As you may have read, the American Psychological Association declared pretty much definitively that mental-health professionals should not tell gay clients that they can become heterosexual through therapy.
The resolution was supported by a lengthy report, two years in preparation, that examined 83 “studies” of attempts to change homosexuality, all ultimately unsuccessful. The vote to adopt the resolution was as close to unanimous as these things get — 125 to 4.
I have not yet been able to get a copy of the report, but it is easy to imagine from previous critiques of reorientation or “reparative” therapy the sorts of things the new report discusses. Among them are the failure to specify exactly what “change” consists of and the conflation of different types of alleged change.
For instance, a report by ex-gay therapists Yarhouse and Jones combines (alleged) actual change with “dis-identifying as gay.” In the latter, one may still be engaging in gay sex but not think of oneself as gay or a member of the gay community. Were any actual examples of complete, long-term change reported? Unlikely, but who knows? Even Alan Chambers, head of the umbrella ex-gay group Exodus International, has said in the past that he still struggles with homosexual temptation. Change? You be the judge.
Heterosexual marriage is often cited as evidence of successful change. But consider the man who fantasizes about men while having sex with his wife. Evidence of a change in sexual orientation? Hardly. C. A. Tripp in “The Homosexual Matrix” reports that, despite its best efforts, the Kinsey team never found a single instance of fundamental change in sexual orientation.
Another problem with the “ex-gay” reports is the absence of follow-up. Some studies have found a startling “relapse rate,” meaning the homosexuality was not changed but merely suppressed for a time under the constant propagandizing by the therapist.
A second major recommendation of the resolution and report, according to the Associated Press, was that ex-gay therapists should open themselves to “the positive aspects of being gay or lesbian.” By contrast, as Tripp points out, most ex-gay therapists do their best to undermine the validity of the homosexual alternative. They may assert that homosexual love is spurious, a “counterfeit version of the real thing.” They may claim that all gay relationships are transitory and marked by instability.
The positive aspects of being gay or lesbian may not have been so evident 40 or 50 years ago, but a comfortable domesticity and long supportive partnership (indeed, a same-sex husband or wife) in a supportive community is easily available.
A third point in the new APA resolution is that pro-gay therapists should open themselves to the possibility that a client’s religion can help him lead a spiritually rewarding life. They recommend that if the client’s religion is in conflict with his homosexuality, therapists should suggest changing churches (or religions) to one that is gay-positive or one that is at least neutral about sexual orientation.
And finally, the APA report recommends caution regarding any attempt to change a fundamental sexual orientation, pointing out the possible negative effects of such efforts. A client’s failure to achieve 100-percent change may lead him to feel like an even greater failure, leading to depression and, in a few cases, suicide when a client feels that it is all hopeless. “Change” therapists seldom acknowledge these negative outcomes. n
Some of Paul Varnell’s previous columns are posted at www.indegayforum.org. His e-mail address is [email protected].