Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, in her now out of print book,
Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion went as far as to
liken this "drive" to cannibalism. Cannibals, it is reported,
eat only people they admire, hoping to take in the good
traits of the deceased. The inference is that gay males are
trying to "eat" or "consume" the perceived masculinity in
their sexual partners. Thus, reparative therapy proponents
attempt to help gay men find same sex love and bonding
without eroticizing it. The theory, unsubstantiated, is that
as the unmet love needs are met in "legitimate" ways,
heterosexuality will emerge.
I liked Elizabeth Moberly. I was instrumental in bringing her
over to the US to do conferences in Minneapolis and
Seattle. She stayed with my wife and me. I learned that
my good-natured teasing helped this shy, reserved woman
to open up and allow her vulnerability and humanness to
emerge. Very much an academic, she read her
presentations word for word during an entire weekend long
conference. She sounded intellectual and made quite a
convincing case for "reparative therapy". When asked how
many clients she had treated, she admitted she had seen
none. When asked about her "research" she honestly
reported she had done no new research. Elizabeth was a
philosopher more than a psychologist. Her challenge at the
time was for "ex-gay" ministries to take her unsupported
theory and implement it. And implement it we did!
Ex-gay leaders across the country flocked to hear her
message. To us, it was new and refreshing; it took the
emphasis off "sinful choices" and gave us some sort of
explanation for how we came to be homosexual.
Additionally, it seemed to offer a new ray of hope. To its
credit, it took the emphasis off repression and sublimation
and actually encouraged gay men to attempt to meet their
"legitimate" needs for same sex love but always in "nonerotic"
ways.
So-called professionals like Joseph Nicolosi and Charles
Socoriades picked up the ball and ran with it. They started
NARTH, the National Association for Recovery and
Treatment of Homosexuality. They are prolific writers who
have self published many official sounding "research"
papers on recovery from homosexuality. What they have
failed to substantiate is any reliable data to support the
theory. Everything remains anecdotal, based on the selfreport
of people like me, who had everything to lose and
nothing to gain by admitting they have not been "cured".
There are no studies in peer reviewed scientific
journals that support the use of reparative therapies
or attempts of any kind to cure homosexuality.
Many reasonable people ask, "What's the big deal, if it
makes some people feel better and they believe in it?" This
is a fair question. In fact, for many years after I left the
"ex-gay" movement, I held a "live and let live" philosophy
about it. In my own experience, most of the people who
started trying to "go straight" ended up coming out and
accepting themselves in the long run. The people I met
were, for the most part, genuine, caring, and not heavy
handed with guilt and shame. Many evangelical Christians,
take a giant step in admitting they have homosexual
feelings and seeking "help". To come out and risk the loss of
love and respect from their entire system of support is, for
many, beyond comprehension. Yet doing so appears to
provide a middle ground where gay Christians can meet
each other. As they genuinely "seek the truth", they
eventually find the "ex-gay" movement to be a stepping
stone to full self acceptance as evidenced by the huge
number of "ex-ex-gays" we are seeing come forward.
I have decided to speak out forcefully about the "ex-gay"
movement because there is a new and much more
dangerous threat on the horizon. Huge organizations with
hundreds of millions of dollars to spend have slowly started
to "adopt" the "ex-gay" cause. James Dobson's Focus on
the Family, The Family Research Council and D. James
Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries are the most visible.
Homosexuality has been a "hot button" for many on the
religious and political right since the founding of Jerry
Falwell's now defunct Moral Majority in the 1980's. What
has changed however, is that old tactics for pressing that
button no longer work.
Falwell, Swaggert, and others of their ilk used to send out
letters filled with ridiculous statements about homosexuals
as "pedophiles" and "predators". They played on people's
ignorance and fear. Using a parent's love and instinct to
protect, they stirred up massive fear and repulsion by
presenting false and distorted pictures of gay life in
America. Out of this fear sprang millions of dollars in
revenue for the religious and political right. However, thanks
to the courage millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgendered individuals who have come out of the closet,
these ridiculous stereotypes have been shattered. Now,
statements like "God hates fags" are more likely to
engender support and compassion for the GLBT community,
even from those on the far right. Too many people are now
acquainted with their gay neighbors, workmates and family
members to accept the "perverts" and "predators" lies.
A new "kinder and gentler" money making campaign of hate
and intolerance is being launched. Using the
unsubstantiated claims of the "ex-gays", megalithic
organizations are trying to deny basic human rights
protection to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered
people. They are attempting to accomplish this by
presenting homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle, one that
"many" are choosing to leave. By reducing sexual
orientation to a "choice", they are trying to build a case
against gay rights, domestic partnership benefits and hate
crimes legislation. Their twisted logic assumes that if
people want to be "normal" and "fit it" they can. If they
"choose" to run wild and deviate, they should not be
afforded "special privileges". After all, smokers and
drinkers are not afforded any special privileges, they have
to accept responsibility for their choices and pay the piper if
it does not work out. Why should it be any different for
gays?
The "ex-gay" message was originally intended for Christians
within the church. Now with big money backers, advocates
are taking these "claims" of healing and change out into the
world and in a big way. They have invested hundreds of
thousands of dollars buying full page adds in major
newspapers across the country. They have produced
television commercials. In 2001, James Dobson s started a
road show. His "Love Won Out" conference is touring the
country. From major city to major city, hundreds upon
hundreds of people are drawn in to hear about ways to
"respond to misinformation in the public school system,
change public opinion and much more". Once again, he is
capitalizing on the concerns of parents for youth at risk.
Dobson's seminar is cleverly crafted using high quality
handouts, great PowerPoint presentations, emotionally
stirring testimonies and piles of official looking "studies" by
authors with MD and Ph.D. behind their names.
The time for thinking that the ex-gay movement is
benign is long past. Huge political wars being
launched.
John Paulk and his ex-lesbian wife Ann, former poster
children for the movement, loved the media hype and
attention. They were featured on the cover of Newsweek
magazine. They presented themselves as evidence that
gays and lesbians can be cured. While in Chicago protesting
the American Psychological Associations refusal to debate
the merits of reparative therapy, they had their 4-year-old
son carrying a sign that read, "I love my ex-gay parents".
Paulk had no credentials to support his title of
"homosexuality and gender specialist" for Focus on the
Family's public policy division. He was deemed a "specialist"
simply because he claimed to be healed.
In 2001, John Paulk was removed from his position as
president of Exodus International. He later left Focus on the
Family in shame after being photographed in a Washington
D.C. gay bar. Tragically, it is common for ex-gay leaders to
be used for media hype. They are later abandoned and
silenced when they admit their claims of healing were
bogus. This does not appear to cause the ex-gay political
machine much concern. There are always new “ex-gays” in
the pipeline waiting to jump into the spotlight to claim their
15 minutes of fame.
It is the goal of the new "ex-gay movement" to influence
public opinion, to spread their misinformation throughout
the school system and to raise just enough doubt to sway
legislators away from supporting equal rights, domestic
partnership and hate crimes legislation. I know I am
repeating myself but I want to drive the point home. This is
a serious situation. Unless school board members,
administrators and lawmakers are equipped with accurate
information presented scientifically, they are very likely to
be taken in by the pseudo science of reparative therapy. It
is my hope that each person reading this article will make
five copies and get them into the hands of policy makers.
Reparative therapy will appear to make sense and
sound reasonable to people who do not challenge the
initial assumption that homosexuality is a disease or
a complex.
Failure to challenge that assumption is the crux of the
matter. If we were to start with a premise that
heterosexuality is maladaptive, we could build elaborate
theories that support our faulty presuppositions. How
difficult would it be to make a case for a heterosexual
pathology based on a theory that presupposes heterosexual
men had insufficient bonding with their mothers? The
adolescent dating and lifelong attraction to women would be
a pathologic symbol of the male's lifelong quest to get back
to his mother's breast and receive the nurturing and love he
never received. It seems so obviously ridiculous; however, if
centuries of ignorance and prejudice had embedded the
notion that a male's attraction to a female was sick or
immoral, we would probably latch onto the theory. It is
easier to look for ways to support what we have always
believed than to challenge ourselves and face the possibility
that we may have been wrong.
It is not easy to admit that in the name of tradition or
morality, we may have caused irreparable damage to
generations of people. People went to incredible lengths to
rid the world of witches in Salem, Massachusetts. How
many wars, how many crusades and holocausts have there
been in the name of truth? A simple look at history reminds
us what a deadly combination religion mixed with
unchallenged ideology can be.
It is critical to bring the debate about the place of reparative
therapy in our schools back to the initial presuppositions.
Why do we assume that sexual diversity is pathological?
Why would we entertain inviting prejudice and bigotry to
the table? Every major scientific association has gone on
record warning of the potential dangers of reparative
therapy. Why do we feel compelled to give it "equal time"?
Neo-Nazi's are not invited in to share their "science" of
white male supremacy in biology classes.
It is time to step up to the plate not only with compelling
scientific data but also with a resounding "NO" to the
continued acceptance and tolerance of homophobia. It can
no longer be okay to hear "fag jokes" at the local comedy
club. It can no longer be acceptable for children to use the
phrase "you're so gay" in the halls and playgrounds of our
schools.
Diversity is a vital and wonderful reality in creation.
America’s Founders established that all human beings are
created equal and have inalienable rights to the pursuit of
life, liberty, and happiness. We must not be willing to let the
"powers that be" debate the merits of our existence by
tolerating the proliferation of a political agenda disguised as
science. We must become the voice. We must set a new
standard. We must STEP UP!
Copyright © 2001 Revised 2008 All rights reserved.
Jeffry G. Ford, MA, LMFT, Licensed Psychologist.
Associated Resources in Psychology, PA Roseville,
MN www.exexgay.com jeff@jgford.com
