Let me begin by painting a picture of a hypothetical situation for you to explain the context for this article. Now let us say there is a grown up man and he was abused as a younger man. Let us say maybe he suffered a horrible thing like molestation or rape. Now let us say that following this raping he becomes confused and he begins to re-enact the scene of the sexual crime by adopting a homosexual/gay or in his confusion possibly bisexual identity. Now one day he decides to go to therapy for help with his issues this has caused.
While at a perfectly legitimate and non-religious standards following psychotherapist he is told that he can be assisted in elevating his stress and issues. This might or might not require an actual anxiety or anti-depression medication depending on if it will help or not. However, the therapist mentions an after effect a possible, but, not in anyway guaranteed byproduct of working on and repairing the damage of this man's mind. He has in his experience seen quite a few men whose erotic code and arousal patterns changed when they have began to heal their internal wounds.
He tells you how he has seen many of his patients go from gay or bi to being mostly or even completely straight in their self-identity and their orientation as a result of dealing with the deeply confusing reaping wound of how their male anatomy responded to being violated and broken. He makes it very clear his therapy is not intended to cause such a change, but, nonetheless via the therapy to repair their broken brains their brains healed/changed themselves. Sometimes midway through and other times a year or so in as their client they turned out to be heterosexual after the therapy.
That his clients reported not being able to even get an erection in some cases from men anymore and all same sex attraction or desire vanished in these men as an unintended side effect of healing their wounds. He or she stresses that it is not the intended outcome of his or her therapy, but, an unintended consequence not in all, but, many men. That in essence a side affect of his or her therapy is a form of unintended sexual orientation change effects within a therapy framework. That it is also seems in follow ups to not go back in not all, but, again a great deal of the men he or she helps. That is seems stable and fixed once said person goes straight. He or she then asks you if you are OK if this did happen?
Is the above scenario immoral or wrong in anyway? The person clearly in most cases became or at least took on the identity of a non-heterosexual not from internal from birth longings about being different or being Born that way naturally if you will gay. This person seems to have been born as heterosexual as most people and the abuse was the reason for his adapting in this case the homosexual or bisexual orientation not their nature as a being. If this was the case and therapy for simply helping their other issues causes a mostly or even complete sexual reorientation experience in that person is that by its very nature what is wrong with said therapy? I want to argue no and that S.O..C.E. Or sexual orientation change effects in therapy is not immoral it is the context which changes the nature of things.
There is at least 4 different ways sexual orientation changes could take place within a therapy setting and only one is really immoral and wrong. The first one would be the immoral version which is someone pressured by society, their church and or possibly even fully coerced into going to a Ex-Gay based therapy. This would be the immoral, wrong and evil version of this story. However, 3 other possible scenarios exist which I would argue as long as within the bounds of reality, reason, morality (self) and consent can be perfectly moral choices for a therapy with such affects involved.
The first moral version is actually not that controversial if you really think about it. Someone in the scenario specifically that I described in my own article. Someone whom is trying to get help whom is a victim of an injustices and whom adopts their non-heterosexuality due to abuse, rape or other forms of abuse which caused them to adapt this identity as a way of not dealing with the true issue as a band-aid. Whom is not going into therapy for the change, but, for whom change might happen when in therapy. Thus it is an unintended consequence and not at all from trying to will a change.
The second moral version is someone whom is suffering due to abuse and knows his mental state is not that of a gay or bi man. Whom knows that his rape caused him to adopt homosexual or bisexual orientations and wants to using the Spectrum/Continuum view of human sexuality go towards a lower place on the spectrum if not get to 0 on a Kinsey scale of possible. Not that he thinks persay he can become heterosexual through therapy, but, does understand sexual fluidity and wishes to see how flexible he truly is, but, needs professional help in the process.
A third possible reason for such therapy is to through honoring reality, reason, self and consent honestly ask for assistance with natural orientation shifts. If you find upon inspection that you are sincerely happier being heterosexual and you are among the people whom are capable of natural orientation shifts therapy helping to affirm and nurture your straightness I do not see an issue with. I am going to cause some people to want to barge out of the doors of my blog right now for saying that. However, standardized and properly controlled therapy that did have such an effect if proven to work would be fine if the man or woman was doing so through self-determination. By this I mean without social pressure or coercion and of appropriate age range.
The problem with the Ex-Gay movement is not that some people are naturally flexible and able to switch teams after time. The problem is the methodology and the reasoning behind its existence is one of "curing" homosexuality and not that people can change teams or reorient themselves in various ways naturally over time. The problem is that it uses things like touching therapy or at least it used too. The problem is the calling gay a sin and evil. It is not that there are therapists that dare to say natural change over a life cycle with same sex behavior happens a lot and maybe, "maybe" you are one of those people and just need a little help with your "potentiality." It is because they do not support "natural" change or sexual fluidity they support a "cure" in therapy.
The true evil of the Ex-Gay movement is that it is a form of faith based gunk. It is anti-mind and anti-reason. It preaches that if efforts do not work not that the therapies methodology was wrong, but, to instead just turn to Jesus and a nonexistent man in the sky for help. It is the reasoning behind the movement and not the idea of change. Or the idea of sexual fluidity or flexibility in a person even within some more standardized and seriously tested form of therapeutic assistance. It is the idea that it was started due to being anti-gay and pro-Evangelical Christianity. I am fine with reasonable, rational, reality based, self-determined, non-pressured and non-coerced fluidity or flexibility inspired therapies existing for people that desire them. I agree with the article quoted below from Scientific America.
If we define being gay as engaging in homosexual behavior (the concept of “gay” as an identity is a Western cultural concept – people who have sex with both men and women may call themselves gay, straight or bisexual, depending on the rules of their culture or subculture), then people stop being gay as soon as they stop engaging in this behavior.
I believe that people have the right to engage in any behavior that they choose, as long as their actions do not harm others, and I believe that gay sex and gay relationships do not cause harm to anyone. Therefore, people who are gay by choice have the right to remain that way
(Of course, there are abusive and unhealthy gay relationships that should not be tolerated, just as there are unhealthy heterosexual relationships that should not be tolerated.)
If sexual preference can be altered, then people who support gay rights can’t rely on the argument that gay people should be protected from discrimination because gay people have no choice but to be gay – an argument that seems like an apology for homosexuality, as if homosexuality is a disease for which there is no cure.
There is an element of homophobia in that argument– the implication that gay people would become straight, if only they could. Supporting gay marriage becomes equivalent to supporting the construction of wheelchair ramps. The “gays can’t help being that way” approach is reminiscent of the old view of homosexuality as a psychiatric illness.
Just as gay people who are happy as they are should not be forced to change their sexual orientation, gay people who want to be straight should have the right to change if they can – and the correct word is “change” – not “cure”.In his blog post, Lowder states, “Many critics will argue that appealing to biology is the only way to protect against the attacks of the religious right.”It might make these critics unhappy to hear this, but that’s not how science works.Science doesn’t change in order to support political opinions.Scientific beliefs change as we gain new information, and sometimes science tells us things that we would rather not hear.Get used to it.
The emphasis and the code word is consensual change and not cure. (With no shame for not being able to or choosing not to want to change either.)
