Sometimes I Hate Myself

"I do. Sometimes I hate myself. I hate myself because I fucking check myself when standing at pedestrian crossings, and sometimes I hate you for doing that do me. But not right now."
--Panti Bliss

On Fred Phelps and Projective Identification

I'm not entirely sure the first time I heard of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. For a group of about 40 people, it has had an oversized impact on the media and our perceptions of anti-gay hostilities in the United States.

The damage that those 40 people have done is immense. Their pickets has caused immeasurable pain to countless families. The Phelps clan's vitriolic creed of alienation, destruction, and hate will impact our world for years to come.

Phelps died yesterday. Many have celebrated that his presence has been removed from this world. I'm not entirely unsympathetic for those expressing a great deal of hatred toward him as a result of the pain he has brought into this world.

I also worry a great deal.

• I worry about how difficult it is to rise above our wrathful and vengeful desires. 
• I worry what it says about us when we direct the same evil Phelps directed toward us toward him. 
• I worry that we are no better than Phelps: we wish harm and destruction upon those we do not like. 
• I worry about the ways in which we have become the projective identification of Fred Phelps.
• I worry about the ways in which Fred Phelps has become a projective identification of us.

I also remember the funeral of Matthew Shepard. I remember the power of that small group of people who found another way. A group of concerned caring people gathered around the protestors from Westboro Church dressed in angel costumes. The angels turned their back to the protestors and with wings soaring up toward the sky, stood with silent power repelling the hatful projections of Westboro Church. They shielded those who came to mourn.

It's time those angels turn around and face Fred Phelps. We need to look silently toward him and see ourselves. We need to see our anger. We need to see our hatred. We need to see our own destructive potential.

We need to look at Phelps and find another way.

We need to change.

Shen Yun | The First Time I Left a Performance

Every year there is a blanket of advertising that envelops Boston when Shen Yun comes to town. After seeing the appealing advertisements for several years, we purchased tickets for a matinée performance yesterday afternoon. My heart sank a little while we were driving down to the theater. The Yelp reviews were less than stellar. (read my yelp review here)

Many of them took issue with the religious and spiritual undertones that were embedded (yet unadvertised) within the show. Billed as a celebration of 5,000 years of Chinese culture, the show also finds time to discuss the persecution that some practitioners of Falun Gong face in mainland China.

The performance is underwritten and produced by practitioners of Falun Gong/Falun Dafa. The practice is a modern day phenomena, founded in 1992, based on one man's appropriation of ancient Chinese practices. I'll get to Falun Gong in a moment. Let's talk about the performance itself. 

I'm fairly sure yesterday afternoon's performance of Shen Yun at the Boston Citi Performing Arts Center's Wang Theater would have been better if produced by Abby Lee Miller of Dance Mom's fame.

It was bad. I left at intermission. I've never left a performance. Ever. 

Bright lighting and colorful costumes covered up stilted uninspiring music, choreography suitable for high school dance troupes who have just learned to twirl, tortured singing, and a presentation of history that is nothing more than a cheap caricature of a lush rich culture. The advertisement for Shen Yun features phenomenal computer generated images that are projected onto a screen at the back of the stage. In reality these graphics are something suggestive of what a high school art class might do with a low-powered computer from the late 1990s. The dancers would disappear into trapdoors behind props and then appear in cartoon form on the screen. Hardly the stuff one might imagine when hopping for an awe-inspiring meld between a beautiful dance performance and high technology. 

I was underwhelmed.

I came home wanting to learn more about this performance. I wanted to dig further into the Yelp reviews of Shen Yun, which is translated as "beauty of divine beings dancing." What it really appears to be is a propaganda piece to convince Western audiences to be appalled at the plight of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Some also have left feeling that the propaganda is designed to convince people to follow the tenants of Falun Gong. Knowing something about the triple jewels of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, I found the cartoonish presentation offered by Shen Yun to be an insulting joke. 

There are mountains of glowing reviews. Interestingly, the vast majority of these reviews appear in papers published by various Falun Gong/Falun Dafa organizations. I was hard pressed to find anything other than what the practitioners of Falun Gong want us to hear. Here are excerpts from three pointed reviews I did find.

You've really got to hand it to the folks behind "Shen Yun," the unconscionable piece of religious propaganda that appeared Thursday night in Shea's Performing Arts Center.... Marketed as a survey of 5,000 years of Chinese culture through classical and folk dances from the country, "Shen Yun" turns out to be little more than a church pageant. Were it advertised as such, some of its flaws could be forgiven. Since it was not, it deserves to be held to account for the deception its creators have wrought. --Colin Dabkowski, Buffalo News

Whatever you think of “Shen Yun,” the fact that an organization would manipulate Internet search results to this degree should raise a red flag. -- Colin Dabkowki, Buffalo News

They move with great discipline and some grace, but the promised acrobatics are few and far between. The best of the routines - some ferocious drummers, a Mongolian bowl dance, a Tibetan dance of welcome - are those that are simplest and least admonitory. The rest are tainted by the baggage they are asked to carry. The result is one of the weirdest and most unsettling evenings I have ever spent in the theatre. --Sarah Crompton, The Telegraph 

And then there are the anti-gay aspects of Falun Gong. I found Vancouver based journalist Nathaniel Christopher's post entitled "Falun Gong is Homophobic." Who would have guessed that the $200 some odd dollars I spent on tickets for Shen Yun would have ended up supporting an anti-gay organization?

I'll let Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Gong, speak for himself. The following two questions and answers are from a public teaching that Hongzhi gave in Geneva Switzerland in 1998. The full transcript is available on the Falun Dafa website.

Memorial Day: Vintage Dancing Sailors

Sailors dancing with each other aboard USS OLYMPIA

So who can resist a picture of sailors dancing?

As with many of the images depicting intimacy and friendship between men, the image on the left originally came to me with no information. I don't like photos without captions--especially images of dancing sailors.

A simple Google image search brought me to the Library of Congress. This image was captured aboard the USS Olympia in 1899 by the photographer Frances Benjamin Johnston.

The Olympia was launched on November 5, 1892 and weighed in at 5,676 tons. The vessel's claim to fame was that it served as the flagship of Commodore George Dewey at the Battle of Manila Bay during the 1898 Spanish-American war. The ship returned to port in Boston on October 10, 1899. It was reported that the officers and crew of the USS Olympia were feted and the ship was repainted complete with a gilded bow. The ship was decommissioned in November and placed in reserve.

Perhaps these images of the dancing sailors were taken as part of that party? Johnston's photos came the year the vessel was decommissioned. It wasn't specified if the picture was taken as part of the decommissioning ceremony or not.

Sailors aboard the OLYMPIA waltzing at tiffin time

The Curious Case of Two Men Embracing

This image caught my eye when I came across it yesterday. It has a intense degree of intimacy between these two young men that is absent in most of the vintage pictures I've been collecting of friendship between men.

Fingers intricately intertwined. Chin rested on a shoulder. Torsos and hips held close. A knee, caught in a sunbeam from long ago, bent and pressed against another man's leg.

These two guys are close.

They are very close.

Truth be told, the real reason this picture grabbed my attention is two of my friends (@LadyParabellum and @KateFowler03) are currently vacationing in Idaho. I'm guessing this is not a modern day scene they'll be seeing.

So who are these men? What story might they have to tell us?

First we'll have to look at the full picture. The image I originally came across is a crop. Some anonymous person on the internet decided to remove a significant portion of this story before posting it.  This isn't an uncommon thing in images that I found: many bloggers will crop pictures so they tell a more preferable story or focus in on a particular aspect of the picture. This particular image was also photoshopped and, as you'll see, transformed from a black and white negative to a sepia toned print.

You can even spend a significant amount of money to get a print of the image at various retailers. The image is available for free at the Library of Congress.

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. 

Homo Bride and Groom Restored to Dignity

So here we have another vintage image of two men that just begged for a little research. It's showed up in variety of websites aggregating images that are labeled as vintage gay couples. Each depiction lacks any information (here, here, here, and here). Who is this "homo bride and groom" marching down the aisle toward matrimonial bliss?

I want to know.

A quick search revealed that the images came from an article that appeared in Jet Magazine on September 21 1967. Whomever took the original screen caps kept the pictures but removed most of the identifying information (along with a lot of the obvious homonegative text).

Here are the facts that I know:

• The two men are John Knockhart, a 24 year old from Belgium and Henyrk Rietra, a 26 year old who owned Rotterdam's "famous Welcome Bar." 
• In attendance was best man, Pieter Maas and a small group of friends and family.
• The Catholic priest Father Omtzigt officiated over the ceremony.
• Bishop Martien Antoon Jansen defended the priest saying he was tricked into the ceremony.

That's not bad for a quick Google image search. It was enough to give me a trail to follow this story.

At first I thought the trail was going to run dry. Simple Google searches gave up nothing about who these two men were. My first tantalizing lead was this image of a sugar packet. This is, apparently, all that is left of the "famous Welcome Bar" that Rietra owned. The sugar packet, however, has an address. I followed that address and found an African art gallery. I've emailed the gallery owners, Kathy van der Pas and Steven van de Raadt, to see if they might know anything about our young couple or the business that apparently once stood where their gallery is currently located. I'll keep you posted.

The sugar packet, however, wasn't the end of the line. A search for Rietra took me to a webpage that was in Italian. Thanks to Google, reading Italian (which I don't) is unnecessary. A click of a button and the web page is (poorly) translated into English.

In 1967 Henryk Rietra and Jean Knockhaert, two men of 26 and 24 years respectively, are joined in marriage in Broederkappellet Rotterdam by Catholic priest JZ Omtzigt.

So we have at least another reference to these two men and their marriage. John Knockhart has now become Jean Knockhaert. The correct spelling of Knockhaert's name gives me some new leads. 

Jean and Henryk (sometimes listed as Harry) had a photographer, Robert Lantos,  on hand the day of their wedding. Some of those photographs have been archived in The Netherlands National News Agency (ANP) Photo Archives at the Memory of The Netherlands Project. I've emailed the reference librarian at the Koninklijke Bibiliotheek, the National Library of the Netherlands, to see if they might have some additional resources.

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

Sign, Click, and Feel Good

When is the last time you watched a documentary and were inspired to make a meaningful lasting change? After watching Bowling for Columbine did you sell your guns, call your senators demanding for gun control measures, and write a check to support a local agency that serves at-risk teens? After watching Food Inc. did you start your own garden, shop from local farmers, and eschew any form of pre-packaged food made by an agri-business? 

If you made changes, were any of them changes that you sustained?

Probably not.

I recently watched and fell in love with the luscious and beautiful film Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom. It didn't make me write a check to support Tsunami victims. It didn't make me board a plane for Japan to help survivors heal and rebuild their lives. It didn't inspire me to take any meaningful action that an outsider can observe, measure, and document.

Documentaries are an art form that stimulate us to have an emotional response about the human experience. They document history and teach us about it. They don't stimulate us--at least very many of us--to do anything. They stimulate us to feel something. When done well, the art form of a documentary exposes us to a new part of the human experience. In revealing something new about the world, we reveal something new within ourselves. 

I love documentaries as an art form. I love exposing myself to new parts of the human experience. I love discovering new parts of my own experience that were opened and exposed by my interaction with the documentary. 

I don't, however, confuse this with action, behavior change, or social change.

When and End to Hate Isn't an End: Boy Scouts

This Monday the Boy Scouts of America released a press statement that fired up the Internet. One would have thought gay men everywhere where pouring into streets to celebrate the end of homonegativity--or perhaps climbing up to the mountain tops to shout "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last."

I'm keeping my hiking boots off. I don't see any need to rush to a mountain top just yet.

Let's look at what the Scouts actually had to say for themselves. As with most things, the devil is in the details. Read closely.

"Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization's mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families."

What does this really mean? It means that if the Boy Scouts make this change, troops that are in areas that are already supportive of gay youth will continue to be supportive of gay youth. Young gay men can be scouts and adult gay men can be scout leaders. Great. Fantastic. Progress. 

The fine print also means that troops that are in areas that don't support gay youth will continue to be unsupportive of gay youth. In fact, 70% of Scout troops are chartered by religious organizations. Who honestly thinks that those religious groups that busy themselves with pray-away-the-gay charlatan therapy will suddenly start accepting gay youth into the scouts? 

Come on. Raise your hand if you think this will happen. 

Anyone?

I didn't think so.

If Your Colors Were Like My Dreams

My mother likes email. It's almost a condition.

Seriously. It appears that she spends several hours each and every day carefully curating her collection of incoming e-mail. Mom crafts mailing lists of people with similar interests and sends out a daily dispatch of information that people might like to know. I even have my own category: of interest to you.

So the other day in my daily dispatch I received this petition.

My son Ryan has been a Boy Scout since he was 6 years old, and now, a few days before his 18th birthday, he has fulfilled all the requirements to be an Eagle Scout. But because Ryan recently came out to his friends and family as gay, leaders from our local Boy Scout troop say they won't approve Ryan's Eagle award.

None of this is surprising as the Boy Scouts have reaffirmed their anti-gay policies over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Preventing Ryan from becoming an Eagle Scout is consistent with their stated policy. It shouldn't come as a surprise to both Ryan and his mother that this has happened.

This blog post, however, isn't really about the Boy Scouts or Ryan Andersen. The email from my mother transported me back to Zellers Elementary School. 

In either fifth or sixth grade music class we had to research a band we liked and give a presentation about that band. Classmates picked the popular bands of the time. Unbeknownst to me, it was important to pick the right kind of popular bands. Liking certain kinds of music in my school allowed you to fit in with the crowd and be considered likable. I recall presentations about Quiet Riot, Journey, and Def Leppard. That's what the in-crowed liked (or at least pretended to like).

Being a young iconoclast and being totally unlike the other boys, I took the road less traveled. I never picked the things that were popular in school. It was like everyone except me received a popularity decoder ring.

I was enthralled with British and Euro-Pop music in grade school. This was not a "cool kid" approved preference. As you might imagine, I took some flack for my presentation on Boy George in my rather conservative suburban elementary school in Strongsville Ohio. I even took flack from my teachers.

Mr. Smith sporting some short-shorts.

At some point in sixth grade, my classroom teacher Joe Smith and music teacher Eric Richardson, called my parents in for a special conference. They were concerned that I wasn't like the other boys. Too sensitive, they said. When pressed by my parents about what too sensitive means, they explained they were concerned that I might be gay. "When he gets to middle school he will be eaten alive by the other boys."


"Have him join the Boy Scouts," they implored my parents. "It'll toughen him up."

Smart thinking, eh? He might be gay. Change who he is. That'll work. Not once did it occur to these men that I might need to be nurtured and protected. Not once did it occur to them I might need to be equipped with skills at managing bullying. Nope. Just change him. That'll fix the problem.

I wasn't at the meeting. My parents, as I am told, unleashed their own particular brand of wrath upon these teachers. There was always one thing that was clear with my parents: there was always space to be exactly who I was. Getting in the way of my process of self-discovery wasn't a wise thing for an educator to do. My parents ate those sorts of educators alive.

To this day, I think those two men trying to impose a certain way of being a young man upon me was the most heinous and grievous act of violence that educators have ever perpetrated upon me. Rather than support me, encourage me, and protect me in my own process of growth and discovery, they attempted to shame and guilt me into being someone other than who I was.

Of course, they didn't really know who I was. They just had a feeling that whoever I was, wasn't the right kind of boy to be.

They wanted to give me that popularity decoder ring. Be like the other boys. Fit in. Conform.

In a way, Smith and Richardson were right. I was eaten alive in junior high. Those three years were some of the most unpleasant years of my life. I also wouldn't have had it any other way. In the midst of the horror show known as junior high, I found some real educators who nurtured, encouraged, and protected me. I can think of three teachers who helped give me another kind of decoder ring: the kind that eventually helped me discover who I am.

There is nothing more powerful than dreaming and living in the colors of  my own dreams. I needed Smith and Richardson to see me, give me the tools to be me, and create a protected place so I could grow into that man. I didn't need them to tell me who to be.

If they could see me now they'd probably still want me to be someone other than who I am. Rather than eat them alive, I think I might like to put on a top hat and sing this:

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

A Call to Action/Shine Brightly

This  morning I came across a video produced by the Family Research Counsel. I found it to be a particularly repugnant piece of propaganda and live tweeted my responses to the video. I felt that in good conscious, I couldn't let out-right falsehoods go unchallenged. I strongly encourage you to watch the video for yourself.

Interested in encouraging these folks to move from hate toward compassion? Consider an e-mail, tweet, phone call, or letter. Share with them the importance of love, compassion, and acceptance of all of our humanity. Tony Perkins, near the 26:50 mark, says that it is important to be "letting your light shine before men in such a way that they can see your good works." Show them all your good lights. Shine bright. Our futures--your futures--depend on it.

Rev. John Rankin
Theological Educational Institute
P.O. Box 297
West Simsbury, CT 06092
tei@teii.org
860-408-1599

Jeff Buchanan (or here)
Executive Vice President
Exodus International
1-888-264-0877

Joe Dallas
email here
17632 Irvine Blvd.
Suite #220
Tustin, California 92780
714-508-6953

Tony Perkins
Peter Sprigg
Chris Gacek
(email here)
Family Research Counsel
801 G Street, NW
Washington, D.C., 20001
203-393-2100 (p)
202-393-2134 (f)

Redeemed Lives
Rev. Mario Bergner
(email here)
P.O Box 451
Ipswich, MA 01938
978-356-0404

Massachusetts Family Institute
(email)
(web)
781-569-0400

Liberty Legal Foundation
Kelly Shackelford
9040 Executive Park Drive
Suite 200
Knoxville, TN 37923
324-208-9953
(web)
(email)

Carol M. Swain
Vanderbilt University Law School
131-21St Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203
615-322-1001 (o)
615-310-8617 (c)
615-322-6631 (f)
(web)
(email)

Rep Vicky Hartzler
(web)
(email)
1023 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2876 (o)
202-225-0148 (f)

Alliance Defense Fund
Austin R. Nimocks
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
1-800-835-5233
(web)

Mass Resistance
P.O. Box 1612
Waltham, MA 02454
781-890-6001
(web)

Julie Harren Hamilton, Ph.D., LMFT
P.O. Box 1382
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
561-312-7041
(email)
(web)

(read my letter to Dr. Hamilton here)

To My Unborn Child

To read  more about the inspiration behind this clip, click here. 

Shit Homophobic People Say

Sometimes people say the darnedest things. Here are a few stellar examples. How does any of this make anyone feel good, or elevate anyone to be more, or  move our society forward toward a place of peace, compassion, and justice?

Really now. People say the darnedest things.

Born This Way: A Note on Liberation

Some time ago I wrote a blog post called "On Orientations, Preferences, and Mother Monster." I had an interesting conversation with someone who asked me if gay people are "born this way" as Lady Gaga and large parts of the gay and lesbian community suggest. The answer is complicated. Look at my original blog post for some food for thought (and a little Lady Gaga).

This morning I read a news story from Brazil. It is a good reminder to look outside of ourselves and outside of our own country from time to time. Here is someone from Brazil conceptualizing sexuality as an option--a choice--and not being afraid to make that choice (despite the gay bashing).

"These comments are nothing more than proof of what we're trying to say. We are assaulted by our sexual option ", says Fernando.

The way identity is constructed and thought of here in the United States is not the way the same phenomena is thought about elsewhere in the world. The way we think about ourselves is bound up in our culture and our national dialogue about identity. We forget that too easily. In forgetting that, we lose some of potential offered by the liberatory social movements of the 60s and 70s where people started making choices about who they were.

What choices do you want to make?