While being interviewed on a radio talk show,78 she explained that prior to arriving on campus at age eighteen, her “rigid heterosexuality” was intact, and she was unaware of any sexual attraction to women. Now, after a few years on campus, and sexual experiences with both men and women, she believes society’s preference for malefemale bonding is “wrong in that it limits other possibilities, which are equally good.”
Is Anna Montrose unusual? Can a campus environment, or studying gender theory, influence a young woman’s sexual desires and behavior? Social scientists have been examining the question for decades, and they have an answer.
Meet Dr. Lisa M. Diamond, associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah. After studying women like Anna Montrose for years, she introduced a model of female love and sexuality79 that challenges previous assumptions. The revelations in her book, Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire,80 will astonish you.
Diamond followed almost 100 lesbian, bisexual and “unlabeled”81 young women for a decade, focusing on the development of their sexual identities. This study was the first to follow women’s sexual transitions as they occurred over an extended period of time.82 Her findings not only contradicted existing models, they contradicted them, in Diamond’s words, “strongly and consistently.”83
To begin, most of her subjects were like Anna Montrose; before consciously questioning their sexuality, they had no awareness of attraction to other women.84 In contrast to the prevailing model of homosexual identity, early attractions to girls did not predict lesbian orientation later in life.
Their sexual identities were characterized by change, not stability. Two-thirds changed their identity at least once during the study,85 and one-third two or more times.86 The identity change was most commonly in the direction of opposite-sex behaviors.87 The rate of change did not decrease over time. “Coming out” did not as a rule bring increased certainty and stability. As years passed, they acknowledged more fluidity, not less.88
Some findings to illustrate the point: Of the women in Diamond’s study who initially identified as lesbian, 60 percent had sexual contact with men during the next ten years, and 40 percent did so within the first two years. Even among those who identified as lesbian for the entire ten years, more than 50 percent had some sexual contact89 with a man.90
Her findings would be remarkable if they ended here. But this is only the beginning. Diamond’s study showed that female fluidity does not just happen—it can be “triggered.” One facilitating factor may be heightened physical closeness and contact. Some girls and women have the potential of being profoundly influenced, in both thought and behavior, by their environment: a class on feminism, joining a political organization, attending an all-girls school. (In fact, students at Smith College joke that the college motto should be “Queer in a year or your money back.”)91 And, for girls, awareness of same sex attraction often follows questioning instead of preceding it. That is, girls don’t question because they feel attracted to their friend; they feel attracted to their friend as a result of questioning.
There’s been information out there about female fluidity for a long time. An article from 1984 in The Journal of Sex Research described how women lured into “swinging” by their husbands ended up bisexual. A landmark book in the 1990s reported that a college education increased women’s likelihood of becoming lesbian by a factor of nine.92 Apparently, Anna has a lot of company.
But Diamond’s study was the first to follow girls and women long-term, and her findings suggest that once girls enter the anything-goes “questioning” world, they could find it difficult to reach resolution and closure.
In other words, the openness and experimentation SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, Advocates for Youth and the entire sex ed network celebrates may well add to a girl’s confusion and distress.93
This information is vital to young women like Anna. Where, if not in sex ed class, and on sites like gURL.com, can they learn it? Who, if not people like Schroeder and organizations such as SIECUS and Planned Parenthood, are responsible for conveying it? Girls need to know about the G-spot, but not this? Diamond publicized her findings regularly, in 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, and finally in February 2008, with publication by Harvard University Press of her book. Why then, in 2009, are Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and the rest still telling girls that their sexual orientation is innate—“who you are deep down,” something you “just know,” a “true inner feeling”—as if these were indisputable truths?
Ask yourself this: Are you right-handed? At some point back when you were a baby, you instinctively started picking things up with one hand or the other. Now ask yourself, are you straight? Like being right-handed, sexual orientation starts very, very young—usually before puberty and before people start having sex.94
This simply is not true.95 For some girls, experimenting may lead to confusion over sexual orientation. It’s not always the other way around.
If the women in Diamond’s study were sensitive to “facilitating factors,” it seems reasonable to conclude that some girls and teens, who turn to sites like Teen Talk, scarleteen, and gURL.com, are even more sensitive to “triggers” in their relationships and environment. Their thoughts and sexual behavior are no doubt very prone to influence. I remind you, as well, that all girls (and boys) go through a period in which the opposite sex is considered “yucky,” and that during this pre-adolescent period, and after, many girls have particularly intense same sex friendships. For example, a study of eleventh and twelfth grade girls found that they are much more comfortable and engaged with their female friends than with their male friends. And yes, lesbian relationships often have their beginnings in those comfortable female friendships.96
“I lived through the McCarthy era and the Hollywood witch hunts and, as abominable as these were, there was not the insidious sense of intellectual intimidation that currently exists under political correctness.”
—Nicholas A. Cummings Ph.D., former President, American Psychological Association113
What happens when a girl with this vulnerability takes Ms. Schroeder’s advice “to experience [same sex intimacy] and reflect carefully on the feelings that come up as a result of the experience”?97 Let’s be honest: She’s likely to experience same-sex feelings, at least temporarily.
Is there a problem with that? There could be. In addition to all the other identity challenges of adolescence, she’ll need to cope with this one too. And as Diamond has shown, her identity may shift for years. She may not have closure for a long time. Is that likely to promote, or obstruct, establishing a stable, committed relationship with one person, something most people want very much?
To glamorize the questioning of sexual orientation and promote experimentation with same sex intimacy is hazardous to our children, and it must stop. It introduces doubt to young minds that are especially sensitive and vulnerable to influence. For those kids who are genuinely confused, reassurance should be provided, but so should reminders that sexual activity—especially with both sexes—is dangerous and won’t necessarily help sort things out. If preoccupation with the issue is significant, counseling may be needed. Otherwise, these kids need to get the same advice: delay sexual behavior.
Once again, the ideologues have it all wrong. They value, most of all, for kids to question themselves and the world. They wish to cultivate openness to all possibilities. But their goal should be to help teens achieve a firm and enduring sense of self, so that they know without a doubt who they are and can move on to the challenges of adulthood.
As a psychiatrist, I know that one source of help in reaching that goal is therapy. But here, once again, we are treading on dangerous ground, ground that the vast majority of those directing our children’s sex education have marked as forbidden territory.
Educators at places like SIECUS and Advocates for Youth teach kids that sexual orientation changes. Then, as if it’s a done deal, they discredit any claim of successful intentional chan
ge.98 Even Dr. Diamond, whose research overwhelmingly indicates a “quirky and mercurial” 99 quality to female sexual attraction, insists that intentional change is impossible—and violates “APA [American Psychological Association] ethics.”
Are you following this? Orientation can change, says sex ed, but it cannot be changed. The distinction may sound like splitting hairs, but I warn you—it’s a serious matter with real-life consequences.
If a certain relationship, environment, or class can trigger an awareness of authentic homosexual attractions for women, why can’t the experience of psychotherapy100—which also provides a unique relationship, setting, and opportunity to learn—trigger heterosexual ones?
And what about men? Is there a role for therapy (known as “reparative”) in helping those who are struggling with their own feelings about sexual identity? A small, respectable group of professionals called NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) believes there is. They contend that men who struggle against same sex attraction do so because of personal issues, not societal, and should be respected. In fact, they say, clients who are highly motivated can decrease and even eliminate same sex attraction.
Robert Spitzer, MD, a Columbia University researcher,101 studied a group of 200 men and women like Malik, a patient I once had—young, religious, and distressed with their sexual inclination. He found that following reparative therapy, a majority reported significant change.102 But this kind of information is extremely controversial, highly politically charged, and either completely ignored or strongly condemned by psychological and educational establishments. The American Psychological Association even tried to pass a resolution (rejected by a very small margin) condemning reparative therapy and requiring the disciplining of any therapist who offered it.
I Don’t Want to Be How I Am
Malik was an international student from Malaysia studying architecture. At the urgent request of one of our social workers, I squeezed him into my schedule. This was a true emergency, Karen explained; earlier today, he had considered jumping from the window of his apartment.
I don’t want to be how I am, Malik explained, avoiding my eyes. I am attracted to men, but I can’t accept it. I want to be different. In my country people are whipped and jailed for this. My family expects me to come home when I graduate and get married. This isn’t me . . . I want to change. Why would God do this to me?
What a dreadful situation. Malik described how he’d struggled for years, never sharing his secret, and now he was hopeless. His parents had given him everything, and now he’d disappoint them. After a sleepless night, he had opened the window of his ninth floor apartment, intending to jump. But he hesitated, and, suddenly frightened, walked over to see us.
I listened carefully. This was a red-hot issue, the question of whether unwanted same sex attraction can be decreased or eliminated. The position of major psychological organizations was that change is impossible and people making the claim are deceiving themselves. Furthermore, they say, trying to change can be harmful. Malik’s anguish was a result of intolerance: he had “internalized” society’s homophobia; he’d become intolerant of himself. Proper treatment is to affirm his homosexuality and help him accept it. My colleagues sided with the establishment, affirming therapy is the only valid approach—and assumed I did too—of that I had no doubt.
That’s what flashed through my mind as Malik sat in silence, head down. Forget politics, I resolved. Here was a life at risk. Hospitalization was not an option, because he’d agreed, at least for the time being, not to harm himself. What could I do? In a few minutes he’d leave, and I knew what I said now could make a difference.
“Malik,” I said, “I can prescribe medication so you’ll feel calmer, sleep, and get some work done. You also need therapy. The therapy we provide here may help you accept yourself, and figure out how you want to deal with friends and family.”
“No,” he interrupted, “I could never tell anyone. I will never, ever tell my family. You don’t understand! This is not who I am!”
“There is another kind of therapy,” I continued, “that would support you in struggling against your attraction to men.” I decided to tell him, because it was the right thing to do.
“What?” he asked. “I never heard about that. Does it really work? Can I do it here?”
I shared what I knew, and suggested he research it on his own. I mentioned NARTH’s103 website as a good place to start. And I explained that, no, reparative therapy is not available at our center. It was his decision; if he was interested in learning more, I’d help him with the next step.
I wrote a prescription, and we discussed the proper use of medication. We arranged a follow-up appointment; he thanked me and left.
The door closed, and though I knew I had done the right thing for Malik, I couldn’t help wondering what the reaction would be from my colleagues. Word would spread: Miriam referred a student to the NARTH website. I could just as well have announced my membership in the KKK.
Was there even one other person on our large staff, I wondered, who shared my views—that Malik should be told about both options, and allowed to choose his own path? If so, they’d never publicized their opinion. But considering how worried I was about my own deviation from the party line, I could understand their silence.
Inner and Outer Battles
Malik soon felt better on medication, and his suicidal thoughts receded. He decided against therapy of any kind; he only wanted medication. With the crisis over, he was back to his routine, and would, he said, work out the sexuality issue on his own. For a while I’d see him every so often, but then his name disappeared from my schedule. My calls to him were not returned.
I wondered, though, about the people who go against the tide and choose to fight their same sex attraction. They must have some interesting stories to tell. I discovered a support group for men in reparative therapy that meets monthly in a Los Angeles home. The twenty members of this “Circle of Men,” as they call themselves, consider the meetings a lifeline, essential to their mental health.
They welcomed me as a guest one evening, and I asked: what is your message to the mental health profession?
They were eager to be heard. Adam said, “I am angry that I didn’t know about this therapy for seventeen years. When I discovered it, it was such a liberating sense of relief. In six years I have changed beyond my wildest dreams.”
“Therapists told me for years that this is my identity and I should embrace it,” a middle-aged man with a wedding band said, “But that never felt right to me. Now I consider it just one part of me—a part I don’t have to accept.”
“I have chosen the long, hard way instead of the short, easy way,” a young man named Greg told me, “and that choice is right for me.”
And there was this from Hector: “The old warrior went out and fought battles for land or power. The new warrior fights a bigger battle—the battle within. This is our choice. What gives you the right to take it away?”
I had an idea: Invite these remarkable men to come and speak to my colleagues at the counseling center. Have them describe their journeys to therapists who are convinced that therapy for unwanted same sex attraction is wrong and dangerous. Here’s a chance for open discussion of an urgent topic. The men were all for it; “Just tell us when and where—we’ll be there,” they promised. What a great plan!
Boy, was I naïve. “Sounds fascinating,” the director told me. “But the University wouldn’t go for it.”
Well, so much for being open-minded. So much for celebrating intellectual debate, diversity, tolerance, and multi-culturalism. And so much for a patient’s right to self-determination.
Educators and therapists, with their intolerance of diverse views, harm students like Malik in the following ways:• By neglecting to inform them that alternatives to gay-affirming therapy exist, thereby depriving them of the right to self-determination
• By imposing their Western liberal values: your cult
ure is homophobic and repressive. Our approach is better.
• By depriving them of a source of hope, thereby worsening their emotional distress
Like the University, sex educators want students to believe that men like Adam, Greg, and Hector don’t exist and that efforts to change sexual orientation are futile.
I doubt Debra Haffner has had the opportunity to speak with men such as these. Otherwise, how could she declare, “Therapy cannot change one’s sexual orientation”?104 Homosexuality is not an illness, the reasoning goes on sites like AFY, so the idea of a “cure” is meaningless. Does anyone speak about a cure for heterosexuality, they demand?
John is sixteen. He has turned for advice to Dr. Savin-Williams, a psychologist, on the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation105 (“Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights”) website.
After finding out he’s gay, John writes, his father wants him to see a Christian psychiatrist. “He doesn’t believe I was born this way... he insists that I can change . . . .I really don’t know what to do.”106
A year after Robert Spitzer published his research on the efficacy of reparative therapy, the psychologist replied:“As scientists, we know that it is impossible to change your sexual orientation . . . back off these kinds of “discussions.” Avoid arguments . . . .It is not your job to convince him . . . .If your father loves you unconditionally... he will come around.... Never agree to go to a therapist that he selects....Will your father let you select your own therapist?”
Then he tells John how to locate a “gay-positive” therapist, and recommends some websites and books.
Interestingly, one of the organizations recommended by Savin-Williams was Young Gay America. This group—whose mission is “to promote community, information, and empowerment by and for gay youth”107—was founded in 2001 by Michael Glatze and his boyfriend. But, oops, Mr. Glatze has identified as ex-gay since 2007. Could both the HRC and Dr. Savin-Williams be unaware of that development, when the news was given prominent coverage by leading gay news websites?108 Unlikely. Yet the answer to John, still featured on the site as of this writing, remains unchanged. As far as they are concerned, the change in Glatze’s orientation never happened.
You're Teaching My Child What? Page 15