a change is coming, in this paper and in life
Wes Ogburn
Elroi S
step 4 A Rough Draft
I Intro
Summary: In this paper I will be conducting an in depth look at "reparative therapy" programs that aim to change one's sexual orientation. The effectiveness of these programs is both highly controversial and debatable with researchers and therapists dividing themselves into two stances on the issue. The first stance being the acceptance of "changing" one's sexual orientation by a means of labeling sexual orientation in terms of behavior over identity and/or by examining one's past in regard to a "deviant" or "perverted" sexual development. Most recently these groups have shifted their discourse for the therapies use from pathology to individual choice but ultimately these establishments enforce an ideology that deems homosexuality as ill suited for humanity. A second approach is the argument against sexual reorientation therapies. These clinicians support the embracing of a gay/lesbian/bi identity by a means of normalizing that identity and allowing the client to view their orientation as a valid and healthy form of sexual expression. Furthermore they argue that reorientation therapies are ineffective in changing same sex sexuality and are often times detrimental to a client's well being.
Conversion therapy, also known as reparative therapy and reorientation therapy, are contestable forms of therapy that aim to redirect one's sexual orientation. On one side of the issue are proponents of conversion therapy who argue that changing ones sexual orientation is a personal choice and is solely up to the patient as whether or not they will partake in such therapeutic practices. On the other side are advocates of same sex sexuality as a valid form of sexual expression and who argue that trying to change ones sexuality is impossible and dangerous. What follows is an analysis of sexual reorientation that will evaluate the arguments for and against sexual reorientation.
Historically, in America, same sex attraction has been associated and characterized as sexual acts that were unnatural and only carried out by individuals who failed to acquire an 'appropriate' sexual desire or who were believed to haven given into their sexual sin. An early separation of behavior from identity allowed influential individuals to pathologize same sex sex as a maladaptive behavior over an accepted and legitimate sexual identity. The term "homosexual" was first coined by Hungarian writer Karl Maria Kertbeny in 1869 and was borrowed by Krafft-Ebbing who used it in his book Psychopathia Sexualis to differentiate between the abnormal homosexual from the normal heterosexual. Individuals in the psychological community perceived same sex sex as a malfunctioning behavioral pattern and that homosexuals were sexual perverts or inverts that needed professional assistance for the removal of such a disease. Individuals in some religious community view same sex sex as sin. Gagnon (2005) argues that all sin is rooted in biology and that a new spiritual identity overrides and takes precedent over biological impulses. For the individual with same sex attractions this means overcoming same sex sexual urges. Ultimately the former connections to the sick, abnormal, and sinful have given way to the fruition of changing ones same sex sexual orientation.
Currently, in most professional mental health organizations, same sex sexuality has in fact moved away from a pathological affiliation. Since its removal out of the DSM in 1973, homosexuality has been formally recognized as a normal and natural form of sexual expression. The current disconnect of homosexuality from pathology has established individuals with same sex attractions as healthy and capable of living a highly functioning life. However, there are small sections of mental health professionals, both religious and nonreligious, that continue to consider same sex attraction to be a perverted sexual manifestation. As a result of a continued perception of same sex attraction as pathology, these religious communities and mental health professionals have created therapeutic methods to change same sex orientation. Furthermore, the perpetuation of sexual reorientation therapy is grounded around discourse that bolsters a patient's right to choose therapies of their choice.
Arguments in favor of sexual reorientation center around pathologized conceptions of same sex attraction as well as an individuals right to choose a therapy of their choice. These therapies focus on a dysfunctional perspective of same sex attraction as well as a clients discomfort with their sexual attractions. A variety of approaches are employed to help an individual change. It is important to discuss the types of therapeutic approaches to understand how successful reorientation is defined.
Murphy (1992) outlines three types of techniques used to change same sex sexual orientation: behavioral therapy, psychodynamic intervention, and drugs and hormones. Behavioral therapies have been applied to the changing of sexual orientation in a variety of ways that are similar to the ways in which they have been employed to remedy mental disorders. Behavioral therapeutic practices such as orgasmic reconditioning, aversion therapy, marriage and other methods of getting opposites sexes acquainted, and covert sensitization have all been used in effort to change ones sexual orientation. The fundamental hope behind behavior modification programs rests on the idea that behavioral changes will produce a subsequent orientation change (Murphy 1992).
Psychodynamic approaches have their foundations in the assumption that same sex sexual orientation is the product of early childhood experiences. Common therapeutic approaches include delving into clients past relationships with parents (specifically the same sex parent or in some cases analyzing an overbearing opposite sex parent) opposite sex friendships, and same sex friendships (Murphy, 1992). Ultimately, psychodynamic approaches claim that same sex sexuality is the result of maladaptive relationships in early childhood that are translated into maladaptive sexual attraction in adulthood and to change this orientation one must revisit their past to examine their development and anxieties.
Drug and hormone therapies attribute same sex attraction to the process of biology such that an overactive sexual appetite or an imbalance in hormones are believed to be the chief causes for same sex attraction. In these therapies, clinicians administer doses of drugs that decrease one's sex drive (similar to those given to pedophiliacs) and/or hormones such as testosterone and estrogen, which are thought to shift same sex attraction to opposite attraction (Murphy, 1992).
All of the former therapeutic practices have produced successes of reorientation that have been defined by psychologists and patients alike. Through his experience in working with individuals who feel uncomfortable with their same gender attraction, Throckmorton (1998) states that he has assisted individuals in achieving an attraction to the opposite gender. Even though he does not know for certain whether or not actual orientation change has occurred he believes that this shift in attraction is considered a success (Throckmorton 1998). In a qualitative study conducted by Shidlo and Schroeder (2002) that cataloged the stories of individuals who underwent conversion therapy, 26 out of 202 participants reported success from their therapies. Some of the individuals interviewed by Shidlo and Schroeder indicated that they had a successful heterosexual shift in which they were currently engaging in heterosexual relationships.
In addition to success rates, supporters of reorientation therapies also assert that it is the patients right to choose the therapy of their choice. Consequently, in recent years many proponents of sexual reorientation have shifted discourse from that of pathology to that of patient choice and patient rights. Supporters of conversion therapy argue that it is respect for diversity and the client's choice and right in whether they receive reorientation therapy (Beckstead, 2001; Murphy, 1992; Haldeman, 1994, 2002; Thompson, 2004; Throckmorton, 1998). In respecting diversity clinicians who support conversion therapy say that religious identities are just as valid as sexual identities. Consequently if an individual's sexual identity is in conflict with their religious identity it is the patients prerogative to move forward in any direction they wish, including the direction of trying to change their sexual orientation (Throckmorton, 1998).
Ultimately, Throckmorton sums up the current argument for conversion therapy. Throckmorton (1998), an advocate of clients' rights to choose a therapy of their choice, rests his support for conversion therapy on the instability, fluidity, and limited knowledge of sexuality. He asserts that the lack of a stable definition of sexuality allows room for the possibility of change and ultimately disarms therapists from making statements regarding a fixed notion of sexuality. As a result, Throckmorton (1998) says that, "clients cannot be reliably told that they cannot change" (n.d.).
Now I'm going to shift the focus to the argument in which sexual reorientation is viewed as ineffective and as a therapeutic technique that is often times more harmful than helpful to the client than helpful. Proponents of who dismiss reorientation therapy as valid form of therapy support same sex sexual identity as a healthy valid means of sexual expression. Furthermore, most of these clinicians believe that legitimate change sexual orientation is impossible and that these therapies produce superficial results, which can leave the client confused, depressed, anxious, and sometimes suicidal.
In regard to advocating a patients right to choose a therapy of their choice Gonsiorek (2004) and Tozer and Hayes (2004) raise some interesting points. According to Gonsiorek it is not unusual for patients to ask for treatments that are “unsubstantiated, improper, unethical, misguided, incorrect, invalid, or otherwise ill-advised” (p. 755). He says that as a result of reading popular and anecdotal material often times clients enter therapeutic settings with ideologies that are unreliable and invalid. Using analogous scenarios Gonsiorek points out that psychologist are required to thoroughly discuss questionable treatments options that are prompted by clients. Similarly, Gonsiorek believes that conversion therapy is in the same boat as other questionable practices. Accordingly it is “nonsense “ to assume that conversion therapy should be exempt from the “complex duties” and requirements expected of all psychologist and clients who are dealing with ambiguous therapeutic terrain (Gonsiorek 2004: 755). Tozer and Hayes (2004) found a “significant potential influence of religiosity and internalized homophobia” (p. 733). Their findings suggest that it is by an acquired religious identity that a desire to change sexual orientation comes about. Those who found religion as central force in their life tended to think of conversion therapy as a feasible solution (Tozer and Hayes 2004).
Multiple studies and sources of anecdotal information from former patients have revealed that overall reorientation therapies fail to change sexual orientation. In the same study mentioned earlier, (Shidlo and Schroeder 2002) found that 176 of the 202 participants stated failure as the result of their attempts at conversion therapy some of whom initially after completing the program believed themselves to be successful. Moreover, former leaders of the ex-gay ministry Exodus International, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper had to quite their leadership position because of their inability to keep from falling in love with each other. Both men decided that they were living a lie and that continuing their service for the advancement of changing sexual orientation through the power of God was actually a disservice to many men and women (Besen, 2003).
The therapeutic approaches attempted at changing sexual orientation have only been able to change a client's sexuality on one dimension, the behavioral dimension. Thompson (2004) who is a religious advocate of conversion therapy and self-identified ex-gay admits that the struggle against his same sex sexual orientation is an ongoing battle that will continue for the rest of his life. He can change what he does but he cannot change what he feels. In referring back to Shidlo and Schroeder's (2002) qualitative study, close examination of the perceived success rates reveal that change does not occur in desire but in behavior. The 26 individuals who claimed success fell into 3 categories: (a) 12 reported successful and struggling (b) 6 reported successful and not struggling and c) 8 reported successful heterosexual shift. Those in category (a) had continued fantasies of same sex sex and occasional sexual encounters with same sex individuals. Those in category (b) were celibate and/or refused to label their sexual identity. Those in category (c) claimed successful and fulfilling heterosexual relationships but had same sex attractions that were easily manageable (Shidlo and Schroeder, 2002). According to Shidlo and Schroeder (2002) homosexual behavior management is one way that individuals navigate a successful outcome to therapy. Homosexual behavioral management (HBM) refers to the conscious effort in which a client engages exclusively in opposite sex sex or is celibate. HBM occurs even when an individual still has same sex desires. Another way in which Shidlo and Schroeder found participants to view themselves as successful is the process in which individuals managed their same sex desire without distress or struggle. Again, the desire is existent but not acted upon. Haldeman (2002) furthers the discussion on conversion therapy's focus on behavior by explaining that patients are asked to create elaborate self-deceptive narratives that help a client to cope with same sex attractions. These narratives do not change sexual orientation but rather they assist the client in removing him/herself from same sex attractions. Ultimately the successes of reorientation therapy only address the area of behavior while disregarding the arena of desire.
Often times these therapies cause considerable harm to those who participate. Numerous stories provide evidence that engaging in reorientation therapy can contribute to psychological harm, suicidal ideation and even suicidal attempts. Besen's (2003) retelling of former ex-gay ministers Bussee and Cooper stories reveals some of the damage that can ensue after attempts at changing sexual orientation fail. Bussee and Cooper recall upon accounts in which individuals came to them in hopes of changing their same sex attractions and when change did not occur these individuals were left "despondent" and "suicidal". One individual reported engaging in self-mutilation whereby he cut his genitals and poured Drano into the open wounds in effort to rid himself of his same sex attraction (Besen 2003; 88-89). Similar accounts of depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation by failed attempts at changing one's sexual orientation are reported in Shidlo and Schroeder's study. Shidlo and Schroeder (2002) outlined other negative psychosocial outcomes such as internalized homophobia that leads to lowered self-esteem, alienation, loneliness, and social isolation. They found 23 participants to have engaged in suicidal attempts during conversion therapy and 11 participants after therapy.
Overall those against sexual reorientation therapy claim that these programs are ineffectual and causes more harm outcomes than beneficial. Jenkins and Johnston (2004) poignantly sum up the arguments against conversion therapies by stating that they are in “ethical violation of core social work values and principles” (p. 558).
In conclusion, I believe that sexual reorientation therapies are ineffective in changing sexual orientation and attempts at doing so can be harmful on multiple levels. Shidlo and Schroeder's (2002) examination of former participants who underwent reorientation therapy provides great insight into perceived success rates and how sexual behavior becomes the focus of change over sexual desire. Their illumination of the patients’ conception of what it means to have successfully completed reparative therapy reveals that it is only by a trick of the mind that individuals believe that their orientation is changed. There is no evidence suggesting that sexual orientation has changed. Furthermore, it is evident from the testimonies of those who have worked with patients who have been through sexual reorientation programs that these practices can lead to devastating effects on clients, effects that place individuals at an increased propensity for mental instability. I also agree with Gonsiorek (2004) who dissects the discourse around the ideology of a client’s right to choose and Tozer and Hayes (2004) who assess religiosity and treatment seeking rates. Ultimately, a client’s inclination to change their orientation is not always the consequent of careful soul searching whereby an individual truly and willfully chooses reorientation therapy but rather a direct effect of internalized homophobia.
From a sociological perspective it is obvious that social institutions and social constructions of same sex sexuality have implications on whether or not an individual chooses to pursue conversion therapies. Social institutions such as religion and the family play a big role on the development of a child. In many of these institutions same sex sexuality is not accepted and often times it is met with hostility. By being placed in such an environment of condemnation it is no wonder an individual feels the need to change. Furthermore, negative stereotypes constructed and perpetuated by a heterosexist society provide inaccurate information about same sex sexuality. These stereotypes that include being gay as an unfulfilling and destructive lifestyle, being gay or lesbian as an automatic sentence to hell, and being gay as weird, have the power to persuade individuals into trying to change. Interestingly, it is same sex sexuality that is under scrutiny when in fact sexuality as whole should be examined and critiqued. As the minority group and as minority groups in the past have experienced, the explanation rests on them. No one is trying to change a straight person into a gay person. That idea would be ludicrous, right? Right, consequently it is also ludicrous to think that someone else's sexuality could be forcefully changed.
References
Besen, Wayne 2003. Anything But Straight. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Beckstead. A. Lee. 2001. "Cures versus Choices: Agendas in Reorientation Therapy." Unpublished manuscript.
Gonsiorek, John. 2004. "Reflections From the Conversion Therapy Battlefield." Counseling Psychologist. 32(5): 750-759.
Jenkins, David and Johnston, Lon. 2004. "Unethical Treatment of Gay and Lesbian People With Conversion Therapy." Families and Society 85: 557-561.
Haldeman, Douglas. 1994. "The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62(2): 221-227
Haldeman, Douglas. 2002. "Gay Rights, Patient Rights: The Implications of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 33(3): 260-264.
Murphy, Timothy. 1992. "Redirecting Sexual Orientation: Techniques and Justification." The Journal of Sex Research 29(4): 501-523.
Shidlo, Ariel and Schroeder, Michael. 2002 "Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers' Report." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 33(3): 249-259.
Thompson, Chad. 2004. Loving Homosexuals As Jesus Would. Brazos Press: Grand Rapids.
Throckmorton, Warren. 1998. “Efforts to Modify to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of the Outcome Literature an Ethical Issues. Journal of Mental Health Counseling. 20(4): 283-304.
Tozer, Erinn and Hayes, Jeffrey. 2004. "Why Do Individuals Seek Conversion Therapy?: The Role of Religiosity, Internalized Homonegativity, and Identity Development." Counseling Psychologist 32(5): 716-740.
Elroi S
step 4 A Rough Draft
I Intro
Summary: In this paper I will be conducting an in depth look at "reparative therapy" programs that aim to change one's sexual orientation. The effectiveness of these programs is both highly controversial and debatable with researchers and therapists dividing themselves into two stances on the issue. The first stance being the acceptance of "changing" one's sexual orientation by a means of labeling sexual orientation in terms of behavior over identity and/or by examining one's past in regard to a "deviant" or "perverted" sexual development. Most recently these groups have shifted their discourse for the therapies use from pathology to individual choice but ultimately these establishments enforce an ideology that deems homosexuality as ill suited for humanity. A second approach is the argument against sexual reorientation therapies. These clinicians support the embracing of a gay/lesbian/bi identity by a means of normalizing that identity and allowing the client to view their orientation as a valid and healthy form of sexual expression. Furthermore they argue that reorientation therapies are ineffective in changing same sex sexuality and are often times detrimental to a client's well being.
Conversion therapy, also known as reparative therapy and reorientation therapy, are contestable forms of therapy that aim to redirect one's sexual orientation. On one side of the issue are proponents of conversion therapy who argue that changing ones sexual orientation is a personal choice and is solely up to the patient as whether or not they will partake in such therapeutic practices. On the other side are advocates of same sex sexuality as a valid form of sexual expression and who argue that trying to change ones sexuality is impossible and dangerous. What follows is an analysis of sexual reorientation that will evaluate the arguments for and against sexual reorientation.
Historically, in America, same sex attraction has been associated and characterized as sexual acts that were unnatural and only carried out by individuals who failed to acquire an 'appropriate' sexual desire or who were believed to haven given into their sexual sin. An early separation of behavior from identity allowed influential individuals to pathologize same sex sex as a maladaptive behavior over an accepted and legitimate sexual identity. The term "homosexual" was first coined by Hungarian writer Karl Maria Kertbeny in 1869 and was borrowed by Krafft-Ebbing who used it in his book Psychopathia Sexualis to differentiate between the abnormal homosexual from the normal heterosexual. Individuals in the psychological community perceived same sex sex as a malfunctioning behavioral pattern and that homosexuals were sexual perverts or inverts that needed professional assistance for the removal of such a disease. Individuals in some religious community view same sex sex as sin. Gagnon (2005) argues that all sin is rooted in biology and that a new spiritual identity overrides and takes precedent over biological impulses. For the individual with same sex attractions this means overcoming same sex sexual urges. Ultimately the former connections to the sick, abnormal, and sinful have given way to the fruition of changing ones same sex sexual orientation.
Currently, in most professional mental health organizations, same sex sexuality has in fact moved away from a pathological affiliation. Since its removal out of the DSM in 1973, homosexuality has been formally recognized as a normal and natural form of sexual expression. The current disconnect of homosexuality from pathology has established individuals with same sex attractions as healthy and capable of living a highly functioning life. However, there are small sections of mental health professionals, both religious and nonreligious, that continue to consider same sex attraction to be a perverted sexual manifestation. As a result of a continued perception of same sex attraction as pathology, these religious communities and mental health professionals have created therapeutic methods to change same sex orientation. Furthermore, the perpetuation of sexual reorientation therapy is grounded around discourse that bolsters a patient's right to choose therapies of their choice.
Arguments in favor of sexual reorientation center around pathologized conceptions of same sex attraction as well as an individuals right to choose a therapy of their choice. These therapies focus on a dysfunctional perspective of same sex attraction as well as a clients discomfort with their sexual attractions. A variety of approaches are employed to help an individual change. It is important to discuss the types of therapeutic approaches to understand how successful reorientation is defined.
Murphy (1992) outlines three types of techniques used to change same sex sexual orientation: behavioral therapy, psychodynamic intervention, and drugs and hormones. Behavioral therapies have been applied to the changing of sexual orientation in a variety of ways that are similar to the ways in which they have been employed to remedy mental disorders. Behavioral therapeutic practices such as orgasmic reconditioning, aversion therapy, marriage and other methods of getting opposites sexes acquainted, and covert sensitization have all been used in effort to change ones sexual orientation. The fundamental hope behind behavior modification programs rests on the idea that behavioral changes will produce a subsequent orientation change (Murphy 1992).
Psychodynamic approaches have their foundations in the assumption that same sex sexual orientation is the product of early childhood experiences. Common therapeutic approaches include delving into clients past relationships with parents (specifically the same sex parent or in some cases analyzing an overbearing opposite sex parent) opposite sex friendships, and same sex friendships (Murphy, 1992). Ultimately, psychodynamic approaches claim that same sex sexuality is the result of maladaptive relationships in early childhood that are translated into maladaptive sexual attraction in adulthood and to change this orientation one must revisit their past to examine their development and anxieties.
Drug and hormone therapies attribute same sex attraction to the process of biology such that an overactive sexual appetite or an imbalance in hormones are believed to be the chief causes for same sex attraction. In these therapies, clinicians administer doses of drugs that decrease one's sex drive (similar to those given to pedophiliacs) and/or hormones such as testosterone and estrogen, which are thought to shift same sex attraction to opposite attraction (Murphy, 1992).
All of the former therapeutic practices have produced successes of reorientation that have been defined by psychologists and patients alike. Through his experience in working with individuals who feel uncomfortable with their same gender attraction, Throckmorton (1998) states that he has assisted individuals in achieving an attraction to the opposite gender. Even though he does not know for certain whether or not actual orientation change has occurred he believes that this shift in attraction is considered a success (Throckmorton 1998). In a qualitative study conducted by Shidlo and Schroeder (2002) that cataloged the stories of individuals who underwent conversion therapy, 26 out of 202 participants reported success from their therapies. Some of the individuals interviewed by Shidlo and Schroeder indicated that they had a successful heterosexual shift in which they were currently engaging in heterosexual relationships.
In addition to success rates, supporters of reorientation therapies also assert that it is the patients right to choose the therapy of their choice. Consequently, in recent years many proponents of sexual reorientation have shifted discourse from that of pathology to that of patient choice and patient rights. Supporters of conversion therapy argue that it is respect for diversity and the client's choice and right in whether they receive reorientation therapy (Beckstead, 2001; Murphy, 1992; Haldeman, 1994, 2002; Thompson, 2004; Throckmorton, 1998). In respecting diversity clinicians who support conversion therapy say that religious identities are just as valid as sexual identities. Consequently if an individual's sexual identity is in conflict with their religious identity it is the patients prerogative to move forward in any direction they wish, including the direction of trying to change their sexual orientation (Throckmorton, 1998).
Ultimately, Throckmorton sums up the current argument for conversion therapy. Throckmorton (1998), an advocate of clients' rights to choose a therapy of their choice, rests his support for conversion therapy on the instability, fluidity, and limited knowledge of sexuality. He asserts that the lack of a stable definition of sexuality allows room for the possibility of change and ultimately disarms therapists from making statements regarding a fixed notion of sexuality. As a result, Throckmorton (1998) says that, "clients cannot be reliably told that they cannot change" (n.d.).
Now I'm going to shift the focus to the argument in which sexual reorientation is viewed as ineffective and as a therapeutic technique that is often times more harmful than helpful to the client than helpful. Proponents of who dismiss reorientation therapy as valid form of therapy support same sex sexual identity as a healthy valid means of sexual expression. Furthermore, most of these clinicians believe that legitimate change sexual orientation is impossible and that these therapies produce superficial results, which can leave the client confused, depressed, anxious, and sometimes suicidal.
In regard to advocating a patients right to choose a therapy of their choice Gonsiorek (2004) and Tozer and Hayes (2004) raise some interesting points. According to Gonsiorek it is not unusual for patients to ask for treatments that are “unsubstantiated, improper, unethical, misguided, incorrect, invalid, or otherwise ill-advised” (p. 755). He says that as a result of reading popular and anecdotal material often times clients enter therapeutic settings with ideologies that are unreliable and invalid. Using analogous scenarios Gonsiorek points out that psychologist are required to thoroughly discuss questionable treatments options that are prompted by clients. Similarly, Gonsiorek believes that conversion therapy is in the same boat as other questionable practices. Accordingly it is “nonsense “ to assume that conversion therapy should be exempt from the “complex duties” and requirements expected of all psychologist and clients who are dealing with ambiguous therapeutic terrain (Gonsiorek 2004: 755). Tozer and Hayes (2004) found a “significant potential influence of religiosity and internalized homophobia” (p. 733). Their findings suggest that it is by an acquired religious identity that a desire to change sexual orientation comes about. Those who found religion as central force in their life tended to think of conversion therapy as a feasible solution (Tozer and Hayes 2004).
Multiple studies and sources of anecdotal information from former patients have revealed that overall reorientation therapies fail to change sexual orientation. In the same study mentioned earlier, (Shidlo and Schroeder 2002) found that 176 of the 202 participants stated failure as the result of their attempts at conversion therapy some of whom initially after completing the program believed themselves to be successful. Moreover, former leaders of the ex-gay ministry Exodus International, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper had to quite their leadership position because of their inability to keep from falling in love with each other. Both men decided that they were living a lie and that continuing their service for the advancement of changing sexual orientation through the power of God was actually a disservice to many men and women (Besen, 2003).
The therapeutic approaches attempted at changing sexual orientation have only been able to change a client's sexuality on one dimension, the behavioral dimension. Thompson (2004) who is a religious advocate of conversion therapy and self-identified ex-gay admits that the struggle against his same sex sexual orientation is an ongoing battle that will continue for the rest of his life. He can change what he does but he cannot change what he feels. In referring back to Shidlo and Schroeder's (2002) qualitative study, close examination of the perceived success rates reveal that change does not occur in desire but in behavior. The 26 individuals who claimed success fell into 3 categories: (a) 12 reported successful and struggling (b) 6 reported successful and not struggling and c) 8 reported successful heterosexual shift. Those in category (a) had continued fantasies of same sex sex and occasional sexual encounters with same sex individuals. Those in category (b) were celibate and/or refused to label their sexual identity. Those in category (c) claimed successful and fulfilling heterosexual relationships but had same sex attractions that were easily manageable (Shidlo and Schroeder, 2002). According to Shidlo and Schroeder (2002) homosexual behavior management is one way that individuals navigate a successful outcome to therapy. Homosexual behavioral management (HBM) refers to the conscious effort in which a client engages exclusively in opposite sex sex or is celibate. HBM occurs even when an individual still has same sex desires. Another way in which Shidlo and Schroeder found participants to view themselves as successful is the process in which individuals managed their same sex desire without distress or struggle. Again, the desire is existent but not acted upon. Haldeman (2002) furthers the discussion on conversion therapy's focus on behavior by explaining that patients are asked to create elaborate self-deceptive narratives that help a client to cope with same sex attractions. These narratives do not change sexual orientation but rather they assist the client in removing him/herself from same sex attractions. Ultimately the successes of reorientation therapy only address the area of behavior while disregarding the arena of desire.
Often times these therapies cause considerable harm to those who participate. Numerous stories provide evidence that engaging in reorientation therapy can contribute to psychological harm, suicidal ideation and even suicidal attempts. Besen's (2003) retelling of former ex-gay ministers Bussee and Cooper stories reveals some of the damage that can ensue after attempts at changing sexual orientation fail. Bussee and Cooper recall upon accounts in which individuals came to them in hopes of changing their same sex attractions and when change did not occur these individuals were left "despondent" and "suicidal". One individual reported engaging in self-mutilation whereby he cut his genitals and poured Drano into the open wounds in effort to rid himself of his same sex attraction (Besen 2003; 88-89). Similar accounts of depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation by failed attempts at changing one's sexual orientation are reported in Shidlo and Schroeder's study. Shidlo and Schroeder (2002) outlined other negative psychosocial outcomes such as internalized homophobia that leads to lowered self-esteem, alienation, loneliness, and social isolation. They found 23 participants to have engaged in suicidal attempts during conversion therapy and 11 participants after therapy.
Overall those against sexual reorientation therapy claim that these programs are ineffectual and causes more harm outcomes than beneficial. Jenkins and Johnston (2004) poignantly sum up the arguments against conversion therapies by stating that they are in “ethical violation of core social work values and principles” (p. 558).
In conclusion, I believe that sexual reorientation therapies are ineffective in changing sexual orientation and attempts at doing so can be harmful on multiple levels. Shidlo and Schroeder's (2002) examination of former participants who underwent reorientation therapy provides great insight into perceived success rates and how sexual behavior becomes the focus of change over sexual desire. Their illumination of the patients’ conception of what it means to have successfully completed reparative therapy reveals that it is only by a trick of the mind that individuals believe that their orientation is changed. There is no evidence suggesting that sexual orientation has changed. Furthermore, it is evident from the testimonies of those who have worked with patients who have been through sexual reorientation programs that these practices can lead to devastating effects on clients, effects that place individuals at an increased propensity for mental instability. I also agree with Gonsiorek (2004) who dissects the discourse around the ideology of a client’s right to choose and Tozer and Hayes (2004) who assess religiosity and treatment seeking rates. Ultimately, a client’s inclination to change their orientation is not always the consequent of careful soul searching whereby an individual truly and willfully chooses reorientation therapy but rather a direct effect of internalized homophobia.
From a sociological perspective it is obvious that social institutions and social constructions of same sex sexuality have implications on whether or not an individual chooses to pursue conversion therapies. Social institutions such as religion and the family play a big role on the development of a child. In many of these institutions same sex sexuality is not accepted and often times it is met with hostility. By being placed in such an environment of condemnation it is no wonder an individual feels the need to change. Furthermore, negative stereotypes constructed and perpetuated by a heterosexist society provide inaccurate information about same sex sexuality. These stereotypes that include being gay as an unfulfilling and destructive lifestyle, being gay or lesbian as an automatic sentence to hell, and being gay as weird, have the power to persuade individuals into trying to change. Interestingly, it is same sex sexuality that is under scrutiny when in fact sexuality as whole should be examined and critiqued. As the minority group and as minority groups in the past have experienced, the explanation rests on them. No one is trying to change a straight person into a gay person. That idea would be ludicrous, right? Right, consequently it is also ludicrous to think that someone else's sexuality could be forcefully changed.
References
Besen, Wayne 2003. Anything But Straight. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Beckstead. A. Lee. 2001. "Cures versus Choices: Agendas in Reorientation Therapy." Unpublished manuscript.
Gonsiorek, John. 2004. "Reflections From the Conversion Therapy Battlefield." Counseling Psychologist. 32(5): 750-759.
Jenkins, David and Johnston, Lon. 2004. "Unethical Treatment of Gay and Lesbian People With Conversion Therapy." Families and Society 85: 557-561.
Haldeman, Douglas. 1994. "The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62(2): 221-227
Haldeman, Douglas. 2002. "Gay Rights, Patient Rights: The Implications of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 33(3): 260-264.
Murphy, Timothy. 1992. "Redirecting Sexual Orientation: Techniques and Justification." The Journal of Sex Research 29(4): 501-523.
Shidlo, Ariel and Schroeder, Michael. 2002 "Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers' Report." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 33(3): 249-259.
Thompson, Chad. 2004. Loving Homosexuals As Jesus Would. Brazos Press: Grand Rapids.
Throckmorton, Warren. 1998. “Efforts to Modify to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of the Outcome Literature an Ethical Issues. Journal of Mental Health Counseling. 20(4): 283-304.
Tozer, Erinn and Hayes, Jeffrey. 2004. "Why Do Individuals Seek Conversion Therapy?: The Role of Religiosity, Internalized Homonegativity, and Identity Development." Counseling Psychologist 32(5): 716-740.