New book details benefits and limits of gay change

In an era where serious news of war and terrorism is punctuated by leading ministers and senators unraveled by homosexual urges, a study of gays seeking to be straight should captivate those curious about the mysteries of sexual orientation.

Mostly ignored by mainstream press, “Ex-gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation” by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse does more than opine on things homosexual. The new book actually addresses the topic in a substantial manner by reporting results of a long-term and ongoing research project.

The study was funded by Exodus International, a Christian ministry dedicated to helping people change homosexual behavior. Jones and Yarhouse are straightforward about the Exodus connection, noting that the funding came with no strings attached.

Not knowing what they would find, the researchers made a commitment to fairly report their outcomes even if those results were embarrassing to Exodus. In doing so now, they provide a rare research-based look into religiously motivated attempts to change homosexual orientation.

The study addressed two questions: Is change of sexual orientation, specifically homosexual orientation, possible? And, is the attempt intrinsically harmful?

Most professional mental health societies promote the view that the answers are no and yes, respectively. However, Jones and Yarhouse now believe the results are just the opposite.

Their findings lead them to conclude that change of sexual orientation is not impossible for some people and that, on average, the effort does not significantly erode well-being for those who continue.

The participants were not engaged in professional therapy and so the variable of interest was participation in religious ministries, not a specific type of counseling. Also, the authors noted that change overall is modest and some became dissatisfied with the effort. Beginning with 98 subjects referred by Exodus, they ended up with information from 73 participants, a respectable retention rate of 74.5 percent.

One of the key findings is that many participants experienced benefit over an average of three years despite small changes in sexual attractions. Only 15 percent reported large shifts — i.e., substantial reductions in homosexual desire and the addition of heterosexual functioning.

Another 23 percent described reductions in homosexual desire and were living in chastity. Including another 29 percent who experienced little change in sexuality, a full two-thirds remained satisfied with their Exodus experience and committed to living out their beliefs about sexuality.

To me, this point may be the biggest story. Most participants reported personal gains from involvement in Exodus ministries even if their sexual attractions did not change to the degree originally desired.

Although the authors do not minimize problems reported by some former Exodus participants, they did not discover evidence of widespread harm. Average ratings of general emotional distress remained steady from start to follow-up, both for the entire population and more specifically for those continuing the change process.

In a way, this book has something for everyone. Critics who say change is rare will note that a relatively small percentage made complete shifts. And the authors disclosed that same-sex attractions lingered for many participants.

Social conservatives can point out that, for many people, living in accord with traditional religious teachings regarding sexuality does not appear to increase emotional distress.

From my perspective, the study highlights the beneficial role that faith and religious community can have in supporting personal identity and behavior that is valued by the adherent.

The authors are to be commended for the accessible and candid way they describe their methods and results. For anyone interested in sexuality, religious faith and personal change, this book is highly recommended.

“Ex-gays?” is published by Intervarsity Press.

[Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Psychology at Grove City College (PA). He can be reached through his blog at www.wthrockmorton.com.]

Ex-Gays? Ex-"Dog-Lovers"?

Submitted by muddle on Sat, 10/27/2007 - 7:16am.

I don't expect that this book will exactly receive rave reviews, as the conclusions run against the torrential mainstream. And the fact that the research was funded by a religious anti-gay organization will raise deep suspicions.

But I find the following odd. This reviewer writes,

The study addressed two questions: Is change of sexual orientation, specifically homosexual orientation, possible? And, is the attempt intrinsically harmful? Most professional mental health societies promote the view that the answers are no and yes, respectively.

So rule number one is "once gay always gay" and rule number two is "you can't, without harm, change rule number one."

But, of course, there is more to "sexual orientation" than hetero or homo. Pedophiles think small children are sweet and "zoophiles" dig animals. Polyamorists think that three's company, and necrophiles tend to take the lead in their sexual relationships. Then, of course, there is the addiction to pornography that has reached epidemic proportions.

Why can we not ask of each of these the same questions that the researchers asked of homosexuality? (a) Is it possible to change? (b)Is the attempt inherently harmful?

I am strongly inclined to think that the behaviors that I list are acquired and do not come as standard equipment. It is not, of course, as though anyone woke up one day and decided, "From today on I shall conjure desires for young children and domestic animals." I suspect that the full-blown perversion is the end result of a series of less momentous decisions and "experiments." Character is the product of habituation. Aristotle told us that the way to become virtuous is to practice the virtues, just as the way to become a guitarist is to pick one up and start playing it. One may similarly become a vicious person by allowing vices to fester.

Plausibly, people caught up in any of these deviant "lifestyles" would honestly say that they simply find within themselves the respective desires. "I did not choose to be like this. This is who I am!"

Doesn't consistency require that we be equally pessimistic over the prospects of success in weaning any and all perverts off of their perversions? And shouldn't we then worry about the "inherent harmfulness" involved in doing so?

But I should think that, if Jones has a thing for pound puppies, it is a good thing if such desires can be quelled. And if, in the process, Jones experiences guilt, shame or remorse for his practices, then, far from being 'inherently harmful,' this is simply a part of the healing process.

What I've not heard from anyone anywhere is a good argument for thinking that the homosexual departure from monogamous heterosexuality is valid whereas any of these other departures are not. So far as I can see, the logic applies equally in any of the cases.[1]

I am open to correction, but I am unaware of any argument for the validity of homosexual desires that, when all has been said, ascends above the following:

Desire X is present, therefore desire X is valid.

But, of course, with this formula we thoroughly empty the category of perverse desires. Zoophilia, pedophilia, and necrophilia are simply "alternate ways of being human." But this is tosh.

[1] Of course, pedophilia, when carried out, involves non-consensual sex and is harmful to the child. But one might have thought that the very presence of latentpedophilic desires are vicious and worthy of moral censure. And, of course, members of NAMBLA argue that there is no harm in it.

login to post comments

Muddle, once again

Submitted by cruiserman on Sat, 10/27/2007 - 8:10am.

you have eloquently and simply put such a complex argument. I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent; your calm, thoughtful brilliance is blinding.

Thank-you.

login to post comments