Men Rape, Women Heal

My introduction to working at the Lorain County Rape Crisis Center left an indelible impression. I was a senior in college and earning my final few credits through an internship. After completing some introductory training I was given an office of my own and some clients to support. Beyond my naiveté and an interest in listening and caring, I had absolutely no idea what I was doing. 

I was, nonetheless, assigned clients to work with. My first was a gentleman who was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by his mother. Prior to retrieving the man from the waiting room I heard the social worker intern speaking rather loudly in the director's office:

"Men do the raping, women do the healing. He doesn't belong here as an intern."

I remember being annoyed and hurt, but didn't really have time to think about the complexities of what the social work student had said. I had a job to do--I had to figure out what the hell I was doing. 

In the intervening 21 years, I've thought a lot about what the social work student had said. I woke up this morning with her words on my mind. There is a national dialogue going on now about rape, rape culture, and specifically the events that occurred in Steubenville Ohio. Simultaneously, there is a good deal being discussed about sexual harassment related to an incident in which Adria Richards spoke out about an experience she had at a technology conference. These two events are definitely part of the reason why my early experiences at a rape crisis center have come to mind. There are no doubt myriad others. 

There is a growing consensus that seems to be developing: teach men and boys not to rape women and girls. Teach boys and men to be kind. This is great. It's also a totally unsophisticated intervention that, beyond making us feel better in the moment, will accomplish nothing. 

Platitudes are not nearly enough to stop rape and other forms of sexual violence. We live in a culture that places unbearable expectations on boys and men--and as a collective society we are totally unwilling to look at these expectations. 

Don't get me wrong. It's important that we teach that rape is wrong. I think it's great that many are calling for efforts to teach boys to be kind. Men and boys could be a great deal kinder. However before we ask men to be kind, we also need to think about how men who are kind are often treated in our society. We need to look deeply at how our expectations of men are deeply rooted and intertwined with homonegativity, heteronormativity, and misogyny. We need to look at how both men and women are active participants in teaching this to our children.

I was thinking aloud on Twitter this morning and came up with a few thoughts worth thinking about: 

• If we want to stop rape we need to stop calling men and boys who act in kind ways faggots.
• If we want to stop rape we need to examine how homonegativity and heteronormativity distort the possibilities of masculinity.
• If we want to stop rape we need to look at how we put impossible pressures on men to act hyper masculine yet also not be sissies.
• If we want to stop rape we have to stop teaching our boys to act like a man by not crying like a girl, and call them sissy boys and faggots if they cry.

There is no excuse for sexual violence. This much I know for sure. I also know that so long as we continue to raise our boys with toxic levels of unattainable heteronormative and homonegative expectations--and ask them to be kind--there will be problems. We cannot continue to cast aspersions on men who don't act like "real men" and simultaneously expect them to be something else.

Men also need to stop raping women. Women need to stop raping men. Men need to stop raping other men. Women need to stop raping other women. Men and women need to stop raping children. 

We also need to look at our own behavior. We need to be responsible for the world we are creating with our unexamined demands on what masculinity is supposed to be. 

Tommy and Buzz: All My Love

I recently came across this picture of Tommy and Buzz. I got to wondering what the story was behind the moment they shared together on the beach. The inscription on the back of the photo is so tantalizing and sweet:

"To Buzz, I'll always remember the times we spent together. All my love, your Tommy."

If Tommy or Buzz are still alive they are now both close to or well into their 80s. The world has totally transformed in the time that has elapsed since this moment was captured on the beach. Do you think they still remember that day?

I've carefully looked at each of the 300+ websites that this image appears on and searched for clues to their identity. There are none. It's likely neither know that their image has been populated around the internet.

Who they are and were--and what times they shared--are likely forever lost to history. If someone had not located this picture and taken the time to digitize it, the entire memory of this experience might have been erased for all times.

 I'm overwhelmed contemplating that thought. It inevitably reminds me that some day I too will be erased from the this world. All that I am will be reduced down to ever-smaller bits of data. Eventually that which is I will evaporate and return to whatever it was from which I emerged from when I became an I. It will happen to you too.

Go back and read that again slowly. 

...and now back to Buzz and Tommy

An Open Letter

I recently sent this letter to all of my collegues in Massachusetts who are licensed psychologists. For those of you whom I've missed, consider this my invitation for you to consider these important ethical concerns.

Dear Friends:

As some of you know, I recently became outraged when I saw a YouTube clip of a licensed marriage and family therapist advocating the discredited notion that therapy can be used to help gay and lesbian individuals remove "unwanted same sex attractions." Every credible professional organization has repudiated these attempts to repair or remove same sex attractions. Yet organizations, such as the National Association for Research and Therapy about Homosexuality, continue to peddle a pseudo-scientific agenda that preys on vulnerable people across the United States and the world.

Over the past 15+ years I've met the occasional patient who has been victimized by ex-gay therapies. Since speaking up about these issues many more have crawled out of the woodwork and shared their stories with me. I think this is important--and I think it's an opportunity for psychologists to stand up for what is right.

I've recently wrote both the licensing board and the Mass Psych Association asking them to carefully consider the ethical issues involved in so-called reparative therapy. I've encouraged them to make a public statement about this issue.

I hope each of you also take the time to consider these ethical issues. Perhaps some of you might be moved to contact our licensing board and professional association. Perhaps you might even be moved to speak with your colleagues about this--and share my letter with them.

Think about this for a moment--in the Commonwealth we are the first-in-the nation to recognize same-sex marriages. We also are in a peculiar situation where licensed therapists can go about trying to remove unwanted same sex attractions from vulnerable youth. Which is it going to be--full recognition of gay and lesbian people as human beings--or continued shaming and sham attempts at 'repairing' something that is not broken? I think it's time to push back and make it clear that it's not okay to victimize our patients with discredited and damaging therapies.

Thanks for listening--and a quote that my doctoral program gave me on bookmark during my interview day is worth remembering here: 

“Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.” Founding President of Antioch College, Horace Mann, 1859

For more information see:

A Call for Ethics

Confessions from a Reparative Therapist

Homosexuality 101: A video Response

Exploring Practices and Harm in Reparative Therapy

Homosexuality 101 -- A Video Response

I remember a conversation I once had with a clinical mentor. She told me that once I put it out into the universe that I had concerns about the safety of a patient, I needed to diligently, vigorously, and continuously pursue all of my options to make sure that patient is safe. I could not rest until I did everything that I could do to protect my client.

I've taken Debora's words seriously. I've thought of them a lot these past couple of weeks since first encountering a video clip from the Family Research Council. I took what some have told me is an extraordinary act: I wrote a letter to a therapist from Florida who is engaging in so-called reparative therapy. I questioned her about her ethics. I don't find this act extraordinary. I find it a duty that is incumbent upon me to perform as a licensed psychologist. 

I take my ethical code seriously. When I watched the initial video and saw a licensed therapist using her position of authority and trust to spread pseudo-scientific propaganda. I saw a licensed therapist that furthers a damaging agenda that has caused untold pain on a vulnerable population. I felt violated as a person and as a psychologist. I  felt called to stand up for my profession--and most importantly--I felt called to stand up for vulnerable people who are damaged by this propaganda that Dr. Hamilton spews through her platform with NARTH.

For the record:

• Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm.
• Psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work.
• Psychologists seek to promote accuracy, honesty and truthfulness in the science, teaching and practice of psychology.
• Psychologists recognize that fairness and justice entitle all persons to access to and benefit from the contributions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures and services being conducted by psychologists... [and do not] condone unjust practices.
• Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people... and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices.

For more information on what I'm doing to stand up for what I think is ethical, right, and just, please see my new blog The Truth About Homosexuality. For a discussion about what an ethical and competent psychologist might do, see my post Confessions from a Reparative Therapist.

Confessions from a Reparative Therapist

I admit it. I am a reparative therapist (also called conversation therapy)--just not the kind you think. As a psychologist I have worked with people who have sought to be relieved of unwanted same sex attractions since the dawn of my practice in 1997. Shocked? Expecting some sort of twist here? Of course there is a twist. Before we get to the twist, let's take a look at what the pseudo-scientific organisation called the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, commonly called NARTH, has to say. This organization, by the way, has been called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

NARTH writes:

Reorientation therapy is simply psychological care aimed at helping clients achieve their goals regarding their sexual attractions, sexual orientations and/or sexual identities. Reorientation is not decidedly different from other therapies. There are many psychological approaches to helping clients with unwanted homosexual attractions. All approaches supported by NARTH are mainstream approaches to psychotherapy. The term "Reparative Therapy" refers to one specific approach which is psychodynamic in nature, but not all who offer therapy aimed at orientation change practice Reparative Therapy.  

The Irreverent Psychologist (that's me!) wonders just what mainstream approaches to psychotherapy NARTH is speaking about. As you may have noted in another blog post of mine, not a single mainstream professional association endorses "reorientation" therapy.

Let's look at one more bit of what NARTH says before I get to my practice of reorientation therapy:

We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance. NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals.

It all sounds good, doesn't it? This business about achieving one's goals pertaining to their sexual orientation makes for a lovely thought, right? Remember the part about choosing their own destiny. This will be important.

Let's talk about the work I do, shall we?

I'd like to introduce you to four patients. They are all representative of real people. I've changed biographical details to protect their identities and privacy. I've asked for their permission to include them in this way: they have all agreed. I am thankful for the people who are behind these stories for allowing me to share a small portion of their experience. 

• A sixteen year old male teenager coming to therapy because he's worried he might be gay.
• A Mexican-American woman with elderly parents, struggling between staying with her same-sex partner or caring for her aging parents who believe homosexuality is a sin.
• A businessman in his 50s who stayed closeted out of fear of his business would suffer. Facing the second half of his life, he struggles between satisfying his desire for companionship with men and maintaining strong business relationships in his conservative line of business.
• A hipster 20 something woman, raised by a father who was a Baptist minister who sexually abused her. "I'm not even sure I'm gay, I think it might just be something that happened because of my father."

In each of these clinical situations, a person grapples with important concerns. A teen grapples with schoolyard bullies, his Catholic upbringing, parental expectations, and the confusing desires of an adolescent.  A Mexican American woman struggles with a conflict between her heart and a cultural expectation to, as the youngest daughter, stay close to home and care for her parents. A businessman struggles with strong feelings that same-sex attraction is negative, a strong attraction to men, and making a choice to risk loosing life-long friends who might reject him for his sexual orientation. A hipster struggles with separating out desire, love, and attraction from trauma and abuse.

Four very different people, with very different life situations, clinical presentations, and developmental issues. Each of them, however, questioned their same-sex attraction at one point or another in their treatment with me. Among the things they wanted to explore and work on was furthering their understanding of their same-sex attraction.

Each of these four patients, at one point or another, had the goal to remove unwanted same sex attraction. Here's where it gets complicated. Who gets too decide what the goal is? Who is deciding whom's destiny?

I have a quiz for you. Don't worry, it's painless and will be over before you know it. Who decides whom's destiny in a psychotherapist-patient relationship? Circle one: (and grammar people, is it who, whom, whose, or whom's -- I'm sure someone will tell me.)

1. The patient
2. The psychologist
3. The intersubjective self

Many of you might circle number one. I like that choice. Almost without exception, I accept my patients exactly where they are at. It is not for me to decide what makes for a life worth living. Rather, it is for me to ask really good questions that help open and explore new ways of looking at their life and provide tools for my patients to be more effective agents in their life (thus making for a life that they make happen, rather than a life that happens to them). 

Choice number one, however, doesn't always make sense. Sometimes it is choice number two. For a large portion of my career, I've worked with patients who self-injure and are highly suicidal. Patients have starved themselves to near death, injected themselves with poisons, broken their own bones, and have tried to (or actually did) kill themselves. It would be disingenuous of me to say that I don't have a say in what the goals of therapy are.

There are, based on laws, ethics, and my own sense of decency, places where I need to exert power over a patient's decision making. I must intercede and protect children, senior citizens, and disabled people from abuse. I must intercede and protect my patients from killing themselves or killing another person (though from what I have gathered, if a patient kills someone and then tells me I cannot violate their confidentiality). Lastly, if I believe someone's decision making is impaired because of a mental illness I can have them involuntarily hospitalized. Those are the four ways in which the law and my ethical code dictate me to intercede and take over the life of my patient. I loathe to do this, and try to take every step I can so that my patients remain active agents in their life--not me.  

Members of SPLC Hate Groups Need Party Hats

Beyond ethics, there are myriad ways my personal beliefs directly and indirectly exert power over the the decisions I make in my consultation room. My job, as a seasoned and reflective psychologist, is to constantly work to become more and more aware of the ways in which I am using power to influence patients--and to use that power wisely, thoughtfully and transparently as possible.

Now what about therapy to rid oneself of unwanted same sex attraction? That's when we get to circle number three, the intersubjective self. What's that? That's where psychologist and patient get to have fun exploring an idea together. The patient and psychologist join together and explore many different ways of thinking. Our selves merge in a way, become one for a moment, and can see much further and deeper into any given issue. 

Choice number three isn't for the novice therapist or the weak at heart. It's painful, difficult, and challenging to be open enough to connect with another in this way. It's also dangerous if a psychologist isn't self aware enough to recognize their power and all the different ways they can use it to demand rather than guide.

What issues might one contemplate in regards to sexual orientation? Religion, morals, culture, spirituality, oppression desire, wishes, family, needs, homonegativity, heteronormativity, relevant scientific literature, scripture, and, well, it's endless really.

Do I have an opinion about people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, transgender, or questioning? Yes. I think they are people to be loved and people who are to be cared very deeply about. It's not really for me to decide whether people should or should not be LGBTQ--it is for them to decide. It's for me to help them explore, to separate fact from fiction, and to hold a picture bigger than they can hold on their own.

Some of the patients I've worked with over the years have decided (a) they are indeed an LGBTQ person. Other's have decided that (b) while they are likely an LGBTQ person, they would prefer to contain that part of their self because of a variety of reasons (family, culture, religion, etc.). Others have decided that (c) they aren't actually and LGBTQ person at all.

Options (a) and (c) are easy. I've yet to have a patient select option (b) as a way to lead their life. They have explored the notion for a long time, and in the end, opted for for either being LGBTQ and having loving fulfilling relationships with same sex partners, or choosing to LBGTQ and be celibate for religious reasons, family reasons, etc. A small handful have selected option (c)--they aren't gay, or not yet ready to decide if they are gay.

This is how therapy is done. Thoughtful. Reflective. Taking into account multiple perspectives, multiple ideas, and multiple positions. Let's return again to the so-called reorientation therapists. 

Julie Hamilton at NARTH--she had a lot to say in response to my questioning of her ethics. In reviewing her official statement on the NARTH website (this link will actually get you there, have fun with the others)

• Dr. Hamilton demonstrates both an unsophisticated understanding of ethics in her reliance of choosing option one (remember my little quiz!) 
• Dr. Hamilton appears to be falsely pretending that she isn't exerting any influence on her patients (a likely failure of even knowing there is a choice 3, and it's unclear if she is is able to admit to choice number two). 
• Dr. Hamilton demonstrates an egregious misuse of science and a total failure of scientific thought. Some day I'll have to review her failings--which in her capacity of president of NARTH become NARTH's failings--in a later blog post.

NARTH states on their website they believe in open scientific dialogue. Strangely they don't invite this dialogue. Note the comments on their blog are closed. Let's be serious here: they aren't interested in dialogue. NARTH is interested in foisting their agenda of propaganda and pseudo-science on a vulnerable population.

It seems likely that Julie really isn't in the market of helping patients. It seems that she is in the market of peddling her agenda of propaganda and personal beliefs under a thinly veiled guise of pseudo-science.

Julie writes:

Ethical therapists do not solicit clients or coerce clients into seeking change. The clients served by NARTH therapists are clients requesting change.  

Ultimately it is the client who must choose with proper informed consent and without therapist-coercion, the most satisfactory life for himself or herself.

Sounds good on paper, doesn't it? It's not good. It's dangerous. Julie's unsophisticated understanding of ethics and clinical practice is dangerous. What her words reveal is a situation in which a therapist, unaware of her own agenda, dangerously foists her world view on another. Therapists who do this are, in my opinion, are engaging in the worst kind of malpractice.

So I say this: I know you are out there--survivors of damaging reparative therapy--lost, forgotten, hurting, and silenced by alienation. Come find me and let's use this place to tell your stories, to find connection, and come back into community. Come take a critical look at ex-gay propaganda with me. Come tell your story (anonymously if you're scared).

I am standing up for you. Come find me.

The Human Costs of Reparative Therapy

Have you hear about the so-called reparative therapy, in which unethical therapists attempt to change the sexual orientation of a person? Check out here and here if you are outraged and want to stand up for love, compassion, and what is right.

A Call for Ethics

This morning I came across a  YouTube clip that I live tweeted and also made available on my blog.  It's a sad clip, filled with an enormous amount of misinformation. I was aghast to discover a credentialed mental health professional spewing some of the misinformation. Her actions, to me, violate the ethics and responsibilities of someone in our field. In that it is incumbent upon me as a licensed psychologist to seek a resolution of ethical dilemmas directly with the offending individual, when possible, I have sent out this letter today:

May 11, 2012

Julie Harren Hamilton, Ph.D., LMFT

P.O. Box 1382

West Palm Beach, FL 33402

Dear Dr. Hamilton:

It is my obligation as an ethical psychologist to directly address other psychotherapists who are engaged in behaviors that I believe are unethical. In watching the video published on YouTube by the Family Research Council, I became concerned about your work as a representative of NARTH as well as within your private counseling practice.

Specifically, you state:

“While the general public seems to believe that people are born gay and can’t change, that has not been the conclusion of researchers.”

Let me not mince words here Julie, you are simply wrong. There is no credible evidence in any peer reviewed journal that provides substantive empirical evidence to suggest that so-called reparative therapy is effective or ethical. Further, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of School Administrators, American Counseling Association, American Federation of Teachers, American School Counselor Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Secondary School principals, National Association of Social Workers, National Educational Association, and School Social Work Association of America have all taken  the position that “homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be cured” (APA, Sexual Orientation and Youth, 2008, pg. 6). Your own professional association, the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, also states that “same sex orientation is not a mental disorder. Therefore, we do not believe that sexual orientation in and of itself requires treatment or intervention.” (AAMFT Board of Directors, July 31, 2005)

In the YouTube clip, you continue:

“There are many people who claim that it’s harmful for a therapist to try to help someone change in their sexual orientation and so when clients come in saying I have these attractions—these homosexual attractions and I don’t want to be gay there are many people who say that therapists should not assist those clients in achieving the goals for their lives because it is harmful yet the research reveals it is not harmful. There have never been research studies that have concluded that therapeutic attempts to change sexual orientation are harmful. In fact, it’s unethical not to assist a client in seeking to accomplish their goals for their lives, including their goals of living a life beyond their homosexual attraction.”

Again Julie, the evidence here is that reparative therapist is harmful, doesn’t work, and shouldn’t be done. Your public statements are not consistent with the professional literature. You are misrepresenting science and your field. Your apparent failure to understand the literature is putting those you serve at great potential risk for harm.

I’m deeply concerned that the patients you see become trapped in therapy and are not given ample opportunity to both consider the effects of discrimination, oppression, and misinformation about sexual orientation as well as what their faith teaches about sexual orientation. Further, I am concerned that you misrepresent the professional knowledge about sexual orientation to your patients causing them additional potential harm.

I am writing to ask that you practice within the established professional guidelines and that you meet your ethical responsibilities. Be truthful about the data, do not misrepresent the science, and assure that each of your patients are afforded the opportunity to explore their experience both within the context of their own faith as well as within the context of an understanding of oppression.

I further ask that you respond to these ethical concerns, in writing, so I can be assured your patients are receiving the best possible treatment and care. If I do not hear from you in a timely manner I will assume you are not interested in clearing up these ethical concerns and I will issue a complaint with your professional association and/or licensing body to seek assurances that you are practicing in an ethical manner.

                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                         

Sincerely,

Jason Evan Mihalko, Psy.D.,

Massachusetts Licensed Psychologist

and Health Service Provider

I'm Married and I Know It

Here is another amusing parody video, complete with cutting social commentary, that recently came my way. You can find out more about the maker of this video at Sean Chapin's Facebook page.

Unhate now, Dr. Ablow

Celebrity psychiatrist and Fox News commentator Keith Ablow apparently has a problem with spreading a pro-compassion message. He has himself all stirred up by a recent ad campaign from Benetton.

Through their UnHate Foundation, Benetton is asking us all to "stop hating, if you [are] hating. Unhate is a message that invites us to consider that hate and love are not as far away from each other as we think. Actually, the two opposing sentiments are often in a delicate and unstable balance. Our campaign promotes a shift in the balance: don't hate. Unhate."

Let's look at the campaign.

In what seems to be a bit of a gay panic, Ablow writes "the only psychological interpretation of such ads that makes sense to me as a psychiatrist is that the corporate leaders at Benetton literally believe that homosexual sex between world leaders--or at least homosexuality as an orientation--would lead to world peace."

You watched the video, right? There were some same sex kisses going on--the one that tickled me most were the two women lovers, dressed in a way suggesting they were Muslim, stealing an intimate moment to kiss. Beautiful. Transformative. A message that inspires me to be more than I am.

Where do you suppose Ablow is coming from in his critique? Let's read more.

"They have tipped their collective hands as a company and indicted marital fidelity, faith and heterosexuality, labeling them the real sources of hatred and suffering around the globe. In the collective mind of Benetton, if religious leaders and political figures would just have sex with one another all would be well.

Ablow has really gone off the reservation here. There is a lot in his argument that is just poppycock. Men kissing, in and of itself, is not homoerotic. Men kiss all the time. Women do, too. I'll be returning home for the holidays soon: I'll be giving my father a kiss. There isn't a speck of homoerotic interest there. When I am reunited with close friends--male or female--I'll give them a kiss. I won't be disrobing and bedding them on the spot. A kiss isn't always about sex. A kiss, often times, is about love. It is about compassion. It is about caring for a friend so much that you wish to enter their space and touch lips to  lips (or lips to cheek) and share an intimate moment of the beauty that is human connection.

I'm not exactly sure where Ablow is getting into the motif that marital fidelity, heterosexuality, and faith are the sources of hate. Do you see this in the video? The images of world leaders kissing are shocking, yes, but do you see these images the same away as the celebrity psychiatrist does?

I don't. I see Ablow offering up a hateful spectacle he puts out in the world veiled under the guise of psychiatry. I see Ablow pandering his unexamined viewpoints to the world. I also see Ablow engaging in an awful lot of cognitive distortions. Check out this list and see if you can name the distorted styles of thought employed in the Fox opinion piece.

In his gay panic, Ablow is busy seeing homoerotic imagery hiding in every dark corner, leaping out at him from every closet door, and destroying the universe. I'm no sure he really bothered to investigate the campaign, explore his own reactions to the imagery used, and reflect upon how his responses reflect pieces of his world view and pieces of his own internalized system of homonegativty and heteronormativity.

I have this to say: Get a grip, Ablow. Get a grip. This spectacle of small minded hate is an embarrassment to your profession. You are on the wrong side of what humanity is about. You are peddling fear, hate, and small mindedness. You encourage us to be less than what we can be.

You forget, Dr. Ablow, that connection, love, and compassion, transforms that which what we are into a thing of beauty and peace.

Ablow closes his Fox news celebrity psychiatry opinion with this: "If you are heterosexual, if you are a leader who believes your position demands decorum, if you are a person of substance who believes you should be valued for your mind, not just your sexuality, if you think that countries and religion deserve respect, not ridicule, you were attacked today by Benetton. You felt it. And you shouldn't be talked out of your outrage."

Ablow has a larger message. It is rooted in his world view. He uses his platform as a celebrity psychiatrist to push his personal agenda--an agenda that is apart from his profession of psychiatry--and apart from the larger group of healing professionals around this country.

It seems that this celebrity psychiatrist is saying here that gay and lesbian people do not deserve respect or decorum. Do you hear that in his words? Do you hear how in his words he robs people--all people--of the transformative power of compassion? Do you hear how in Ablow's words he creates a world of us versus them? Do you see how he treats those he considers "other"?

I hear it in his words. Those words don't belong in the field of psychiatry. They don't belong in the field of psychology, either. How must it feel to sit in the office with Ablow, expose your inner world--your fears of being different or unloved--and have him respond with a system that further turns you into the category of the other.

Shame on him.

I'm reminded tonight of the words of a psychologist who deeply influenced my work. In a letter to her patients shortly before her death, Irene Stiver wrote:

"It has become even clearer to me that love is what it's all about. Not only at this time, but throughout our relationship, I have felt your love and deep caring for me. In turn, I hope that you feel my love for you. My hope is that you will hold onto this love and build on it in your life. Thank you for the privilege of being part of your life." 

Do you see outrage here, or do you see love? 

Choose love.