Interview: Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

Dr. Nicolosi (JN): In our continuing investigation of the clinical material, some recent work on the Narcissistic Family has added a deeper dimension to our understanding of the prehomosexual boy’s experience. And so during the last three years, we’ve developed a new dimension of Reparative Therapy®.

This expanded model gives us a better understanding of male homosexual development and leads us to a more effective treatment.

A good way of understanding this dimension is to envision lifting the reparative-therapy model up, and then putting a subfloor beneath it.

Linda Nicolosi (LN): A subfloor?

JN: Yes. The “house” of Reparative Therapy® was built with the concepts of gender-identity deficit, defensive detachment and reparative drive. Now we are underlaying the structure of the house with our understanding of a deeper trauma experienced by a significant group of clients–the narcissistic family, along with the necessary treatment of that trauma, which is the grief work.

I’ve developed these ideas by integrating the concept of the narcissistic family with the work of psychoanalyst Martha Stark. Her books are A Primer on Working With Resistance, and Working With Resistance (both 1994). Dr. Stark’s therapy requires getting the patient to look back on the experiences of his early family life to resolve grief around what is known in psychoanalytic terms as “abandonment.”

LN: How does this fit the Reparative Therapy® model?

JN: Reparative Therapy® has long recognized the Classic Triadic Family model to understand the most common pathway to male homosexuality. But when we combine that model with the Narcissistic Family and grief work, we gain a fuller understanding of our clients’ childhood experiences. Our expanded model is the Triadic Narcissistic family.

This model will not fit all clients, of course, but it resonates with many.

We’ve always known that homosexuality is not a sexual problem, but a symptom of an underlying problem of gender identity. But the deficit typically goes deeper than that; there’s also a damaged sense of identity. This damage to the self is the integral part of the gender problem.

LN: Can you describe the Classic Triadic Family?

JN: Irving Bieber’s 1962 study established this family type empirically. It has been repeatedly shown to be the foundational model in male homosexuality, although there is more consistency in findings about fathers than about mothers.

In the classic triadic family we have a sensitive boy who did not get the close, affirming relationship with his father that would have confirmed him in his gender identity, and a mother who is likely to be over-close and standing in the way between father and son. The father was not supportive enough in affirming, recognizing and reinforcing the boy’s maleness. If there is an older brother, he usually had a fearful-hostile relationship with him.

LN: How would temperament play a role in this model?

JN: Some boys–particularly those with a resilient, extroverted temperament–were not so vulnerable to being emotionally hurt by a distant, rejecting father or molded by an over-involved mother, so the classic triadic family caused no gender-identity injury.

But the sensitive, compliant son was not so fortunate. He couldn’t move beyond the comfort and security of the mother-son relationship to establish his own masculine autonomy. He experiences a narcissistic hurt and eventually surrenders his natural masculine strivings. I say “natural,” because gender strivings are grounded in the biology of human design.

LN: How does the triadic model work together with the narcissistic family model?

JN: The two models can be seen as fitting together in a compatible overlay. In the narcissistic family, the boy grows up with a parental dynamic in which the son is perceived as a self-object. Now, both parents, it should be said, are often good people who were consciously very loving, self-sacrificing and well-meaning. There is no conscious intent to hurt the child. But on some level, they have a need for the child to be “for” them, meeting their needs and expectations that he be a certain kind of child.

In the psychoanalytic literature on the narcissistic family, the child (either a boy or a girl) was not seen for his True Self. He was seen or not seen, responded to or not responded to, depending on whether particular aspects of his True Self gratified or did not gratify the parental team’s narcissistic needs.

When the boy’s spontaneous expression of self conflicts with the parents’ needs, he finds himself in a no-win, double-bind situation. If he holds onto and expresses his True Self, he is overtly or covertly punished by being ignored by his parents–which at his young age means he simply ceases to exist. The expression of his true self, which must involve his gendered self, is met with what is called the abandonment-annihilation trauma. In other words, “When my parents cease to reflect me, I cease to exist.” And so as a survival tactic, he develops the False Self as a way of complying with his parents’ vision of who he must be. That False Self is typically “The Good Little Boy.”

LN: How common is the narcissistic family?

JN: As parents, we probably all exhibit some narcissism in our parental expectations. So the narcissistic family, then, exists on a broad continuum. But when the parents’ narcissistic expectations combine with the Classic Triadic Family pattern, the family produces a genderless, non-masculine, “Good Little Boy.” For some reason, this parental team had a vested–if, in fact, quite unconscious–interest in this particular boy not developing his masculine identity.

Perhaps this was the son who was born sensitive, introspective and unathletic, so the mother chose him as her confidante. And perhaps the mother’s needs meshed with the boy’s own fears–that he could not compete with his male peers on their own level. Staying close to his mother would feel very natural and comfortable to him.

And so this particular son abandoned the natural striving to achieve masculine autonomy, which is to say, he gave up developing the side of himself that would have been rambunctious, mischievous, active, independent, and aggressive. He becomes his mother’s best friend…sitting in the kitchen and watching her cook, hearing her stories and hopes and dreams and maybe even her complaints and disappointments about his father.

LN: Does the narcissistic family model also involve both parents?

JN: Yes, because the father–at least unconsciously–went along with the arrangement with this particular son by allowing his wife to interact with the child as a husband-substitute. It may have fit the father’s needs because it allowed him to escape some of the emotional responsibilities of marriage that he considered burdensome. And maybe there was another son he could be close to, with whom he had more in common. So both mother and father would have participated in producing the non-masculine son.

Of course, the Narcissistic Family syndrome by itself, without the Classic Triadic relationship, will have a damaging effect on the child’s sense of self, but not likely affect the child’s gender identity.

But any time a parent’s love is mediated through narcissistic expectations, the child will be left with a feeling of weakness, vulnerability, sadness, emptiness, a deep suspicion of never having been truly “seen” for who he was, and loved. These feelings are common complaints of the homosexual client that go beyond the feeling of gender deficit, and can be explained by the narcissistic family.

LN: How common is this combined family model?

JN: Most of my clients report experiencing it to some extent, but it would be inaccurate to lay the blame solely on the parents for the child’s homosexuality. However, we can say that when we see this model in its fullest expression–when the child knows that his existence needs to be gratifying to his parents–he experiences what object-relations theorists call “abandonment,” and that brings up a flood of sorrow and grief about not having been seen or known for who he really was. The client will need to understand and mourn that loss.

LN: Does this also happen in the same way with lesbianism?

JN: We may see a scenario in which the girl’s authentic expression of self, including her femininity, was met with disapproval. Sometimes the narcissistic need of her parents required her to renounce her feminity, to “be strong” and take care of her mother.

In some family histories I am aware of, the girl was expected to be feminine in a stylized way that did not suit her. These young women describe themselves as having been tomboyish, spontaneous, assertive girls whose mothers’ narcissitic need required them to adopt a caricatured “girlish” femininity which meant expressing no opinions and conforming to a very narrow vision of gender. This feminine straitjacket of their mothers’ envisioning did not match their own internal sense of who they really were.

But there are other pathways to lesbianism which don’t involve the narcissistic family system. Maternal inadequacy is one common finding. When the mother is inadequate as an emotional resource or a feminine model (she was depressed, unavailable, abused by the father, alcoholic), the girl is left with a maternal nurturance deficit which later leads to a craving for love and intimacy with women.

LN: Returning to the boy, how does he protect himself from a narcissistic parent’s expectations?

JN: The child is made to feel shame regarding his true, gendered self. The “Shamed-Damaged” self will defend itself through two mechanisms. One is narcissistic pride, which we see so commonly in the homosexual condition, and in the service of which the homosexual condition develops. The other defense is the False Self which originated from the “Good Little Boy.” The homosexual condition is characterized by these two defenses.

One client said to me recently, “I always tried to make my mother happy but I could never keep her happy for very long. So she was very disappointed in me.” This is what many of our men are grieving. They are grieving the fact that so much of their life was spent trying to live up to an expectation that was never really verbalized, yet clearly understood. Much of their life was spent trying to gratify and please, to seek the approval of others.

The grief work penetrates the two defenses of narcissism and the False Self and focuses the client on fully feeling and expressing the Shamed-Defective Self. He discovers that, as an adult, he need not fear the primal threat of abandonment-annihilation, and he can begin to surrender the defenses of homosexuality, narcissism and the False Self.

The Narcissistic Triadic model explains other clinical features we see besides the narcissism and the false self. It also explains the pervasive sense of not belonging, of never having felt understood or connected, and of an inner void and emptiness.

Homosexuality is more than a “pull” toward connection with the masculine (through the pursuit of male attention, affection and approval). Homosexuality is also a “push” from the gut sense that “I am defective.”

I recall years ago a client whose wife had just discovered his many anonymous sexual encounters. She tearfully asked him, “How could you have done such a thing?” The client said to me, “From the depth of me came an answer that surprised even me; I said, ‘Because it hurt too much not to.'” This man was looking for much more than male attention, affection and approval. He was seeking relief from the void in his heart which had existed since early boyhood.

And so we see that this Shamed-Defective Self goes much deeper than a deficit in gender. We gain a fuller understanding of it through the established literature on self psychology and object-relations theory.

Gay theorists also recognize this “Shamed-Defective Self,” and many gay men admit that no matter how liberated they are, they always struggle, on some deeper level, with a sense of inferiority. They point to this as evidence of homophobia that’s been internalized from society. But I attribute this feeling to an internal process, unrelated to social stigma, which precedes same-sex attractions. The awareness of social stigma is later layered on top of the Shamed-Defective Self.

LN: How does this “deep grief” fit with the sadness described by other clinicians who deemphasize family dynamics and focus on peer rejection?

JN: When you begin the grief work, the peer memories usually arise as the first source of pain. But as you keep the client focused, we find the sadness often goes deeper to memories of the mother and father. As much as the parents tried to love their son in their own way, the clients harbors the felt memory of not having been understood, not having been “seen,” not having been loved for who he really was.

LN: How does the client get in touch with this grief?

JN: We start out by focusing on his emotional state in the here-and-now. He will periodically express the feeling of being “stuck”–weak, hurt, hopeless, blah, depressed, lonely, not belonging, and feeling forlorn and self-pitying.

These feelings are what we call the Black Hole, which is a cluster of thoughts and feelings that permeate his consciousness. Our earlier strategy was to bounce the client out of the Black Hole through a change in self-talk. We applied van den Ardweg’s concept that these men were caught up in a state of self-pity. We “called them on it,” challenging them to move onward.

But now we are realizing that the Black Hole can offer a doorway into a deeper grief that lies beneath it.

LN: A doorway?

JN: It’s a feeling-level opening through which the client confronts dreaded memories which may include rejection and even victimization.

LN: How do most clients deal with “The Black Hole”?

JN: When our men fall into it, their first impulse is to run away and to connect with a man sexually. We always ask the client–and this is a very important factor in the therapy–“What was the feeling that preceded your homosexual enactment?” They report the complex of the Black Hole: “I felt alienated, disconnected, empty…I felt inferior, not good enough.” These are the common feelings that precede homosexual acting out.

So every time they go to those feelings, any time something in their lives stimulates those feelings of not belonging and not being good enough, having been slighted or rejected…this stimulates the defense of homosexual enactment. But what they are actually doing there, is unconsciously avoiding the deep grief. Experiences of hurt, failure, feeling let down and disappointed stimulate an affective memory of that early trauma. As soon as they get the slightest hint of that old feeling, they move away from it into homosexual behavior.

But instead you take them by the hand and walk them into the deep grief, let them stay there, let them experience it, let them realize the anguish is not going to annihilate them. They need to feel it more deeply, and not to be afraid of it. They now have enough ego strength, enough insight, enough emotional resources to transcend it.

Grief work inevitably includes feeling the anger, often even rage at having lived a lie to please others. It includes the pain of surrendering the illusion of homosexuality. Same-sex relationships–as this client already knows, because this is why he has sought out Reparative Therapy®–never worked for him. But now he faces this realization squarely, powerfully, without defenses. So much of the appeal of a gay relationship has been the illusion that someday when that certain best friend and lover comes along, this new man will alleviate that sadness, but then each relationship disappoints him.

Once he “goes there” into the grief and acknowledges what he sees…with enough of an observing ego to allow him to integrate it…he can finally start to come out on the other side. The hurt no longer has such compelling power; he’s faced that reality down and survived.

When I first read Martha Stark’s grief work, it struck me that this was a dimension to which we had not been paying enough attention. For many of her patients, she finds this to be a core element for a complete therapy. I have come to a point where I believe that a comprehensive Reparative Therapy® must include this grieving.

Maybe for my own reasons I hadn’t gone into it, because these feelings–sometimes murderous rage and deep, agonizing grief–are so uncomfortable and so primitive that many therapists, including myself, might shy away from it.

But as I’ve had more experience with grief work, I’ve come to see its often fundamental importance to the healing of homosexuality.

by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

In this December 2009 transcript, Dr. Nicolosi interviews Gordon Opp.

“There is within me, and I think there is within all of us, what I call the inner person — the real me,” Gordon says. Sometimes the “real me” or “inner person” will be in conflict with what he wants to do.

But these desires do not change nature’s reality: men and women were designed for one another.

JN: Gordon, it’s been about eleven years since we did our last interview, which is still available on the NARTH web site. I know that interview has been helpful to many people.

Let me begin today with this question: How long has it been since you’ve been out of homosexuality?

GO: I’ve been married 31 years, and about a year before our marriage, I stopped acting out homosexually.

JN: When you say “acting out,” can you explain?

GO: There was about a four-year period in my twenties when I practiced homosexuality off and on. I experienced quite a few one-time sexual contacts with individual men and I had a few relationships that lasted three or four months each.

JN: Do you have any regrets now about leaving homosexuality?

GO: No. Not at all.

JN: So you’ve been married now for 31 years, with three grown children, and—how many grandchildren?

GO: Five grandkids.

JN: And so your life story is open, everyone knows—it’s not a big secret.

GO: No, it’s not a big secret at all. Our daughters are just barely a year apart, and when they were in junior-high school, people started asking me to give interviews about my ministry, so we decided to tell the girls then, before I became more public about it.

JN: Any advice for young people who are trying to decide whether or not to pursue a gay lifestyle? I guess for you and your own experience, you’d say that it didn’t work.

GO: No, I wouldn’t say it that way—it just sounds so trite, “Don’t pursue homosexuality—it doesn’t work.”

JN: Could you elaborate on that?

GO: Well, especially for men (and that’s been my experience, obviously), we men are attracted primarily through sight. I remember when I was going to gay parties and such in my early 20’s, I would see other guys about ten or fifteen years older—in their mid- to late-30’s—and I would think that I wouldn’t want those guys around me, because they’re already old. So I learned that for me, anyway, and for the circles I ran in, this was going to be a short-lived life—without permanency, without real roots.

JN: What other advice might help others in the process of discernment?

GO: I’d say, “Become a critical thinker.” You shouldn’t trust the sound bites you get in the news, or even the politically correct things you’re going to get in the classrooms at the universities and such. This decision concerns your whole life, so be a critical thinker and search out the truth. I did a lot of searching as a young kid, but there wasn’t much information out there.

JN: I agree. Why do you think the gay movement been so successful in taking over our culture?

GO: I think it’s because as a culture, we want to please people. We’re in the “microwave age”—we want everything to be fixed quickly and with little effort, but pursuing heterosexuality is not for the faint-hearted. For a man who’s struggled with same-sex attractions, it’s hard work.

JN: Yes. As a therapist, too, I can tell you it’s hard work.

GO: And people don’t want to work hard.

JN: What were the deciding factors in your own decision to leave homosexuality?

GO: I wanted what most everybody wants—I wanted family, security. I wanted to grow old together with somebody that I was committed to. I wanted children, a house, a job, and a picket fence, all of those things—the American dream. And I couldn’t have that with homosexuality.

JN: Gays would argue with you that certainly you can have a family and children and a picket fence, and community. How would you answer that?

GO: I’ll address the family thing first. As far as children, and the issue of adoption for gays, it’s not that the gay parent can’t love the child, but what is it doing to the child? First and foremost, I’m concerned about the child. He needs a mother and a father.

JN: What are the consequences to a child to be raised by two lesbians or two gay men?

GO: We are designed to have a mother and a father. Of course, for all kinds of reasons not every child can have that—but that is the ideal, and we hurt kids when we deliberately and intentionally deprive them of that experience. I’m a real estate agent now, and the other day, I was working on a listing—it was a home with a single mother who was raising four boys, a couple of adolescents and a couple of young ones—and I don’t know what situation occurred that put her into the position of being a single mom, but my heart just went out to her, and my heart also went out to those boys. The absence of the father in that home was just tragic.

JN: I think you’re absolutely right.

What are the factors that made it possible for you to successfully follow through on your decision over so many years?

GO: I suppose one of the beginning factors was my tenacity, to try to beat it. Going back to what I said in the beginning about being a critical thinker, I’m a Christian and whatever I do, I either want to do it wholeheartedly, or I’m not going to waste my time. So when I became convinced that Christianity was true, there was no way I could embrace homosexual behavior and practice as a good thing in the context of my faith.

You cannot support both gay unions and “true” Christianity. It doesn’t work, because they’re incompatible.

JN: I’d like to bring up the recent American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force Report, which says that there is “insufficient evidence” to prove that change is possible. What would you say to those APA Task Force members—all of whom, by the way, are activists in gay causes, and none of whom are reorientation therapists—if you could speak to them?

GO: Well the first thing I would ask the APA is, “What is your definition of change?” Because I believe the APA is asking, when it defines change, “Do you ever have any more homosexual thoughts? Then you haven’t changed.” But “complete change” wouldn’t be realistic—for a man with a homosexual background, or a man struggling with any other issue. I’m an honest person and I would say, “Yes, those thoughts are there occasionally, and they give me a little grief.” But do those thoughts and feelings control my life? No way.

I’ve been married now for 31 years—very happily married. No marriage is without its problems, but, do I have any regrets? No. I have no regrets. I have lived a heterosexual life and been faithful to my wife, and I’ve had my family and enjoyed everything that goes along with family life.

I would like to compare change of sexual orientation to alcoholism. In medical terms, an alcoholic would seem to have what we call a disease (that can be debatable, too), but let’s just say it is a disease. So let’s say I’ve been sober for 31 years. But then, I lose my job, my wife’s mad at me, and I drive home, and I drive past the bar. Man, I want to turn in and get drunk! But I don’t. Would it be fair for the APA to say, “See—you haven’t changed after all! You’re still an alcoholic!”

JN: Sure.

GO: That is how offended I am by the APA’s saying I haven’t changed—just because I, like a former alcoholic, can have the temptation. Still, pride comes before a fall, and I would be the last one to say that I couldn’t ever possibly fall; but even if I did, it doesn’t change my fundamental commitment to my identity—not as a gay man, but as a heterosexual man who has struggled with a homosexual problem.

JN: What would you say to encourage people considering coming out of a lifestyle?

GO: Each person must ask—who am I? What do I want to be? There is within me, and I think there is within all of us, what I call the inner person—the real me. Sometimes that real person in me is in conflict with what I want to do, and sometimes there are those homosexual urges. But I’m going to say no to those same-sex desires, because that’s not the real me. I refuse to be identified by my occasional homosexual feelings. My body is designed to be intimate with a female, and so that is the real me. This true heterosexual man is not going to be sexually intimate with another male.

JN: Let me give you a little metaphor to see if this makes sense to you, because the APA Task Force says you can change your identity, you can say, “I am not a homosexual…I am not identifying with homosexuality,” but that doesn’t change your sexual orientation. Their implication is that homosexuality is “who you are” whether you acknowledge it or not. But I believe that if you change your identity, it will change not only the quantity of your homosexual behaviors, but also the quality. Let me give you an example of this qualitative change. You’re sitting in front of the television and it’s 8:00 at night, and suddenly you feel hungry and you remember there’s that one slice of chocolate pie still in the refrigerator. You’re eating it and while you’re eating it, you’re saying to yourself, “I really am hungry!” But then, rewind the tape: You’re sitting in front of the television, you feel hungry, but you realize you’re really not hungry—actually, you’re bored. You eat the pie anyway to relieve the boredom, and while you’re eating the pie you know you’re just eating it because you were bored. When will you enjoy the pie more, when you believe you’re truly hungry, or when you believe you’re bored?

GO: Of course, when you believe you’re hungry.

JN: Yes, and I think that a gay-identified person is going to interpret his sexual experiences differently—as a form of genuine “hunger.” But men like yourself will reflect and then say to themselves, “This attraction I’m feeling right now is not part of who I am. It’s about my frustrations, or my disconnectedness, or it’s about the way I handle shame.”

GO: Yes, that makes a lot of sense. It describes me.

JN: You had the feelings, but they were not “you”; you didn’t accept the identity.

GO: Exactly. In the beginning, though, I questioned it. I thought, “Maybe it’s not a lie, maybe there’s just something wrong with me and eventually, I’ll fit into this ‘gay’ thing and it will feel right and feel true.” But the real me was resisting this.

JN: You thought, “If I just keep trying a little longer, I’ll overcome my internalized homophobia.” But even though you engaged in the behavior, it wasn’t satisfying. Clients will tell me, the more I understand the origins of my same-sex attraction, the more it changes the quality of the homosexual experience because I know this attraction is not happening to me just because this guy with me is “hot.”

GO: Yes. Recognizing this has helped me to understand where some of these longings were coming from. I found myself attracted to “ever-straight” guys, and I think that’s because I wasn’t really looking for sex, I was looking for something much deeper than that.

JN: Yes. For a deeper same-sex bonding.

GO: But the problem is how compelling the act is. I remember how one of your articles on the NARTH website was saying that gay sex is a whole lot more intense for same-sex attracted guys than heterosexual sex is—there’s more of a “zing” to it—because gay sex is trying to meet needs that were never intended to be met in the sexual act. And I remember in the last interview you and I did, I talked about how whenever you add sex to a deeper need—when you try to gratify that deeper, unmet need in a sexual way—it really ramps the experience up, and so there’s this zing.

JN: Yes.

GO: But when you’re trying to get your emotional needs with men met in a non-sexual way, there’s inevitably this disappointment, and it’s like, “OK, I’ve got this great male friend and he’s really attentive to me and he wants to be with me and we do good things—but why is this experience not doing for me what the sexual experience did?”

JN: Right.

GO: Then, when you’re looking at being properly attracted to your wife, you can’t take all those deficit needs that you were trying to get fulfilled through sex with a man and transfer that same feeling to your experience with wife. They’re totally different things.

JN: Yes…they originate from totally different needs.

GO: Uh huh. . And so you have a couple of things to work on—first, getting your needs met properly with men without sex, without undue emotional dependency; and second, developing your true heterosexuality with your wife and letting that relationship become the complementary one that it has been naturally designed to be.

Fortunately, my wife long ago caught on to the fact that when I was having good, healthy relationships with men, I was more attentive to her.

JN: Yes, that’s what all my clients tell me….that healthy, ongoing male relationships are essential. Now, I’d like to go back to something you said before—“I was attracted to ever-straight men”….

GO: Yes, when I was acting out, I would be in a homosexual relationship two- to three-months or so, and I would get tired of my partner because he didn’t have what I was looking for. Before too long, I could see that the other man had the same void that I had.

JN: A void in masculine identity.

GO: Exactly.

JN: Let me ask this….has anything changed for you since our last interview, which was eleven years ago?

GO: Well, a lot has changed. I’ve gotten older! By this time in my life, I’m pretty much at ease now with all men. Once in a while I am still intimidated, but that was a big part of the origins of my homosexuality—that, and everyday envy.

JN: With just about every client I deal with, those same issues are there—intimidation and envy.

GO: So the older I get, the more I can just enjoy other men. Men used to seem more “mysterious” to me, and sometimes they still do, but whenever I get to know them a little bit better and get under their skin, I find out that we’re not so different after all.

JN: Of course! They’re not so mysterious after all; they’re “who you are.” Now, can you explain a little further why you believe that heterosexuality is the norm?

GO: I believe that we were designed and created for our bodies to go together, and for our emotions go together. I believe this is pretty self-evident.

JN: So you see the evidence of our biological design—our male-female complementarity.

GO: Yes. I mean, two tomcats really aren’t friends with each other—there’s always some form of rivalry. Of course, men can in fact be buddies and very close friends, but they can’t really be committed partners who meet each other’s sexual needs in a deep and ongoing way. They’re just not made for that. That’s where the promiscuity eventually comes in.

JN: And without the stabilizing and the grounding effect of a woman in the relationship, what two men have together, just can’t be marriage-like. It inevitably turns into an open relationship, as research on gay men shows. With lesbians, it’s the other way around; there’s the natural female tendency –doubled up when two women are together—for the relationship to become excessively dependent.

GO: Right. And speaking of marriage, that’s one of the wonderful things, the blessings I’ve had—I’ve got a wonderful wife. We are blessed to have a lot of the same interests and same values. And of course, as members of the opposite sex, we complement each other in terms of gender. In our relationship, I take a leadership role; she is very perceptive and a wise woman that does not “lord it over” me in any way. We’re made for each other, as a man and a woman. A man and a man simply aren’t capable of that type of a relationship.

JN: Looking back, what do you think were the things that happened to you in your childhood that could have laid the foundation for your homosexuality?

GO: Well, I have an older brother, and then there was me, but my dad just took a shine to my older brother. By the time I came along, they had been hoping for a girl, so when I was born, my mom, on the other hand, took a shine to me. I related more to her in the things we did, and it was understood that I was hers, and my brother was my dad’s.

JN: You know, a lot of the men I work with will say to me, “I was my mother’s son and my brother was my father’s son.” There’s often that same unspoken division.

GO: Uh huh. So that was the beginning of my feeling different from other men. Looking back in my own life and especially when I see other children, I believe some kids are saved from homosexuality by the intervention of a same-sex family member—for boys, sometimes an uncle or a grandpa. When I see this intervention in other families, I say, I’m so thankful that that little boy has this adult male is his life.

JN: All they need is one man who is involved in their life.ah

GO: I was so deficient in male relatives. No one around me.

JN: Did your father ever reach out to you; did he ever try to pull you into this circle of himself and his other son?

GO: You know, there was a time when I was really hard on both my parents. I blamed them for everything. My mom would often say, “You were always so special… we just had this bond.” Yeah, Mom, and that “special bond” really messed me up. My dad wasn’t all that bad of a guy. I was just one of those kids that especially needed a dad. He didn’t know how to be super-sensitive to what was going on with me. He was kind of into himself and the things he did.

JN: So you’re saying that he didn’t reach out to you and try to work with you?

GO: I can’t say that he did. But I don’t want to really degrade my dad; he had his faults, definitely, but later in life (he died when I was 34), and the last several years of his life especially, let’s just say that he was open to having a relationship with me. He didn’t pursue it and I was pretty defensive about a relationship myself, because when you grew up with a dad not wanting to hold you…there’s a certain block that stays there.

JN: That detachment.

GO: My parents had a difficult marriage and my mother looked to me for emotional support when my dad wasn’t available. Then, they would come back together, and things would be good again. During those good times, she didn’t need me, and I resented that.

JN: You resented being made to feel special, and then being dropped.

GO: Yes, but in the marriage, I saw her as the victim, and so I had to protect her. Of course, neither of my parents hurt me intentionally.

JN: Of course. There was no awareness of how this was affecting you.

GO: My mother is still alive, and I have a good relationship with her. I think she understands all this as best as she can, and she feels bad. I don’t know if she sees it as clearly as I might like her to, but she sees it enough, and that’s OK with me.

JN: Yes. So, over time, you have made peace about this.

GO: Yes.

JN: How did your brother fit into this?

GO: I actually had two brothers; one older and one younger. I also have a younger sister. Neither of my brothers struggled with this issue. I know that my older brother always cared about me, and I appreciated that. I told him about my homosexuality during the years I was acting out—roughly when I was age 20 to 24. He was three years older and married to a great lady, and had a couple of kids and lived in another state, and at the time, he and his wife were home with our extended family for the holidays and they came to my apartment to say goodbye. I was in a bad way—depressed and stuff—and as I said goodbye standing outside the window of their car, I said, “Oh by the way, I struggle with homosexuality…” He and his wife had eight hours driving home to think about what I had said, and when he got home he called me and said he loved me and cared about me and was sorry about my struggle.

JN: So you felt this loving from him many years later….What about when you were younger?

GO: He was older and more athletic and there was this rivalry thing at school. When your brother goes to junior high and is great in sports and you come along three years later, they expect all that from you, too, and then you fall on your face…Because I couldn’t do that, not surprisingly, at that time, there was this feeling from him of rejection.

JN: Was there any sexual stuff that set you up for homosexuality anywhere in childhood?

GO: There was one thing when I was eleven. At summer camp there was a counselor…he was probably 21 or 22. I just needed male acceptance, and here was this counselor that dotes over us—you know, boy, was he important to us kids…. The third night we were there, my bed was next to his, and he had his hand on my penis. But you know what? I never told anybody about that. At the time I didn’t think of it as bad.

JN: That’s very often the psychology of the abused child; they don’t think of what happened to them as significant. But here you were, a boy who craved male attention and esteem, and unfortunately, when the attention came to you, it had sex attached to it.

GO: Yes. But I never thought he was a bad guy for it. I just always thought of him fondly.

JN: Do you think this experience did you any harm?

GO: Looking back now, I think it did. It really fixated the object of my same-sex attraction. The guys that I’m most attracted to, are like he was—they are built like he was.

JN: If the sexual contact did not happen then, you would not have been fixated so much on that image?

GO: No, I think I probably would not have been fixated on that. I think I still would have had a lot of problems, though….Yeah…now that you mention it, it is funny I never thought that event was significant.

JN: I don’t know if you remember, but a number of years ago a prestigious journal of the American Psychological Association reported a study, and the conclusion was that boys are not necessarily harmed by sexual contact with an older man, and in fact in many cases, the boys remembered the experience positively, and considered it beneficial. So the authors of the article said we should stop using judgmental terms like “sexual abuse” to describe “positive” childhood experiences like these.

We protested this conclusion. As psychologists, shouldn’t we know that what feels, to the child, beneficial, can in fact be very harmful? Dr. Laura Schlesinger got involved in condemning the study—even Congress got involved. The APA had to issue a clarification and a partial disclaimer. That was the biggest public-relations crisis of the American Psychological Association, and it was NARTH that brought it to public attention. Before we got involved, no one in our profession had noticed the harmfulness and simplistic conclusions of the study…there seemed to be the typical prevailing attitude, “Who’s to say…???” Not surprisingly, that study had already begun to be used in legal cases as justification for excusing some same-sex child abusers from responsibility.

GO: Good for you. You know, I’ve thought about that childhood incident often…wondering , why is it that the “look” of that counselor remained so powerful in my memory for so long, and is still sometimes what I respond to…?

JN: Yes. You can see how that experience first put into motion the sexualization of your same-sex emotional needs.

Well, it’s about time for us to end this interview. Any last thing that you would like to add?

GO: Yes. I guess sometimes people have said of me, because I reject homosexuality, “You’re just not being true to yourself.” You know, I just don’t feel that way. I have indeed been true to myself—and I have so many blessings because of it. My family is just unbelievably important to me, and I can’t imagine life without them. I never would have had that if I had been true to what I once thought was myself – if I had been “true to” homosexuality and let it define me.

JN: Yes. That certainly summarizes it.

GO: Sex is so over-rated—heterosexual or homosexual. It’s a wonderful thing and it’s to be enjoyed and taken care of, but in the end, what’s really important is relationships, healthy relationships. That—to me—is being true to myself… being able to live out whatever days or years I have left in this lifetime, and to enjoy the healthy and full relationships that I never really experienced in my childhood.

JN: I certainly respect that decision and that understanding of your identity. And I am sure that your experience will give inspiration to others.

Thank you very much, Gordon.

by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

Overcoming homosexuality with Jerry Armelli

Jerry A. Armelli, M.Ed., is director of an ex-gay and AIDS counseling group called Prodigal Ministries which he founded in Cincinnati, Ohio, twelve years ago. He and his wife Mia also operate a dance studio for children. Jerry is a NARTH member and has made numerous radio and television appearances, sharing his conviction that homosexuality can be overcome. He is interviewed here by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi.

Joe: Jerry, thanks very much for offering to tell us your story.

But before we begin with that, tell me what you think about the “Gays Can Change” advertising campaign. There’s been so much of an uproar about it.

Jerry: The message in those ads had a very personal meaning to me. The ads said that change is possible–change in sexual feelings, and change in sexual identity. Gay advocates said this was a hate campaign. But it was not a message of hate. It was a message of life.

Joe: What did the message mean to you?

Jerry: In my own life, it gave me a wife and a child. They are the joy of my life, and they brought about a reconciliation with my family, and lots of other great things.

Joe: Were you truly homosexual?

Jerry: I was homosexual through and through, and then someone said I could change. Was this “hateful” toward me? I was depressed, I was suicidal; I thought, is this all I’ve got, this gay life? Is this my only option? It was death-inducing. So, the message that change is possible is not “hate speech” to me.

Joe: So tell us: why do you think you had a homosexual problem? Where did this come from?

Jerry: Well, I can go back to one of my earliest memories of my developing gender identity. I was probably seven or eight years old and I remember being in the basement of my home, and on this basement wall was an enormous bulletin board. On it were plaques, ribbons, trophies and team pictures of my three older brothers and my father. All of my older brothers were very athletic, and my father was a football coach and also very involved in wrestling and things like that.

So here I was, looking up at this bulletin board and saying, “I can’t do it. I don’t know how. I don’t want to. I’m not interested. I’m afraid. I’m not like that.” So I was judging myself in comparison to them, and I said to myself, “I justcan’t.”

I remember a year or two after that, when I was maybe nine or ten, I was sitting on my bed in my bedroom. I remember sitting Indian style, and I was crying. I remember praying a prayer to God, “God, change me into a girl. It seems as though I have everything it takes to be a girl and nothing to be a boy. Please change me to a girl.”

Well, I woke up the next morning and I was still a boy, so I figured God wanted me to be a boy, but still, that didn’t make me feel like I was a boy.

Joe: Did you have what they call the classic triadic relationship–critical, distant father, over-involved, close mother?

Jerry: You know in actuality, it’s kind of funny…my father was more affectionate than my mother was.

Joe: Were you afraid of your father? Were you intimidated by him?

Jerry: You know, I almost want to say the problem had more to do with my brothers.

Joe: That’s an interesting point. Tell me about it.

Jerry: My brothers had a very intimidating effect on me. Even though they didn’t usually tease me or actually mock me, but I would get looks at me that said I was less than them. It was like, “You’re a jerk.”

Joe: Contemptuous looks?

Jerry: Right. “You fool, get your act together!” “You’re an ass, come into line!” You know? But mostly, I just became intimidated by it. I was just more social than them. I was friendly and relational. I was a peacemaker. I was sensitive in my feelings and less competitive and aggressive, and sports weren’t appealing to me. I didn’t understand anything about that world. I got involved in wrestling at one time, but when it came time to be in the competitions, I just backed out–I just got scared.

Joe: You couldn’t relate to the sports world.

Jerry: I couldn’t relate to it. It wasn’t my personality, but I didn’t know that, at that time. It just made me feel like, “Sothat’s what boys are supposed to do, and supposed to be. I don’t feel anything like that, so there has to be something wrong with me.”

Joe: Science hasn’t found any “gay gene,” but psychologists do believe that certain boys might be more temperamentally predisposed to develop homosexually–which is to say, gentle, introverted, artistic, more timid–and like you say, relational. Sensitive to other people’s feelings.

Jerry: Right. I like Dr. Satinover’s analogy of the basketball player. There are certain genes that make it more likely that a person will be a basketball player–height, quick reflexes–but no gene will make any man a basketball player. There also must be certain triggering conditions in the environment. I thought that explained homosexuality very well. Just because I have these qualities of sensitivity, nonaggressiveness, and relational interests, it doesn’t mean I’m necessarily going to be gay.

Joe: Exactly. So if a boy is born with that temperament, into a family where certain dynamics exist–in this case, intimidating, aggressive brothers–he will be vulnerable to homosexuality. Freud said many years ago, and I have never seen an exception to this: If a homosexual has an older brother, it’s a feared, hostile relationship with him. He was right on. But tell me also about your relationship with your mother.

Jerry: I remember following her around a lot, and her even saying, “Stop following me around!” I just think it was really comfortable for me. You describe that as the “kitchen window boy”–the boy who’d rather be inside with his mother, looking out at the other boys, than trying to fit in with them in their aggressive play. I would look out the window and say, “I wish I could do that…I wish I could be like them…I wish I had a body like them…I wish they would tap me on the butt like that…I wish they would invite me to come out and play.” At times, I would try to get involved, and I remember them telling me, “Go sit on the curb, you’re too small.”

Joe: Were you small for your age?

Jerry: I was smaller than my brothers were, not because they were older, but because they were huskier. I was more slender and slightly built.

Joe: Were you sick as a child?

Jerry: No.

Joe: We sometimes see homosexual men who had chronic childhood illnesses, like asthma, that made them want to stay close to their mothers and away from other boys. They are often left with a feeling of masculine inferiority.

But it was your relationship with your brothers that had the most devastating effect on your sense of masculinity. You don’t have any deep resentment toward your father.

Jerry: No, never did, except there is another dynamic, though. I’m not angry with him, but he just wasn’t “tuned in” about the psychological stuff that was going on with me. He just couldn’t relate to it. He was supportive of me in whatever I did, but basically he only knew about sports. That’s how he had related to his first three boys. But when I came along and got involved in my interest of theater–a parent can’t go to rehearsals. You go to a performance just once. There’s no real opportunity for involvement. So he just goes to the performance and he hugs you and he’s proud of you and…that’s it. He didn’t discourage my acting, but he didn’t encourage it either. It was “OK.”

Joe: So many pre-homosexual boys get into theater and acting.

Jerry: Acting’s relational. It’s safe. It’s non-threatening.

Joe: We see a lot of interest in acting and role-playing in the gay world. I believe the gay identity, itself, is a role–a place of hiding from the challenge of a gendered world. Acting can provide a role through which to hide.

Jerry: That young, I don’t know if I was even thinking I was homosexual.

Joe: Oh, no. It’s not that you were thinking you were homosexual. You were thinking, “I feel different.” That’s the point here. Gay advocates would say that first you were gay, because you were born that way; and because you were gay, you felt different. I would say, first you felt different, and that difference made you believe you were gay. Homosexuality is the final outcome of feeling different and estranged from men.

Jerry: Right. It absolutely was, with me. I think part of my problem was that instead of meeting the challenges I faced when I was growing up, I tended to avoid whatever activity or challenge caused that feeling of inadequacy, of being different, of being “less than other men.” I would avoid all of those things, which meant all of the things my brothers did. I’d avoid my brothers themselves, and their whole masculine realm. But in the theater realm, I was comfortable.

Joe: This is what I see repeatedly, the theme with the clients I work with, which is, “I always felt different. I never felt like one of the guys.” There was a sense of differentness.

Jerry: Right. It was not because I was born homosexual or gay, it was because of this gender inadequacy and inferiority. The feeling of “not matching up.”

Joe: All right. So from there, did you go into the gay world at all?

Jerry: Unfortunately, at the age of eleven I was molested by an older boy.

Joe: How old was he?

Jerry: He was four years older than me, already past puberty.

Joe: So he was 15.

Jerry: Yes. He was of an age where he knew what he was doing.

Joe: Many other boys like yourself had the same experience. There is a high correlation between homosexuality and early sexual experience with an older male.

Jerry: He was of that group of boys that I admired but hated. You see, there is another dynamic that comes in here. I hated those boys because of my defensive detachment from them. If you hate them, your feeling of isolation won’t hurt as much.

Joe: You hate them, but you admire them. That kind of same-sex ambivalence is exactly what you see in so many gay relationships. It is spoken of as love, but there is almost invariably an element of envy and anger.

Jerry: I admired this older boy because he had the physique, he had the trophies, he had the position, and he had the male friends that I didn’t have. I really wanted to be friends with him the same way the other boys were friends with each another, but we never had that kind of real relationship.

Now, there was also in my contempt and envy a hatred and bitterness because my childhood effeminacies had stuck with me. For one thing, this is because I had been modeling myself after girls, since I was simply more comfortable with them. Role-playing house–I liked that; it was relational, it was social. I realized that these sissy-like qualities really offended this group of males–and so I actually began to flaunt these qualities to make a mockery of the masculinity of the other boys.

Joe: That’s interesting, because now the relationship becomes masochistic. To get back at them, you act effeminate. But to act effeminate is to put yourself down.

Jerry: It also creates a greater chasm, by putting me out of relationship with them even further.

Joe: Again, we see this today in gay pride parades; the marchers flaunt their effeminacy and their outrageousness as a way of showing their anger toward conventional society. But in doing so, they are putting themselves down.

Jerry: Putting themselves down, and yes, to make a mockery of masculinity. I think it is really out of anger. They are saying, “I don’t want masculinity. Your masculinity sucks. It stinks. It’s foolish.” That’s what was going on with me.

Joe: But at the same time, you were envying it and wishing you could have it.

Jerry: Right. I wanted that physique, and to have those close male relationships, and to do those things boys did together.

Joe: And so you see the ambivalence there is toward masculinity in the gay world. On the one hand you see that kind of aggressive, caricatured, “campy” behavior–yet at the same time, the single most highly valued trait in the gay world is still masculinity. As much as gay advocates say, “We’ve evolved beyond gender distinctions; we don’t care about gender,” whenever you read the personal ads in gay papers, you see “Wanted: Straight-acting guy.”

Jerry: Yes, I think that is the root, there. When I see that I think, wow–if I was still pursuing that lifestyle, I could really see myself doing some of those wild things, too. That was where I was, back then.

Joe: So what happened next?

Jerry: That relationship with the 15-year-old lasted for almost seven years.

Joe: The one you started when you were only eleven?

Jerry: Right. It wasn’t violent, it was seductive. It just went on. I just got hooked on the behavior. It was every week–maybe sometimes once a month, but it was frequent and regular. I wanted it; we both wanted it, whatever. I finally weaned myself off that at about the age of 17.

Joe: How could this happen without your parents finding out about it?

Jerry: We’d meet anywhere where there wasn’t anybody around.

Joe: I see. I understand.

Jerry: So then, at age 23, I was in a show. A guy in the show appeared and was giving me a lot of attention, and I was really becoming sexually attracted to him. Up to that point, I had been like two different people, but finally, I was really more consciously admitting to myself that yes, that part of me really existed.

Joe: There had been that split-off part. “I go and do it, and it feels good, but when I walk away from it, I’m a different person.”

Jerry: Right. Absolutely. Before, I didn’t think about it, and certainly didn’t talk about it. This 15-year-old kid and I, we’d been the only two people that ever knew about what was going on.

Joe: Yes. And I’ll bet he is happily married now, with ten kids.

Jerry: Happily married–he is, yes, and with kids. So this time, a friend of his came up to me and said, “Joe’s gay and he likes you. Are you gay?” And I remember a long pause and I remember saying, “I don’t know.” That was the first time I had ever let that idea come out of my unconscious–all this suppression of this sexual behavior with this other guy, and these feelings I had been carrying around with me for a long time. Finally, I was letting that conflict out.

So immediately, after that I said two things to myself. I said, first of all, “I’d better find out what’s going on within me, before I do something that I’m going to regret for the rest of my life.” Then the second thing I said, was…here’s where it gets a little spiritual. I said, “God, if you say it’s OK to go gay, I’ll go gay. If not, I won’t.”

Those were two things I had to find out for myself, from that point.

So I went back to the Catholic high school which I had graduated four or five years ago, and I went to the counselor there who was one of the deacons, and said, “I think I’m homosexual.” He was a great listener, a wonderful friend, and is my friend today, but he did not know how to help me. Then I told my mom, and then I told my dad. It was extremely difficult, but I’m glad I went to my parents.

Joe: Yes.

Jerry: My mom, all I remember is she had a blank look on her face. That’s all I remember. I remember trying to start to tell her about ten times, taking a breath; almost about to say it, and I couldn’t say it. I tried again, and finally I told her. That’s all I remember. But I was even more afraid to tell my dad, because I thought, “Maybe he might throw he out.”

Joe: You were 23 at this time?

Jerry: Right. So finally, I just asked him for health insurance so I could see a psychologist. I said, “Just trust me. When the time is right, I will tell you what’s going on, but for now, just trust me and let me do this.” So they gave me the insurance. I went to a Jewish woman psychologist. So my goal here was to find out if I was homosexual, and I did. I found out that I was.

Joe: Oh, is that what she said?

Jerry: No. She was really non-directive. I was so talky. As I was talking, I was basically coming out to myself. “I had this sexual relation with this guy. I felt this way.” It was just admitting to myself, “I’m homosexual.” She didn’t necessarily name me that way; I don’t recall that. But at least I’d admitted it to myself, and so I gave her a call and I said, “I’m done with you now, because I found out what I wanted to know, which is if I’m homosexual or not.” She didn’t say, “Yes you are,” or “No you’re not,” or “Come back.” Although she did say, “I’d like to talk to you first,” but I said, “No. It’s OK.”

Joe: You see, that’s the problem. I want to put something in right there. We’re living in a culture that has created an artificial dichotomy — “Are you gay or are you not gay?” A sexually confused kid comes in asking that very question: “Am I gay, or am I not gay?” So he sits down and the therapist doesn’t have to say a word, because as the kid just talks, his strongest feelings are about guys, which therefore means–inevitably it seems–“I must be gay.” But just because these feelings are strong and intense and there is a big preoccupation with them, doesn’t mean a gay lifestyle is inevitable for this young kid. You have to teach the client the meaning of these feelings. This is areparative drive — “You’re trying to connect with the masculine.” Just a mere description of the phenomenon,without any attempt at deeper understanding, would tell him he’s gay…but going beyond the surface to the meaning of the feeling, of the drive, we can see that he’s really trying to repaira deficit in male identity. He’s trying to connect with the masculine, but he doesn’t know how else to do it, other than sexually.

We’re living in a culture today that sets up the parameters of the question: “You’re either gay, or you’re not gay.” But those are false parameters. A better way to ask the question would be, “Maybe you think you’re gay because you have unmet needs for male attention, affirmation and affection…?” So really, the therapist needs to be educated.

Jerry: Right; because I would go and I would talk, and in that whole process, the conclusion seemed to be inevitable: “I’m homosexual.” So then I came out to one of my friends that was gay, and he took me to my first gay bar, my first gay party.

Joe: What was that like for you?

Jerry: A little bit scary but..

Joe: Exciting?

Jerry: Yes. I was in it for somewhere between three to six months. The gay parties, gay communities and gay organizations.

Joe: Only a few months?

Jerry: That was enough.

Joe: You thought, “Whatever I’m going to see, I’ve seen it by now.”

Jerry: Right, that’s the way I felt. And what I saw was a lot of promiscuity, a lot of backbiting, and a lot of gossip.

Joe: A lot of bitchiness.

Jerry: A lot. I saw men acting like women, and women acting like men, and even though I was effeminate, it was just way beyond anything I would… It was like, “Something’s wrong here.” I would ask them questions like–remember, I was on this quest– “Could it be okay with God? ”

Joe: That’s right…You were still waiting for God’s answer.

Jerry: Right, and I was also thinking, I’ve got to find out what’s going on with me before I do something I’ll regret for the rest of my life. Any questions I had in my mind, I wanted to face them, right then and there.

I was pretty bold, because I wouldn’t accept the package being offered to me by the gay community. I felt like when I went in, I was handed this pretty little present in a box that said, “Everything is taken care of for you. You just talk this way. You just do these things. You go to these places. You sleep with these many men.”

Joe: It’s a package deal. It’s like you were putting on a new coat.

Jerry: Right. “Here it is.” And I was like, “No. If this is so right, if you believe this is so true, if this is so valid…then why can’t we discuss this honestly and thoroughly?” I would ask questions, such as, “Our bodies, they don’t really work together…What do you think about that?” No answer, or they just didn’t want to talk about it.

Joe: Gay advocates just don’t want to talk about it. There are two principles essential to being a gay affirmative therapist. Number one, “You’re gay because you’re gay.” Period. No more discussion. No thinking or talking about developmental factors. Number two, “Everything you experience negatively in your life is the result of homophobia.” What you need to be a gay-affirmative therapist is these two, uncompromising principles.

Jerry: I am so glad for whatever was within me to help me see the truth…whether it was my personality, my faith…

I had lived so long in denial. Denial of my wants, denial of my feelings, denial of my same-sex attraction, and denial of the molestation, for years. It was extremely frightening and traumatic for me. It was like there was another personwho was homosexual, who had been molested for years, and now I was just getting to know that person, and it was ugly…and it was me. I was traumatized by this split–this homosexual self, a victim, a person who had been involved in sexual activity with this guy for six or seven years; and then, there was just me, Jerry–you know, who was just this everyday, normal, good, social, kid. Oh my gosh, you know. I was going through a psychological flip-flop.

Joe: Let’s get back to when you said you were in the gay world and here is this little package delivered to you, but you can’t get into any meaningful discussion, because the answers you get are always shallow.

Jerry: Right. I would ask the question, “You know, God says in the Bible about a husband and wife and their relationship, but it doesn’t talk about a husband and a husband. What do you think about that?” No answer. They didn’t want to talk about it. It was glaring.

I still had the morality in me even though I had had this sick, closeted relationship before, so I decided I was not going to sleep with another guy–not until he tells me he loves me, or he’ll marry me–and they just couldn’t understand it. They said “Stop screaming ‘gay’ if you’re not going to put out.” I was told that, in just those words. “Stop screaming ‘gay’ unless you’re going to put out.”

Joe: It’s true. So many thoughts are coming through my mind. Whenever I work with young men–I’m sure you’ve had the same experience in your ministry. Whenever you see a 17, 18, 19, 20, 21-year-old kid, they all say, “I’m looking for love.” When you speak to somebody in his 30’s who has been in the gay world for a while, he’s finally given up on that. At first, they really do believe they are going to find it. But a monagamous relationship is just not out there–and gay literature supports that statement. Two men may stay together as friends and housemates, but they’re not faithful.

Jerry: So next I went to Dignity, the Catholic group that affirms men in being gay. At that time, it was what you would call “a gay bar, only without the alcohol.” Dignity’s message was not about purity, not about celibacy, not about faith, and it was not about relationship with God. Neither was it about Catholicism. It was about, “OK, pick up your picket signs. We’re going down to City Hall. What bar are we going to after this meeting? You’re new here? Come with me, I’ll show you.” I felt crude. I felt sick. It was terrible.

Because I was Catholic, I felt worse after going there than I did at the gay bar.

Joe: So what happened next, when you became disillusioned?

Jerry: I didn’t actually get involved in a relationship, because I didn’t want to do something I was going to regret for the rest of my life. Still, this molestation thing was something I had to understand and deal with.

Joe: So what happened?

Jerry: I fell into a depression because I thought, “If this is what being homosexual means, if this is all there is, I don’t want it! It’s not for me. I’ll just go back inside of myself. I’ll push this all back down. But, oh, my gosh…I can’t.” And then the thoughts started going to my head. “Just take your life. You’re going to be unhappy. If you go back inside yourself, you’re going to be unhappy. Just take your life right now.”

I told some people about it, including the counselor at my high school, and he saw the depression and he said to me, “Would you want to join a prayer group?” And I said, “Anything. I’ll try anything.” I didn’t know what to do…I was getting conflicting answers. Some straights were telling me it’s OK to be gay, some were telling me it’s not. As for religious people–likewise, some were saying it’s OK, some were saying it’s not. And of course, gays were telling me it’s OK. I still hadn’t found my answer from God. I was so depressed…

So I went to the small Catholic prayer group, and there were a lot of spiritual encounters. I’ll tell you about one. I know you are more interested in focusing on the psychological aspects than the spiritual aspects, but I have to tell you—just for the spiritual wonderful of it.

I walked through the narthex of the church and I was going the doors of the main sanctuary. I opened up the door, and I put one foot in, and then I put the other foot in. Right then, there was a little voice that spoke inside of me that said, “You’re home. The war is over, and you’re finally home.” It was almost like claws sticking in my back that had been holding me down for so long, and I hadn’t even known they were there. And they just lifted when I put my feet in the sanctuary. I walked over to that small little prayer group, and an enormous weight came off of me, and a lot of things happened.

It was in that group that I met Jesus as a real living, active, involved person, at a time when I was really a mess, and a real sinner. He was the answer. I gradually made him the Lord of my life, and then the turning-around started to begin. The healing was through that small group that didn’t really know anything about me. I just decided to follow the principles and the directives of being a Christian, which are so therapeutic.

Receiving forgiveness heals. In renewing your mind and going after your goals and dreams, and in building healthy relationships with men, and women, and family. All of those things that the faith said to do, I did, and oh my gosh…so much happened.

Joe: It worked.

Jerry: It changed my feeling and my identity.

Joe: We need more men and women like you to come out and tell your story. That’s the only way we’re going to win this battle. Because for thirty years, gays have been telling what I call “the generic coming out story.” It’s said to be a story of liberation, with a happy ending, and this is what makes it so attractive. Out of the desire to be understanding and compassionate, people just accept that story at face value, without looking at it any further. But there’s so much more to the story than that statement, “I’m gay and I’m happy.” This is why your story and others like it are so important.

Jerry: I’m very willing to share it, because I’ve heard the cry of thousands of men and women who are acquiescing to a life that they don’t want, but they don’t believe they can possibly have anything else. There has to be this option presented, just like it was presented to me. Let people choose, and give them support in making that choice!

Joe: Absolutely. Now you’re married. How long have you been married?

Jerry: Been married over four years.

Joe: What were the critical steps, or plateaus, or turning points that got you to where you are today? Besides the religious experience, what comes to mind?

Jerry: Well, you know it is psychological, but it’s also spiritual. I remember it was “Jesus, you’re the first man I’m trusting enough not to hurt me, so I’m going to let you love me.”

Now, that relationship can be a platform to then say, “You know, if he loves me and accepts me, then I have no reason to be afraid of another man, or feel intimidated by him.” So he gave me a platform, and I could begin to take risks and be in relationship with other men. Finally, I could let other men in. Before, I had kept them out because they were hurtful, but I began to say, “They can’t hurt me because my relationship with Jesus has taken the power away from them. They don’t hold the keys to life; I don’t need their affirmation; I don’t need them to make me feel okay.”

I remember weeping on my living room floor, pounding my fists, because I had been accepted into my first professional ballet company. I got into the Cincinnati-New Orleans City Ballet’s Nutcracker, and I was the Nutcracker. I thought to myself. “Boy oh boy, now my brothers will think I’m great. Finally I’ve lived up to them…even surpassed them.”

But the problem was, I just didn’t get it. I wept. I said, “Jerry, you want your brothers’ approval but you don’t need it.” It was from that day on that I understood, “Christ gave this approval to me, now I can give to to myself, and therefore I can move before men feeling as capable and as adequate as they are.” I began to discover, “Oh my gosh … I reallyam like them, and they really are like me.”

Joe: And knowing that, takes away the sexual attraction.

Jerry: Yes–experiencing identification with men.

Joe: Because if you develop that brotherly feeling, there’s no place for eroticism.

Jerry: Right, there isn’t. It’s so satisfying at that level, as equals, as men. Then I don’t need sex.

Joe: Now let me ask you–a lot of people who come out of the gay life will say, from time to time they still have some fleeting attraction, while some, on the other hand, will say, “I have absolutely none.” What would be your answer today regarding any homosexual feelings?

Jerry: I know an attractive man when I see one. And like most people, I have the capability within me to take part in a lot of different sexual behaviors. I could have sex with a group of people; I could act in a porno flick; I have the capability of having sex with anybody. But I don’t allow myself to, and it’s at the point in my life where it’s no longer a struggle. I’d have to go through a lot of barricades–psychologically, spiritually and emotionally–to get to the point of acting on any temptation. I am very fulfilled in my life. I don’t want homosexuality.

Joe: One of the things that ex-gay counselor Richard Cohen said was very good, I thought. We did a TV show together and the host asked him, “Richard, you mean to tell me now that you’re married, you have no more homosexual attractions?” And he said, “When I have a homosexual attraction it’s a signal to me that I’m not taking care of myself. In other words I’m not maintaining my connection with my wife, or I’m not connecting with my male friends, or I’m stressing myself out at work.”

Jerry: For myself, I say, “I know what’s really going on to motivate this feeling.” And then I have to look at that. Also, I have to remind myself that I had six to seven years of regular conditioning of my psyche and my body biochemically, to respond sexually to another male.

Joe: Totally. It’s in the brain, in the pathways–the neurological pathways. You can never erase that, although you can imprint new experiences on top of the old ones.

Jerry: Yes, I can…and my family and friends are a fantastic new way of living!

Joe: Are you sexually attracted to your wife?

Jerry: Absolutely.

Joe: It’s a satisfying emotional and sexual relationship?

Jerry: Emotionally, sexually, absolutely; we both love sex.

Joe: That’s great.

Jerry: Yes. It is. We’re blessed. Sometimes we cry after we make love. It is very good.

Joe: She knows your whole history.

Jerry: She knows it better than anyone.

Joe: You have a lot to say; a lot of insight. Jerry, I want to thank you very, very much for sharing these very difficult and personal thoughts. I also want to thank you for giving hope to the other guys who are struggling. People need pictures, and you provide the picture of a man who has “been there, done that,” and then walked out. This is especially important for all the young kids who think there is no other option.

Jerry: I am glad to share this good news.

(See the 2015 film, “I Am Michael,” for a follow-up story on this interview subject.)

Dr. Nicolosi:   Michael, thank you for giving us this time to catch up on your life since our First Interview a few years ago. How are things going today?

Michael Glatze:   Well.. a lot has changed! I’ve been married a little over two months now.

Dr. N.:   Great. How is it going?

M.G.:   Perfect.

Dr. N.:   No such thing!

M.G.:   It really is! It is perfect. Life is full of twists and turns, of course– but it is perfect. Marriage is something that I didn’t intend to seek out. I was very hesitant at first to pursue a significant relationship because I didn’t want it to be a political thing, since my past as a gay activist was so well known. And then, there had been that article about my leaving gay life, published in the New York Times. So I didn’t want there to be any part of me that had any political motivation.

But of course, my situation has put me in the public eye. And when Rebekah and I first met, almost three years ago, fortunately she and I could flow together, and we were honest. At that time, I had already had that article done about me in the Times.

Dr. N.:   So she knew about you when she first met you?

M.G.:   She knew the first time we seriously talked. I said to her, “I think it might be good for us to sit down and see how God might be bringing us two together.“ We had had coffee, we talked, and we hung out with friends. But then, to sit down and finally talk about everything was terrifying, because I didn’t want to go through a bunch of drama about my life in the past. And so when we did sit down the first thing I said was “Do you know anything about my past?” She had just previously read the New York Times article with friends, and it was really a huge God thing, I believe– something that had God’s hand in it–because they had read the article together and they had prayed and then she felt God’s peace about me.

Dr. N.:   Even before meeting you?

M.G.:   We had actually met when the article came out, but she had already known from the other girls that there was this guy that liked her and it was a mutual thing, and here it was that God just allowed her, through the New York Times article, to read my story and deal with it a little bit before we dated, and then to pray with her girlfriends. They had all felt this peace come upon them. So when she talked to me later, she already was feeling “I have no fear,” and it was, like– sweet. We started officially dating in November 2011.

Dr. N.:   How were you able to come out of your homosexuality to heterosexuality? How did you do it?

M.G.:   Well, I think for me the first thing was to ask– and understand– “What is truth?” I talked about this with you in our previous interview. Once you reckon with truth, then you can start with the process of dealing with that truth. When God came into my life in 2003-2004, I started the process of trying to clean up my life for Christ, but I didn’t see homosexuality as part of that cleanup. As the cleanup process continued, though, I still felt unsettled, and it was at that point that I looked squarely at homosexuality, and eventually God drew me to the awareness that homosexual activity was a sin. It was at that point of awareness that I wrote, “Homosexuality is death, and I choose life.” That was my reckoning with God. It was around that same time that I wrote– and I’m still shaking as I remember writing those words– “I am straight!” When I first wrote those words, I just sat there and thought to myself: “So is this really true?” I thought: “The spirit of God is in me and this is the truth!” I thought, wow, just because I have had a gay identity, and I’ve worn that identity for more than ten years, it need not be the truth that I am gay.

Dr. N.:   For ten years you were gay-identified?

M.G.:   Yes. I was always a theoretical thinker, and I got into Queer Theory and I analyzed all the different facets of sexual identity, and I identified as queer.

Dr. N.:   So your identity was gay, but you realized that even though that might have been your identity for ten years, that was not, in the final analysis, your truth. You encountered a contradiction between your gay identity and the truth.

M.G.:   That’s correct, absolutely. When I was hit with the truth and I chose to reckon with the truth, I realized that a person could have habits, desires, all of which pertain to a gay identity, but the truth is still the truth. With this understanding, I now had a bedrock, and from that bedrock I could look at reality in a much broader and more peaceful way, so when I would encounter homosexual desires, I wouldn’t equate them with “me.” I would say “That’s just me feeling this way at this moment.” I would see them as nothing more than homosexual desires, not a reflection of who I am. Then I would ask: “Why is my heterosexual self having homosexual thoughts? There must be some sort of distortion here.”

Dr. N.:   Exactly! This is –to use your term– “the bedrock” of Reparative Therapy®. The client comes to see the truth that he is a heterosexual man, and from that perspective he looks at his homosexual temptations as a perceptual distortion.

M.G.:   From that perspective I was able to see those desires as a distortion leading me away from a goal. The Apostle Paul talks about “forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal” of what has already been achieved for us in Christ…in other words, there was a sense in which I had a goal which I had already seen and known as my true destiny, and my task was just to continue to allow the truth of myself to win out over the distortions that had inhabited my consciousness over all these years.

Dr. N.:   So when your heterosexual self looked at your homosexual behaviors, interests, thoughts, etc.. how did the heterosexual self explain the homosexual desires?

M.G.:   A lot of it goes back to the sadness that lies behind it.

Let’s just say if I were to encounter a homosexual desire, if it was ten years ago, I would just assume that that meant I was a gay person because I have these desires. Then I would try to make myself feel good about those desires in every possible way. I would try to assume that since I’m a loving, kind person, then this must just be another form of love. It must be a homosexual form of love. That would be the process that I went through, and I think most other people I knew would also say “I’m not lusting, I’m not dirty, I’m loving.”

Dr. N.:   “That this is just my own particular way of expressing love…”

M.G.:   Right. But when we recognize the truth, we see things differently. And so now I say, “I am a whole heterosexual man; so how do I deal with these desires?” When I look a little deeper, I see behind it a longing pain in there. I see the fact that there is a craving for something that’s missing within me.

Dr. N.:   So when you looked in the light of truth, what was behind it — was it a pain, or was it sadness?

M.G.:   It was pain… and I recognize the futility of the longing that comes from the pain. The longing is nothing more than an attempt to grab hold of something that I don’t actually need because I have it somewhere in myself, and I can rebuild that masculine sense of self that is somewhere inside me. But of course, anyone reading this who is in the gay mindset would say, “I don’t feel pain… I’m emotionally attracted, I feel love.”

Dr. N.:   I value our interviews because even though you did not have therapy, your understanding fits so beautifully with the theory of Reparative Therapy®. And it always goes back to the need to do grief work.

M.G.:   We share the same viewpoint about how some of these manifestations of grief and trauma play out in people’s sexual development. And it seems to be a universal truth that we are both articulating, because facing the truth leads very much back to grief counseling, very much to the need for a sober recognition. It’s almost like AA, where that first important step is to acknowledge, “I am an alcoholic.” It’s only when you can take this first step — and implied in “I am an alcoholic” is that alcoholism is a bad thing– that you can move forward to giving it up. And so by the same process I look back at my life, led by God’s grace, where over the past several years I finally came to that point where the light shone in on the distinction between who I am and what I was doing that I wanted to separate from.

Dr. N.:   You’ve had sex with men and now, you’re with a woman…what’s the difference for you?

M.G.:   I want to be respectful, obviously, and not distasteful in my answer. So I’ll just describe the personal awareness of “awesome” that I feel right now. …. Coming out of homosexuality has been the most liberating thing I have ever felt. I said before, seven years ago, that it was like coming out of a cave and breathing fresh air. Today I can say, being married, that it’s entirely an inversion of homosexuality. It as though you have a rudder pointed in one direction and then you take the rudder and turn it 180 degrees; now it’s been turned around in the correct direction. It doesn’t feel as though I’ve lost any of my sexuality, it just is working in the right alignment. There’s no part of me that’s wavering from my true nature. I feel aligned with my mind, my body, my spirit, my sexuality, with creation…they are all aligned, and that alignment is evidenced through the fact that my relationship with my wife is so real, so natural.

Dr. N.:   Of course there are doubts being thrown at you from a variety of sources in our culture, and you don’t have to be spiritual to see that there is venom behind them. Yet the reality that you, yourself, have seen, is so awesome and so natural.

M.G.:   To those doubters I would say that there is a natural law, there is a natural order of creation, and because it’s natural there is no need to force yourself… you simply have to relax and let nature take its course. Provided you have a strong faith in God and his created order, it can happen naturally because through a relationship with God, you’re letting God realign you, correct you.

Dr. N.:   You’re a model for people to either emulate or attack depending on their worldview… but the good feeling you have is that you are living out your true nature. The reason why it feels so good and so natural is because it is good and natural.

M.G.:   I’m so grateful. I mean, I will lie in bed and I can’t believe how happy I am. This is awesome and I’m so grateful that at this point in my life, at 39 years of age, I am able to have this blessing of marriage and to have it be a natural marriage and to be in a relationship with an amazing woman that God brought for me. I know that we are made for each other and I know He did create her for me and we just intertwine in every possible way and in the right ways. It’s just so beautiful and so cool and I’m so grateful. So I’m really happy.

Dr. N.:   You’re happy because when the fish has been out of the water and you drop the fish back into the water, he’s happy. You know?

Dr. N.:   It’s true, and I feel like I’m kicking myself to a certain extent. I do feel like, really, is it possible that it could be this good? Because it really is, and yet at the same time if it really is that good, then it gives me a profound sense of command; I can say to people, “Look, this is the truth, this is really the way that it is.“ And I get into these great conversations with people that will email me out of the blue and they are sincere and they are looking for guidance or questions. I’m not a therapist but I can still give them some suggestions.

Dr. N.:   From your life experience, yes… of course.

M.G.:   I think the biggest obstacle people have is that identification process. They come to think of themselves as gay.

Dr. N.:   So much of it is about the identification process…that’s right. So you were in a gay relationship…did you live with a man for awhile?

M.G.:   Oh yeah, I did, for almost 10 years.

Dr. N.:   With the same man?

M.G.:   Yes. And sex with a man is – as I have told Rebekah – a fantasy-world: like a couple of guys playing games with each other. That’s all they are… fantasies, playing around like those guys on Pleasure Island, in Pinocchio. They’re in the perpetual Peter-Pan Syndrome and living that way, they never grow up.

Dr. N.:   Many of the early psychoanalysts equated homosexuality with a form of immaturity, because it is through our gender that we grow and mature. When there is gender brokenness, when there is a conflict in claiming our gender, we get stalled in our development.

M.G.:   A poem of mine was included in the New York Times article. It’s called “The Boy Scout Pledge,” and it articulated an adolescent fantasy-world in which boys play around sexually with each other, and love each other, and cling to each other; I quoted from Walt Whitman’s poetry… he, too, had similar tendencies in his life. But when you leave homosexuality, there’s a sense of growing up. There is a sense of leaving adolescence behind, of becoming whole. I can’t explain it any further than that.

Dr. N.:   I remember one Catholic client who said, “The first time I made love with a woman I felt that all the angels, saints and little cherubs were flying around over the bed, singing.” That was his imagery.

M.G.:   That is beautiful, thank you for sharing that. I will share that thought with Rebekah.

In 2007, I first interviewed Michael Glatze for an article posted on the NARTH website. A leader in the gay-activist movement, Michael had just gone public about leaving his lifestyle and rejecting the gay movement. Homosexuality is not life-giving, he said, and “I choose life.”

Michael credited his gradual change to many things; a transformation in his understanding of the meaning of his same-sex attractions, a strong spiritual life, the centering power of meditation, and the conviction that fulfillment would come through living a life congruent with his biological design.

In a follow-up interview in October 2009, Michael offered an update on his life.

JN:  Michael, it’s been more than two years now since we did our first interview. Tell us what has happened in your life since that time.

MG:  Well, right after that whole time, when I had been doing a lot of interviews and sharing a lot of what I was going through, I started to get exhausted by all of the media attention.

JN:  Did you get any negative attention?

MG:  (Laughs) Well, of course I did. It’s funny, because later, I really sympathized with Sarah Palin when she got attacked during the election because the same thing had happened to me. Constantly getting beaten up and having all these people go on public forums saying things about you, even though they don’t really know you. I consider myself relatively resilient, but it was exhausting.

I decided that I had been moving too fast. I had been answering a lot of questions, with people wanting me to give speeches or represent their organization or talk more authoritatively. I was just overwhelmed, so I took a break and told these folks that I thought that I just needed to step back. There was that whole frustrating “media spin” part of everything, and then, there was the stress of standing up for a viewpoint that was in opposition to my earlier, also very public, political viewpoint. There were the real emotional and psychological issues that I was going through at the same time, too. Since that time, I’ve tried to relax and just be healthy.

JN:  What’s your life like now?

MG:  My life is fantastic right now. I’m living up in the Rocky Mountains and working for a retreat center. It’s very beautiful. It almost seemed too good to be true when the opportunity came a year ago for me to come here. Over these last couple of years, I’ve been fortunate to have my life move forward in areas that have made it increasingly spacious and that have been increasingly conducive to health.

JN:  Are you going to write?

MG:  Maybe. I still feel kind of cautious, but at the same time, I’m a lot more solid in the way that I now understand everything, including all of the things I was talking about two years ago.

JN:  So what is your understanding now of your sexuality?

MG:  Everything that I said before reflects exactly how I think and feel today. I still believe that we have a fundamental human sexuality which is heterosexual. Because it reflects the way we are designed, same-sex interactions on a physical or sexual level are extremely problematic.

JN:  How were they problematic for you?

MG:  Going back to what I said two years ago, for those who may or may not remember, I talked a lot about the problem of lust. I think I can add to that and say it’s like a very slippery slope. It’s the beginning of what is essentially a chain reaction–as soon as you give in to a same-sex temptation that arises, it evokes a desire for fulfillment that can never actually be fulfilled.

JN:  … in same-sex activity?

MG:  That’s right.

JN:  I want to reiterate the point you said a few minutes ago-that natural sexuality is heterosexual… that to deny this, is to deny reality.

MG:  That’s right. Heterosexuality is what’s natural, human, normal, and real. Same-sex activity isn’t good for either person involved. On the part of gay activists and even the culture at large, there’s been a “waving of the magic wand” – that is, a using of all kinds of wonderful words which blind people from seeing what is actually going on in gay sex.

JN:  What kind of “wonderful words” are being used in the culture?

MG:  You know, in recent months, I’ve tried to pay attention to things that are healthy and not focus on that aspect. As somebody told me, “where the attention goes, the energy flows.” When I focus on all this negativity, I just get really frustrated.

JN:  That happens to all of us who are in this culture war. It’s really toxic.

MG:  It is-it’s very toxic. Sometimes I’ll engage and debate on Facebook, but very soon I have to stop and take a step back. I can see that I’m back on their playing field and I’m entering into their false reality.

JN:  Are you still doing your meditation?

MG:  Not much now, but that was a helpful tool for a time.

JN:  Even though you aren’t practicing it much any more, perhaps you internalized the attitude of clearing your mind and consciously moving away from negative thoughts.

MG:  Yes. Maybe you’re right.

JN:  And once you train yourself to get into that awareness, you can go back there again and more easily clear your brain of “noise.”

MG:  Maybe it’s true, maybe there’s some sense of having made the meditative state a part of my normal state, but to me it’s more a matter of my having learned, through meditation, to look at reality more clearly.

JN:  People that might be reading this article are saying, “What can I learn for myself by looking at what Michael has been able to accomplish?”

MG:  Back in 2007 when I rejected the gay lifestyle I had been living, to me, it was such a “big deal.” Ironically, the reality of it is, it should not be a big deal.

JN:  You mean the coming out of homosexuality?

MG:  Yes. One of my friends said, “You think too much, just stop thinking.”

JN:  So, where would you say you are now regarding homosexual attractions or temptations? Do they still come up, or is it no longer an issue?

MG:  It’s not an issue. I’ve gotten to the point now where I really don’t even think that way. I still live in the same body and the same world, but I understand things differently. I don’t call things what I might have called them three or four years ago. For me, their meaning has been transformed.

JN:  Can you give me an example.

MG:  Let’s say I was at a party, and there was this guy sitting there and I noticed that he works out, and I’ve been working out too. Let’s say it was kind of a rowdy party and so I said, “Let’s arm wrestle,” and we did, and I won, and some other people got involved, and there wasn’t anything sexual about it at all. Three or four years ago if we arm-wrestled, I would have thought, “Does that mean something sexual…?” or else “Does this mean I’m jealous of this guy?” Back then, jealousy couldn’t be satisfied by anything other than same-sex activity. I was convinced I could never break down the barriers–the feeling of uncomfortableness I had about a guy like that– without sex. I would think, “This guy’s impossible to know.” His masculinity would have scared or challenged me; actually “scared” is more appropriate. This feeling would stir up these kinds of carnal needs.

JN:  At an emotional level, this stirred up fear.

MG:  And then I probably would have gotten my mind into the whole desire part–the whole kind of push and pull around the issue of domination.

JN:  So would you say that the difference now is that such a guy in such a situation would not prompt the fear?

MG:  Yes. It doesn’t prompt the fear. I’m not threatened by guys in a way I used to be.

JN:  So does that seem to “unhook” the homosexuality?

MG:  Absolutely — because then there’s no need, nothing that you need to do. Otherwise, why would I want to do that-have sex with a guy? It doesn’t make sense.

JN:  So it’s really the fear of men that prompts the homosexual activity.

MG:  Yes. As I’m thinking about it and trying to be completely honest here, it’s really not fear, but terror. “I can’t do this. Mommy come help me– I can’t do what this guy is doing and I can’t be what he is.”

JN:  So there’s a panic element?

MG:  It’s as if I were saying, “Please help me — I’m confused and therefore I need you to overtake me. Overtake me, because I can’t take care of myself.”

JN:  Absolutely. “I can’t handle this, there’s too much going on here that I’m threatened by.” So if fear is the foundation, how did you get over it? By the way, I have seen this in so many other men.

MG:  I got over the fear by working at it, and through prayer. I think a spiritual foundation was absolutely critical. I can’t speak for people of other traditions-I am a Christian–but for me, it meant recognizing that I don’t need anybody to define me or to accept me.

A few years back, I finally recognized that there actually is a God, and through that knowledge, I was liberated from needing to have other people include and accept me. This gave me the sense of my own autonomy, and that led me on to everything else. It was a process– it wasn’t something that happened instantly. There were various tools and techniques that I ended up finding, and one of them was meditation. Meditation involves a lot of practices that specifically address fear– looking squarely at your fear and going through the fear. You can’t actually get anywhere without going through it, and various truisms from various traditions all speak to the same idea-being a warrior, being bold and having inner integrity…knowing what integrity is. You look squarely at the fear and learn to go through it.

JN:  “Staying in your truth and staying in your integrity.”

MG:  Yes.

JN:  So basically the challenge is not to become a slave to your fear. There is a technique that I’ve been using with my clients where if the person says to me, “I had a homosexual temptation,” or “I saw this guy…” or “I looked at a gay porn picture.” I’ll say, “OK, hold onto the picture, go to the picture…stay with your body, stay connected to me, know that I’m with you… and tell me exactly how you’re feeling as you hold onto that gay image.” My experience has been that the client is going to be very shy about the challenge…they get self-conscious and embarrassed…but then, they get past it. They will actually feel a sexual arousal as they bring back the image in the moment, but when they can stay connected to me and know I feel completely empathic and I’m with them on this, then the sexual feeling diminishes and another, deeper feeling emerges that lies beneath it.

MG:  Absolutely, I think that’s brilliant. In the meditative technique, it’s the same idea where you literally sit there in the experience of something really painful. It’s going to take a long time, but if you hold that feeling, then it’s eventually going to reveal itself for something different. It’s like where they say that anger comes from sadness, because if someone is angry, they’re not just angry– there’s something else underneath it. Anything that’s going to take us out of our clear, calm and measured state of mind, something that’s passionate-there’s inevitably something behind it that’s driving it.

JN:  Now let’s get back to that thing that you said before – that what’s behind that homosexual attraction is fear: “I can’t do what this guy doing, I can’t be like him.” Doesn’t that take one back to the idea of something that’s missing inside?

MG:  Yes. Homosexual desires and heterosexual desires- they’re completely different. Homosexual desires are based primarily in lust.

With heterosexuality, you experience your own existence, including your physical existence, with a sense of integrity and liberty. There’s a freedom to be oneself–to be normal, not to have to fight against a deficit that you’re constantly trying to patch up-not to experience these negative emotions that you’re constantly having to make excuses for. You’re inhabiting and owning your own body — your whole wonderful, God-given and God-created human body, and there’s nothing wrong with it that you have to compensate for through another man. But when you’re engaging in same-sex activities, you’re going to have to start to create all kinds of justifications…little stories that you start telling yourself to make it feel right and normal. You share these stories with others to strengthen their foundation, to get group justification for them. That’s the whole process right there that creates gay culture.

JN:  So part of you is saying right now, “I don’t want to go back into thinking about this subject-it’s such a negative place for me,” but part of you also seems to be saying, “I’d love to share with others about this, especially young people, because I’ve learned a lot.”

MG:  I would…I would love to be able to help. I think I’m almost at a point now where I have gotten rid of my defensiveness around this issue. I used to get really hurt and defensive when people would challenge me. I would get almost childish about it, I would think, “Why don’t they understand, dammit??” you know, and that wouldn’t get me anywhere. Just today somebody said, “Hey, I happened to Google your name.” I used to be a little bit afraid of what someone would say; this girl, in fact, was a lesbian and even though she didn’t agree with me on this issue, she said, “Well, I’ve known you now for such-and-such an amount of time, and you still seem like the same person I’ve known,” so there was this sort of human connection we made that allowed us both to transcend our differences on the issues.

JN:  Do you think you could be of help to young people who are struggling?

MG:  …Do you think I could?

JN:  I think so.

MG:  I would love to help and I think it would be a challenge, because telling the truth is not that hard.

JN:  No, it’s really not.

MG:  Being confident enough to tell the truth is one thing, but you also have to be patient enough not to get caught up into all of these other deceptive paths; you can’t be insistent on having to prove a point, or wonder if people are going to “get it” or not.

JN:  And you can’t be too invested in their “getting it,” either.

MG:  And that part can be kind of hard. And you also know it could hurt you in your livelihood in the current political climate. You could pay a price.

JN:  Michael, do you think you will ever get married?

MG:  Yes, I would like to get married. I feel like this could in fact happen within the next couple of years. But because of everything I’ve learned firsthand about the power of sexuality, and all that I’ve lived through when I was living a gay lifestyle, I’ve become a lot more conservative. I am a Christian, and I would definitely like to get married, settle down and start a family.

JN:  Going back to what brought about your change…can you pinpoint how you started this shift?

MG:  It was at some point about four or five years ago, that I made a conscious shift. I wrote these words on the computer screen: “Homosexuality is death. I choose life.” It was like I was literally coming out into the world for the first time….being born, cracking out of an eggshell. There were still temptations and all kinds of things that happened afterward, but the shift had already been made, to the point where there was now new ground laid.

JN:  You had seen the truth….the “new ground laid” was your grounding in the truth.

MG:  Yes. It was.

JN:  So even though you were still tempted and perhaps sometimes engaged in same-sex activity, you did it from the perspective of that new awareness, and that changed everything.

MG:  It did, and you can’t just “not look at the truth” once you’ve seen it face-to-face.

JN:  Right. You can try to forget it, but not for long.

MG:  You can relapse, just like anybody coming out of any other addiction. There are always ebbs and flows and such, but I can say from my experience that once you’ve seen the truth, you’ll inevitably be moving forward into a more and more confident, more and more healthy person, healing yourself gradually from a life lived under the influence of very bad and very destructive ideas.

JN:  That kind of summarizes it, doesn’t it?

MG:  Yes.

JN:  Because once you see the truth, you have a framework from which you can rid yourself of a lot of bad ideas.

MG:  It’s like someone has given you a vision of where you could be. So even though you’re still stuck in your tumultuous existence and the past still comes up, painful emotions come up, old fears and inadequacies still come up, someone has shown you where you could be, and so you’ve got that now… and you just go toward it, and slowly, you move farther and farther forward in the healing process.

JN:  It’s amazing isn’t it?

MG:  It is amazing.

JN:  What’s also amazing is that everyone doesn’t see the truth, but our culture is so blinded that when somebody like you sees the truth, we say, “Wow!”

MG:  Yes. And even though you try to speak the truth in a calm and measured voice, you will still attract a lot of anger.

That’s where my faith really helps, because there is a feeling of knowing that I’m looked after by my Creator, no matter what else happens to me. I know that in the end, “Blessed are the persecuted.” That gives me the sense that no matter what happens to me, I can still feel joy in being myself…in just being alive to experience the day.

By Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

“Hopelessness sets in, when a man is bound up in his shame — living small, within that closed horizon of fantasy and self-absorption.”

– Andrew Comiskey

I sat down with Andrew Comiskey (M.Div.), founder and Director of Desert Stream Ministries, in order to hear his thoughts on ex-gay Ministry. For over thirty years, Andrew has worked with sexually and relationally broken men and women.  His ministry developed out of his commitment to overcome his own homosexuality, and his many years as husband to wife Annette and father to their four children.

He is author of Pursuing Sexual Wholeness (Creation House), Strength inWeakness (InterVarsity Press), Naked Surrender: Coming Home To Our True Sexuality (InterVarsity Press) and founder of the Living Waters healing program.   

———————————————-

Nicolosi: Andy, as you know, there has been a lot of controversy lately about the reality of absolute sexual-orientation change. The debate seems to be between two groups: psychotherapists, many of whom are in NARTH, vs. some spokesmen in the ex-gay movement who deny complete change. In your forty years experience, do you believe anyone can be completely free of homosexuality?

Comiskey: I have heard people report that.

Nicolosi: There are men that I’ve worked with who have said, “I have no more homosexual desire.” In our final sessions, they may consciously try to conjure up the old gay fantasies, the porn images, whatever, and it’s just nothing: “That’s it.  Finished.”  I tell them, “I’m sorry to have spoiled your fun.”

Comiskey: Yes, I can understand that.

Nicolosi: Or a man sees a good-looking guy in a gym locker room and he says to himself;  “I remember I used to get a charge from that, but I just see him now as a nice-looking guy and that’s it.”

Comiskey: Yes, I can see that. But for most, the healing process occurs along a continuum in which people make movement from a same-sex to an opposite-sex orientation. That is the experience of my friends and colleagues. It is a process in which we encourage each other daily toward being a good offering for our spouses, special friends, etc. For these people, I see movement along that continuum.

Nicolosi: I think we agree that each individual moves along that continuum to the best of his ability.  Some people are able to go two steps; some, ten steps.

Andy, let me ask you this: would you consider this an example of change? A man is walking down the street; he sees a good-looking guy, and gets a bodily reaction. Some of my clients call it the ‘zap,’ but it may not necessarily be a genital zap. It could be a shot in his chest, like, “Oh, wow!”  Gays would say that this is evidence that he is still homosexual. But he says to himself: “Ah, yeah, this feeling is about my old way of relating to men. This is the kind of guy that I idealized.  I know what this is about.”  In other words, the bodily response is the same, but now, he attaches a different meaning of it. He experiences that moment in a new way, which makes it for him, not a sexual moment. He knows what that moment is really about – namely, his old way of desiring to connect with men.  Now, is that homosexuality?

Comiskey: I would say not.  That momentary experience indicates that the person continues to work out a clear sense of self-acceptance in the light of seeing another man to whom he may be tempted to abdicate himself. I don’t see that as an indicator of essential homosexuality, but as an indicator of continued integration that he is still working out.

Nicolosi: Would you agree that “still working out” might mean that in two years, he may walk down the same street, pass the same guy and feel nothing or almost nothing, thinking to himself: “Oh, nice looking guy… next,” and nothing more?

Comiskey: Exactly. I think the “good processing” that you describe is the integration of the true self, and its capacity to be fully present to the public, or to a friend, or a spouse.

Whenever one processes his experiences of momentary attraction well, he is contributing to his own healing… to his own integration as a normal man. For me and for those with whom I’m closest, our “good processing” is what liberates the pretty good offering we are to one another and to our families. I am that much freer to offer myself to others as a result of it.  Hopelessness sets in when a man is bound up in his shame — living small, within that closed horizon of fantasy and self-absorption.

Nicolosi: There is another aspect to this. Some men report that their bodily reaction to another man serves them as a signal that they are not “in their integrity.”  I remember when Richard Cohen and I did a TV show and the hostess said, “Richard you’re now married; can you say that you no longer have any homosexual thoughts or feelings?”  Richard answered: “When I have a homosexual feeling it’s a signal to me that I’m not taking care of myself.”

In those cases, can we say that a man is still homosexual when he feels the “zap” which becomes a signal to ask himself:  “OK what’s really going on with me?”

Comiskey: What they do is to withdraw the focus of energy from that other person and metaphorically, bounce it back to themselves.  Ultimately these attractions are all about themselves.

Nicolosi: Yes.  They’re not really about the other guy.

Comiskey: Cultural norms also intensify this self-absorption, this disintegration. Today’s culture is all about affirming the gay self. We live in a culture of excess that is the opposite of one of positive restraint. The cultural message is: “I feel, therefore I do.”

Nicolosi: “Therefore, I consume.”

Comiskey: Therefore I abandon my true self!  You know, I was thinking of how important one’s community is, in addition to working with a solid therapist who keeps you focused on what you need to work out. One has to be in a healthy community–a culture within a culture–that is encouraging one to work out this integration in real life. That cannot happen via a 50-minute session once a week. We need both — the incisive nature of the therapeutic relationship, combined with a community of shared, counter-cultural values. I think both are non-negotiable. We must work hard to try and ensure both for those who are gradually walking out of their same-sex attraction.

Nicolosi: Your emphasis on supportive community is confirmed by a recently published study that found that 65 % of a client’s success was due to having a supportive community. This is not just for SSA, but also for any unwanted condition.

But tell me, Andy, in your years of ministry experience, what would you say are a few critical issues that an individual needs to address to resolve his homosexuality?  What would be the key challenges to the individual desiring to diminish his same-sex attractions?

Comiskey: One key is his own motivation, which can range from immature to mature. Does a person want to change for church or for Mother or some other powerful figure in one’s life?  I think a mature motivation is: “I want to be free for my own sake.”

Nicolosi:I want this for me.

Comiskey: I want this for me, and I think it takes time to know that, and it takes time to get there.  There also needs to be a strong spiritual component. Our yearning for God is related to our sexuality. A transition out of homosexuality requires a presence more powerful than self, and a mature willingness to submit to that higher power.

Nicolosi: So it’s personal desire aligned with this transcendent force outside oneself.

Comiskey: No person can escape the fact that what we are created for, sexually-speaking, is written on our hearts. No amount of cultural shifting can erase that.

When you see the ardor in the gay activist, you can’t help but think he is working his conflict out on us, and on the culture — trying in vain to prove just “how good and normal I am” through another legal victory like gay marriage.

On the other hand, power is unleashed in true submission to the Creator and the Redeemer. When you are in alignment with His purposes, you hit solid ground and start to move forward. That has everything to do with the person’s movement on this continuum rather than on simply “sin-management.”

And of course, there must also be a willingness to go to the heart of one’s pain, the early suffering in one’s life.

Nicolosi: That would be equivalent to what we call the Grief Work, the final stage of Reparative Therapy®.

Comiskey: I think you describe that very well. I was inspired by your work, Joe, and it confirmed what we have seen in our Living Waters ministry participants with regard to the depth of the shame related to many men’s gender disintegration. One must go to that depth of grief, and yet one can’t go there unless there is that “therapeutic alliance” with those trustworthy companions or good helpers like yourself. That alliance, combined with spiritual union, is what enables one to go into the pain.

Nicolosi: I like your term, “gender disintegration.”  It captures the phenomenon these men are experiencing.

Comiskey: Yes.  And the healing process we’re talking about necessitates an honest dealing with those core issues, and developing intimate but non-erotic relationships in which new experiences of friendship can be forged.

At the same time, Joe, we need to have a healthy regard for the power of sin. I don’t know how else to put it.  I think we’re losing a kind of a “holy fear,” if you will, in this healing process. Without that fear, one can readily digress into sensual and dependent unions that stoke same-sex attraction and foster false selves. We have talked about this before….there is a true self, made in the image of God. We must encourage a godly fear of Him en route to integrating that self, toward becoming whole.

Nicolosi: You and I approach the problem of homosexuality from somewhat different perspectives, since I am a psychologist and you are a minister, but there seems to be much agreement between us in our view of the healing process. I appreciate your bold witness.  Although change may happen on a continuum, we both see so many men who were once — as you say —  “living small, within that closed horizon of fantasy and self-absorption,” who have been freed  to grow more fully into their gender wholeness.

Thank you, Andy.

by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has just released its “Task Force Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation” (August 2009), a report issued by five psychologists and one psychiatrist who are all activists in gay causes.

Remarkably, the APA rejected, for membership on this committee, every practitioner of sexual-reorientation therapy who applied for inclusion.

The rejected applicants included–

• NARTH Past-President A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., a distinguished professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine, longtime practitioner of reorientation therapy, and co-author of several peer-reviewed journal articles studying change of sexual orientation. Dr. Byrd is considered one of the foremost experts on same-sex attraction and reorientation therapy. He has published numerous articles on sexual reorientation, as well as gender and parenting issues.

• George Rekers, Ph.D., Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of South Carolina, editor of the Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, a National Institute of Mental Health grant recipient, author of the book Growing Up Straight, as well as numerous peer-reviewed articles on gender-identity issues.

• Stanton Jones, Ph.D., Provost and Dean of the Graduate School and Professor of Psychology at Wheaton College, Illinois, the co-author of Homosexuality: The Use Of Scientific Research In The Church’s Moral Debate..

• Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. (author of this article), a founder of NARTH, practitioner of Reparative Therapy® for 25 years, and author of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality and the 2009 book, Shame and Attachment Loss.

• Mark A. Yarhouse, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology, Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Dr. Yarhouse is co-author of Homosexuality: The Use Of Scientific Research In The Church’s Moral Debate and has published many peer-reviewed articles on homosexuality.

All of these highly-qualified candidates were rejected by APA President Brehm. Instead, Dr. Brehm appointed the following individuals:

Chair: Judith M. Glassgold, Psy.D. She sits on the board of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy and is past president of APA’s Gay and Lesbian Division 44.

Jack Drescher, M.D., well-known as a gay-activist psychiatrist, serves on the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy and is one of the most vocal opponents of Reparative Therapy®.

A. Lee Beckstead, Ph.D., is a counseling psychologist who counsels LBBT-oriented clients from traditional religious backgrounds. He is a staff associate at the University of Utah’s Counseling Center and although he believes reorientation therapy can sometimes be helpful, he has expressed strong skepticism, and has urged the Mormon Church to revise its policy on homosexuality and instead, affirm church members who believe homosexuality reflects their true identity.

Beverly Greene, Ph.D., ABPP, was the founding co-editor of the APA Division 44 (gay and lesbian division) series, Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues.

Robin Lin Miller, Ph.D., is a community psychologist and associate professor at Michigan State University. From 1990-1995, she worked for the Gay Men’s Health Crisis in New York City and has written for gay publications.

Roger L. Worthington, Ph.D., is the interim Chief Diversity Officer at the University of Missouri-Columbia. In 2001 he was awarded the “2001 Catalyst Award,” from the LGBT Resource Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, for “speaking up and out and often regarding LGBT issues.” He co-authored “Becoming an LGBT-Affirmative Career Advisor: Guidelines for Faculty, Staff, and Administrators” for the National Consortium of Directors of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Resources in Higher Education.

Why a Gay Identity
Obstructs Objectivity

The fact that the Task Force was composed entirely of activists in gay causes, most of whom are also personally gay, goes a long way toward explaining their failure to be scientifically objective.

To be “gay-identified” means to have undergone a counter-cultural rite of passage. According to the coming-out literature, when a person accepts and integrates a gay identity, he must give up the hope of ever changing his feelings and fantasies. The process is as follows: the adolescent discovers his same-sex attraction; this causes him confusion, shame and guilt. He desperately hopes that he will somehow become straight so that he will fit in with his friends and family. However, he eventually comes to believe that he is gay, and in fact can never be otherwise. Therefore, he must accept his homosexuality in the face of social rejection, and find pride in his homoerotic desires as something good, desirable, natural, and (if he is a person of faith) a gift from his creator.

The majority of the Task Force members clearly underwent this same process of abandoning the hope that they could diminish their homosexuality and develop their heterosexual potential. Coming to the Task Force from this perspective, they would be strongly invested in discouraging others from having the opportunity to change — i.e., “If it did not work for me, then it cannot work for you.”

Conducting the Task Force Study

As the basis of their report, the Task Force members say they reviewed several hundred studies which, over the past century, have found subjects who changed their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.

The published and peer-reviewed studies they considered are all in some way flawed, the committee concluded, and therefore constitute “insufficient evidence” of the possibility of change. As a result, psychologists are advised to avoid telling their clients they can change their feelings. (The committee does grant, however, that some people can and do change their sexual identity–their sense of “who they are”–and go on to live heterosexually functional lives.)

How could the committee have reached a conclusion that would so sweepingly dismiss decades of research evidence? Some of it was conducted by well-known and highly prestigious professsionals, such as Irving Bieber, Charles Socarides, Houston MacIntosh, and Robert Spitzer–the same psychiatrist who oversaw the removal of homosexuality in 1973 from the diagnostic manual.

It was Dr. Spitzer who concluded in his recent report (published thirty years later by a prestigious journal — the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417):

“Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions.”

He adds, “[T]he ability to make such a choice should be considered fundamental to client autonomy and self-determination.”

Lack of Diversity Among Task Force Members

If the APA truly wished to study sexual orientation, they would have followed established scientific practice by choosing a balanced committee that included individuals with differing values and worldviews. Particularly, they would have selected clinicians who see the value of sexual-reorientation — not just such therapy’s philosophical opponents.

Instead, they “turned the henhouse over to the foxes” by selecting gay-activists members who are well-known for their disapproval of efforts on the part of other homosexual individuals to seek change. The committee prefaces their report by stating as “scientific fact” their view — which has not been scientifically demonstrated (and, which is as much a question of philosophy as of science) that homosexual attractions and behavior are no different from heterosexuality.

Why did the APA select only such individuals? Perhaps, in well-meaning ignorance, they thought only gay activists could be experts on homosexuality. Perhaps they were intimidated by the threat of “homophobia” if they invited reorientation therapists to participate.

The scientific bias of the Task Force is further evidenced by four facts:

• The Task Force failed to reveal the well-documented, far-higher level of pathology associated with a homosexual lifestyle. If they had truly been interested in science, they would have believed it their duty to warn the public about the psychological and medical health risks associated with homosexual and bisexual behavior. Their failure to advise the public about the risks not only betrays their lack of commitment to science, but prevents sexually confused young people from accurately assessing the choices available to them.

• Why do some people become homosexual? The reader of the Report might justifiably expect some discussion of the factors associated with the development of same-sex attractions. Instead, the Task Force failed to study the risk factors—instead, saying that it is a “scientific fact” that homosexuality is “as developmentally normal as heterosexuality.”

• The Task Force did not study individuals who reported treatment success. Even if (for the sake of argument) therapeutic change had been reported to be successful in only one case, then the committee should have asked, “What therapeutic methods brought about this change?” But since the Task Force considered change unnecessary and undesirable, they showed no interest in pursuing this avenue of investigation.

• The Task Force’s standard for successful treatment for unwanted homosexuality was far higher than that for any other psychological condition. What if they had studied treatment success for narcissism, borderline personality disorder, or alcohol/food/drug abuse? All of these conditions, like unwanted homosexuality, cannot be expected to resolve totally, and necessitate some degree of lifelong struggle. Many of these conditions are, in fact, notoriously resistant to treatment. Yet there is no debate about the usefulness of treatment for these conditions: psychologists continue to treat them, despite their uncertain outcomes.

Different Concepts of Wholeness

The Task Force moved on to address religious beliefs that conflict with the affirmation of homosexuality. They attempt to resolve this conflict through creating a false distinction.

Organismic Congruence. Their report says, “Affirmative and multicultural models of LGB psychology give priority to organismic congruence (i.e., living with a sense of wholeness in one’s experiential self)” (p. 18).

Telic Congruence. This applies to people of faith who do not wish to integrate their homosexuality; they are instead “living consistently within one’s valuative goals.”

This is a half-truth, and a deceptive distinction. It implies that persons striving to live a life consistent with their religious values must deny their true sexual selves. They will not experience organismic wholeness, self-awareness and mature development of their identity. These attributes are only possible, by their definition, for individuals who embrace, rather than reject, their same-sex attractions. Religious individuals seeking “valuative congruence” are assumed to experience instead a constriction of their true selves through a religiously imposed behavioral control.

This erroneous distinction (one that can only be made by persons who have never known the harmonious integration of religious teachings) misunderstands and offends persons belonging to traditional faiths.

Rather, the members of the Task Force need to understand that the person of traditional faith finds his biblically based values to be guides, signposts, and sources of inspiration that will guide him on his journey toward wholeness. He intuitively senses that they lead him toward a rightly-gendered wholeness which allows him to live his life in a manner congruent with his creator’s design.

This wholeness is satisfying, experiential, and deeply integrated into the person’s being. It is achieved not by suppression, repression or denial–but by understanding homosexuality within the greater context of a mature religious wisdom that is integrated into a scientifically accurate psychology.

•  The Task Force showed no interest in investigating the causes of homosexuality, stating erroneously that it is a “scientific fact” that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. Nothing in the Task Force report substantiates their assertion that same-sex behaviors are “positive.” In fact, research shows indisputably that homosexuals and bisexuals have a significantly higher rate of mental-health problems than do heterosexuals.

•  They failed to acknowledge the life-threatening health risks associated with gay male sexual behavior, and the fact that a significant percentage of gay men prefer risking death to using a condom.

•  The Task Force demands an impossibly high standard of proof for reorientation therapy which it does not demand of any other therapy.  APA must address the fact that gay-affirmative therapies are, by the same standard they have set, “unproven.”

•  The Task Force stated that family factors, gender identity and trauma are not implicated in the development of homosexuality. They cited various studies as evidence for their claim. However, when only two of these studies were methodologically investigated by NARTH Board member Christopher Rosik, Ph.D., Rosik found that the McCord, McCord and Thurber study  (1962), for example, failed to meet at least 10 of the 16 standards of proof by which APA rejected the sexual-reorientation research  as “insufficient.”  Another study cited by the Task Force  (Kurdek, 2004) violated at least 8 of the 16 same standards of proof set by APA. Therefore, serious concerns must be raised about APA’s politically selective use of scientific standards.

•  The Task Force deems studies of successful sexual-orientation change to be of lesser scientific worth than other studies because they appear in less prestigious peer-reviewed publications. Top-tier journals, however, have a strong reluctance to accept such studies because their editors will pay a career price for doing so.

•  Gay-activist members opposed to reorientation therapy were the sole members of the Task Force.  Some of them, such as Jack Drescher, M.D. (the author of “The Joy of Gay Sex”) are well-known as highly vocal opponents of reorientation therapy. All members were on record as in opposition to reorientation therapy prior to their selection for the Task Force.

•  As homosexually oriented individuals themselves, the Task Force members would inevitably be invested in demonstrating that “If change did not work for me, then it cannot work for you.”

•  Every reorientation therapist who applied to join the task force was rejected by the APA for inclusion, including George Rekers, Ph.D.,  A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., and Stanton Jones, Ph.D.. all of whom are well-known and much-published professionals who have been active in studying sexual reorientation therapy throughout their careers.

•  Two very important recent studies (Spitzer 2003, see paragraph below) and Jones and Yarhouse 2007) which showed successful reorientation for at least some clients, were treated in a very cursory manner in APA’s report.

•  The Task Force ignored the advice of the psychiatrist who was instrumental in removing homosexuality from the diagnostic manual—Robert Spitzer, M.D.  Spitzer said, in his study published by the Archives of Sexual Behavior (vol. 32, no. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417)   “Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their homosexual attractions….to make such a choice should be considered fundamental to client autonomy and self-determination.”

•  The Task Force showed no interest in studying those individuals who reported treatment success and in investigating the reasons for success in their cases. Nor did they report on the spontaneous changes of sexual attraction that have occurred in homosexually oriented individuals without any therapy at all.

•  The Task Force failed to exhibit an appreciation for the long-established worldview that sees gender complementarity as representative of rightly ordered human wholeness.  The APA must recognize this worldview, too, as a legitimate expression of socio-political diversity.

References:

Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2007).  Ex-gays?: A longitudinal study or religiously mediated change in sexual orientation.  Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic.

McCord, J., McCord, W., & Thurber, E. (1062). Some effects of paternal absence on male children.  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 361-369.

Kurdek, L. A. (November, 2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880-900.

Reviews of Dr. Nicolosi’s book, Shame and Attachment Loss

An advocate for gay men and women who are serious about striving to overcome their same-sex orientation and achieving sexual fulfillment heterosexually, Nicolosi–like a voice in the wilderness–audaciously defies conventional psychologists who cling to the belief that changing from homosexuality to heterosexuality is neither possible nor advisable.

Disseminating his point of view is desirable and necessary for society, as well as for gay men and lesbians. Now this is not to definitively assert that for many homosexuals, heterosexuality is preferable to homosexuality; only that this quest should be freely accessible to the homosexual person, if indeed that is his or her wish.

Nicolosi’s treatise on reparative therapy is a groundbreaking and courageous navigation of the tricky shoals, perilous undertows, and precipitous twists and turns required to bypass the psychological community’s declaration that homosexuality is appropriate for all homosexual men and women. Though still controversial, his treatise is punctuated and made more believable through his reliance on the client’s perceptions, feelings, and family dynamics.

In a word, Nicolosi’s thrust in promoting his point-of-view on behalf of this contentious hot-button issue is broad and deep, abstract and experiential, and theoretically and practically depicted.

The policies and resolutions of organizations such as the American Psychological Association and probably the American Psychiatric Association as well, would be better framed and more truthfully based were these organizations cognizant of, and open to, the sentiments promoting reparative therapy.

Nicolosi’s book deserves widespread readership, by friend and foe alike, whether or not, truth to tell, it is still a work in progress; even if in the long run, he is shown to be right, wrong, or somewhere betwixt and between. The paths to ultimate truth can only be forged when consummated fully and unconditionally, and certainly not with impeding and competing ideological polestars misdirecting their voyages…

The author has contributed enormously to the sexual literature by offering his not unreasonable views for consideration by gays and lesbians, by scholars in the field, by the man in the street, and by practicing psychotherapists. His challenging and forceful commentary is must-reading from top to bottom, from stem to stern.

—Robert Perloff Ph.D.
Former President, American Psychological Association
Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh

—————————–

In the current contentious and divisive climate that surrounds the treatment of homosexuality, the well-being of thousands of patients is at stake. Therefore, it is imperative that militant attempts at censorship and ideologies that would limit open inquiry be set aside in the interest of clinical integrity. The right of the patient to choose his or her therapeutic goals is paramount, and attempts to stifle the patient’s freedom-of-choice are not only egregious, but also contrary to the basic commitment of all health care itself. For this reason, even though I disagree with some cause-and-effect relationships proffered in this book, Dr. Nicolosi’s point of view must be part of the equation in an honest, open deliberation until we arrive at ultimate scientific and clinical fact. In my over 60 years of practice as a psychologist I have seen many conditions, both medical and psychological, that were once regarded as incurable to now be readily treatable. In this early stage of the heated debate on the treatment of homosexuality and same-sex-attraction, to prematurely remand all homosexuals to an unchangeable life style would be a disservice to the worst order.

—Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D.
Distinguished Professor, University of Nevada, Reno
President, Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health
Board Chair, The Nicholas & Dorothy Cummings Foundation
Executive Board Chair, CareIntegra
Former President, American Psychological Association as well as Division 12 (Clinical) and Division 29 (Psychotherapy), recipient of psychology’s gold medal for “Lifetime contributions to practice”

—————————–

“In this richly detailed book, Dr. Nicolosi shares his experiences of many years working with same-sex attracted men who want to diminish their unwanted attractions and develop their heterosexual potential.

Nicolosi is convinced that the world’s great religious traditions are right: humanity was designed for gender-complementary coupling. The mental-health associations must respect this viewpoint; to do otherwise would be a gross violation of worldview diversity as well as the client’s right to freedom and self-determination.

This new book is a rich source of information– written by an astute clinician whose work with same-sex attracted clients has been groundbreaking, beginning with his 1991 book, Reparative Therapy.

—A Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H.
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Utah
President, National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)

—————————–

Joseph Nicolosi has written a book that can only be the culmination of decades of clinical observation and scholarly integration of what we know today about the origins and treatment of homosexuality when it is not ego-syntonic. The popular press fosters an idea that the reason for rejecting homosexual impulses must be traditional social disapproval. Objective scientific study says otherwise. Freud noted that all children go through phases of assigning their sexual fantasies alternately to one parent or the other. Most children outgrow this phase and settle on same-sex self identification, with sexual impulses directed toward the opposite sex. Dr. Nicolosi’s work is with the few who do not. The subject fascinates practically everyone, however, because we all have had experience with conflicting attitudes during our formative years. There is not one polemical statement in this treatise.

The theoretical section that begins the discussion is thorough and anyone who follows the literature in the field will enjoy reasoning with Dr. Nicolosi. In Shame and Attachment Loss, Dr. Nicolosi distills the emotional effects of critical family constellations that complicate the sexual development of a child, then adolescent and finally adult. He manages to make a scientific and clinically significant book that any intelligent adult might read with understanding and ease. One help is the excellent organization of the material. Secondly, the book is rich in clinical examples. Even the first part of the book, which provides underlying theory, is saturated with clinical examples that bring theory to life. Close study revealed for Dr. Nicolosi three syndromes which he observed in the groups of men who come for reparative treatment because the continuing early conflicts are inwardly for them so upsetting He discerned when homosexuality is a shame-based behavior, a repetition compulsion to resolve specific disturbing memories, or a reparative drive to make up for angers hidden within the person’s unconscious. The challenge to the therapist is enormous of unraveling the complexities these motivations create for someone.

The treatment section of the book requires therefore 13 chapters to illustrate the various ways in which the men who come to a therapist need to be understood.

What makes this book unique, even beyond the considerable theoretical and clinical contribution I have outlined, is Dr. Nicolosi’s original formulation of the role of grief in these patients. The disruption of attachment that is implied in the book’s title has never been clarified before in psychological literature in efforts to understand homosexual impulses. How shame and the other basic affects interplay in personalty development is vital knowledge for any therapist who wants to work deeply enough with patients to be able to help them at the level of their greatest grief. The clinical examples again show how expectable it is that such work can be freeing to those with the courage to explore sources of pain so long hidden from consciousness. To read Shame and Attachment Loss may seem to some in the psychological field a thing to avoid on grounds of wanting to hold on to prevailing notions about homosexuality. Anyone who does read it will be rewarded with a cogent understanding of personality development and family dynamics and our need to take the psychotherapeutic journey with each individual as a fresh adventure.

—Johanna Tabin, Ph.D.
Member American Psychological Association
Member Division 38 Psychoanalysis
Author, On the Way to Self Ego and Early Oedipal Development

—————————–

“For the therapy of unwanted same-sex attraction, very few people have had the depth of experience and wide-ranging success of Joe Nicolosi. A master in the field has here distilled that experience equally for the professional and the interested layperson.

Every genuinely open-minded therapist should be familiar with the important insights that Dr. Nicolosi provides. This book can and should likewise provide the foundation for courses that train interested professionals in the art and science of helping to reverse homosexuality and restore heterosexual desire and functioning to those who seek such changes.”

—Jeffrey Burke Satinover, M.D.
Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry
Diplomate, American Board of Neurology
Diplomate, C.G. Jung Institute of Zurich, Switzerland
Author, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth

—————————–

“In this groundbreaking book, Nicolosi, a pioneer in the field of reparative therapy, introduces clinicians to the influence of shame and attachment loss within a same-sex drive. By integrating multiple theoretical bases, Nicolosi has developed and effectively presents a fresh and comprehensive framework for understanding and treating male SSA. The techniques and strategies discussed within this cutting-edge work will guide therapists in their work with homosexual strugglers.

This is a must-read and an essential resource for any counselor’s library. It will have a lasting impact on how the scientific and professional mental health communities view and comprehend homosexuality.”

—Janelle Hallman, MA, LPC
Author, The Heart of Female Same-Sex Attraction: A Comprehensive Counseling Resource

—————————–

Nicolosi brings extensive professional clinical perspective and deep immersion in the historical literature in this area to his reflections on work with individuals experiencing unwanted SSA. This volume offers fruitful clinical hypotheses for exploration.

The author shows balance in acknowledging possible biological and psychological contributors to causation; in exploring what full informed consent for consultation entails; in respecting appropriate clinical boundaries in professional consultation; and in acknowledging the experiences of those who find such work unproductive, as well as those reporting success.

—Stanton L. Jones, Ph.D.
Provost and Professor of Psychology, Wheaton College (Wheaton, Ill.)
Author, Ex-Gay? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change of Sexual Orientation, and Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate

—————————–

Dr. Nicolosi’s latest book is, as ever, a continuation of insightful writing based firmly on his experience. Alongside long transcripts covering many facets of his clinical work are numerous superb and highly quotable pinpoint statements from clients, which illuminate many facets of same-sex attraction.

Some of these insights, for example about the sado-masochistic tendencies found among homosexually oriented men, the tendency to flip-flop between extreme views of others [devaluing vs. over-valuing them], and origins of bisexuality, seem underappreciated even in therapist circles, and are relatively new ideas.

Although the book is intended for therapists, there is also much here that deepens understanding for the non-therapist.

Many myths about reparative therapy are refuted by this book. No one taking the trouble to browse it could believe any longer that such therapists are primarily motivated by anti-gay feelings. Considerable care of clients is clear in the transcripts. The approach is refreshingly non-doctrinaire.

Although the basic therapy approach has stood the test of time, it has been refined in the light of experience, and clients who fall in groups demanding different approaches have also been considered, and their needs addressed.

Even critics who abhor this type of therapy might find their opinions modified if they read the book.

—Neil Whitehead, Ph.D.
Author of My Genes Made Me Do It – A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation and over 120 published scientific papers

—————————–

For those who have freely made up their mind to find a different way forward in dealing with the challenges of homosexuality this book is a godsend. Joseph Nicolosi has provided a first rate manual that tackles the issues head on, that works from the best evidence available, and that is rooted in years of therapeutic practice.

We have long needed a book like this: respectful of human choices, realistic in its central claims, clear about its theoretical foundations, aware of relevant objections, and robust in its proposed clinical solutions. Every pastor and therapist, whatever their personal theological or moral commitments, should have this book in their library. They owe this to all those who are reaching for an alternative to the sexual ideologies of our culture; they also owe it to the demands of common honesty and of intellectual virtue.

—William J. Abraham, Ph.D.
Albert Cook Outler Professor of Wesley Studies
Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor
Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University

—————————–

As an internationally-recognized clinical expert on Reparative Therapy for unwanted homosexual attractions, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi has written a theoretically-sound, clinically insightful, intellectually-brilliant, and highly compassionate practical book that will, no doubt, become a standard professional reference for psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health clinicians treating individuals troubled by their homosexual impulses.

Now that scientific studies have established that homosexual orientation can be successfully treated without harmful “side-effects,” mental health professionals are now, more than ever, interested in the theoretical underpinnings of Reparative Therapy and in the specific therapy techniques that produce change. With his decades of clinical experience in successfully treating men with homosexual orientation, enhanced by many hours of systematically analyzing video recordings of actual psychotherapy sessions at his well-known clinic, Dr. Nicolosi presents sound psychodynamic models of the development of homosexual attractions as a basis for his therapeutic techniques. He offers a creative and sound integration of psychological research findings, psychodynamic understanding, recent findings on the neurological structure of the brain, and clinical advances in the art of psychotherapy. What makes this book especially helpful to clinicians are the numerous transcripts of therapy sessions illustrating therapeutic breakthroughs with homosexual clients.

Dr. Nicolosi’s theory and therapeutic method is consistent with my decades of research on childhood gender identity disorders. His book shows how homosexual attractions and enactment functions as a situational reaction to feelings of gender inadequacy and to unmet emotional needs including a developmental lack of male attention, affection and affirmation from father-figures and/or other male mentors. Same-sex attractions function as attempts to “repair” an emotional deficit in a male’s own “perfectly normal and authentic needs for male attention, affection, and approval.

Dr. Nicolosi helps his clients to identify circumstances and emotional states when most tempted to homosexual behavior. He affirms human will, and the reality of the ability to choose to interrupt the sequence of psychological events would otherwise lead to homosexual temptation and to homosexual enactment. This book is not only psychologically sound and theoretically insightful, but it is consistent with the Judeo-Christian theological understanding of the creation of humans as male and female and the normality of close emotional, non-sexual, relationships among men as illustrated by the loving relationship between David and Jonathan. His book clearly illustrates how he assists men with same-sex attractions to adjust to created realities of human personality and relationships, while abandoning a False Self that emerged from a problematic development in early life.

Dr. Nicolosi shows theoretically and therapeutically how strengthening feelings of masculinity diminishes same-sex attraction and how mental health depends on acceptance of psychological realities. He does so with a compassionate understanding of the client’s needs and problems.

—George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Th.D.
Distinguished Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science Emeritus, University of South Carolina School of Medicine
Adjunct Professor of Psychology, Graduate School of Trinity International University, Florida Regional Center

—————————–

I would recommend publication of this volume for the following reasons: First, although Reparative Therapy has been maligned by some in Division 12 (Clinical) of the American Psychological Association, it has not been rejected as a therapeutic modality for those seeking to change their sexual orientation– especially Christians.

Second, while there is strong current emphasis on empirically validated treatment modalities, all approaches initially began as theories which were clinically applied long before they were subjected to controlled clinical studies. Reparative therapy as described in Nicolosi’s volume is one such modality. Empirical validation will be the next step in its development, but it should not be discounted for being in this stage of development.

Third, reparative therapy, as detailed by Nicolosi, is not presented as a therapeutic “cure-all,” nor is it presented as a model that explains each and every incidence of homosexuality. Reparative therapy is offered as a hopeful remedy grounded in one environmentally significant determinant – namely, family interaction. It is also offered as an option for religiously motivated persons who seek some alternative to the view that they cannot change.

I would think Intervarsity would be honored to be its publisher.

—H. Newton Malony, Ph.D.
Senior Professor, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena CA

—————————–

I have just finished reading this book, and . I only wish there had been such research and words of hope earlier in my ministry in counseling homosexuals. Nicolosi’s book offers a refreshing cool cup of reason and hope on one of the most heated topics today. This is a must-read for not only the homosexual who is struggling over his sexuality, but for every parish pastor, counselor and therapist.

As a university professor of graduate studies in family ministry, it will be on my list of required textbooks.

–Roger Sonnenberg, M.Div., M.A. (Pastoral Psychotherapy)
Professor of Graduate Studies in Family Ministry, Concordia University
Author, Human Sexuality: A Christian Perspective

—————————–

A legend in the world of gender affirmation, Joe Nicolosi devoted much of his professional career to educating the western world that a change of sexual orientation is possible. Having written three other books on the subject, this latest book, Shame and Attachment Loss: The Practical Work of Reparative Therapy, represents his most recent insights and personal growth in understanding and treating those with unwanted same-sex attractions.

Initially conceptualizing homosexual attraction as a striving “to repair gender deficits,” he now sees it more broadly as a striving “to repair deep self-deficits” and as a “defense against trauma to the core self.” From this profoundly insightful premise, the text principally addresses mental health professionals and faith-based ministry leaders to explain the psychodynamics of homosexuality, its treatment modalities, and the role and resolution of grief in Reparative Therapy.

Not only are brilliant new insights found through out this volume, but it shows how the Judeo-Christian worldview is aligned with practical psychological techniques for healing. I recommend this “must-read” book to anyone who cares to learn about either the causes or treatment of homosexuality. The library of every mental health professional, ministry-leader, and individual concerned about the sexual confusion that runs rampant in today’s world should include this book.

—Arthur Goldberg
Co-Director, JONAH
Author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change

—————————–

As readers have come to expect from Dr. Nicolosi, Shame and Attachment Loss: The Practical Work of Reparative Therapy again is an enormous contribution to making the complexities of homosexuality and its treatment more coherent for parents, therapists, and anyone concerned about cultural issues. Dr Nicolosi continues his pathway of contributing clinically and philosophically in the traditions of a scholar.

—Benjamin Kaufman, M.D.
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of California at Davis
Psychoanalyst

—————————–

• Joseph Nicolosi, Linda Ames Nicolosi

• Jan 1, 2003

• Series: Volume 6 – 2003

Nicolosi, Joseph, & Linda Ames Nicolosi A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 2002 Paperback, $12.00. 254 pp. ISBN 0-8308-2379-4.

Husband and wife team Joseph and Linda Nicolosi have written a bold, new book that is sure to be of great help to many families. Their work represents an effort of considerable courage as well since they face ostracism from their secular peers for arguing the case of this book as they do. We also owe a debt of thanks to the publisher for putting this helpful material in the hands of the public.

The book’s title is not exactly descriptive of its contents. The book, in actuality, is about how parents can react to a male child or teenager who rejects his own gender and adopts a highly feminized style of activity and interest. To a lesser degree, the book also deals with how parents can and should deal with a female child or teenager who displays intense masculine patterns of interest. In this sense then, the book is about preventing a fuller and more complete expression of homosexuality when the child developmentally reaches adulthood. The book does not concern itself with children and teens who do not display these signs of what the authors term prehomosexuality, gender-conflicted behavior, gender-confused attitudes, or gender-disturbed styles of behavior.

The book is the outcome of years of providing psychotherapy to children, teens, and families who find themselves in the midst of this type of gender confusion. Dr. Nicolosi serves as the President of NARTH (National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and has also built a distinguished career of helping active homosexuals who wish to move away from their homosexual lifestyles toward heterosexuality. But that is a topic for another book. Dr. Nicolosi objects to homosexuality, in part, out of his Roman Catholic theological convictions although this book is primarily therapeutic in tone, not theological or biblical.

The main theoretical framework for the Nicolosi team traces its roots to Freudian objections to homosexuality. Neo-Freudians, primarily Elizabeth Moberly, have altered the original psychoanalytical explanation of homosexuality somewhat by focusing on deficits in same-gender parental relationships rather than problems with opposite-gender parental connections. Boys veering toward homosexuality often sustain distant or unconnected relationships with their fathers, and girls often display the opposite pattern. The Nicolosi team refrains from declaring that this developmental pattern is the one, solitary background for all homosexual persons, but they do assert that it is common enough that no one can ignore its relevance. And the beauty of working with children and teens who do come from this type of background is that in most cases the therapist has the option of helping parents change their style of interaction so that the children can benefit from a healthier relationship with their parents and can continue their development toward normal heterosexuality as adults. Reparative Therapy® of adult homosexuals can often only strive for a healing of wounds caused by parental deficits that have long ago slipped into history.

The authors present one case study that is particularly poignant. An adult male homosexual describes his memories of his childhood with the following description:

We had an old farmhouse outside Sioux City, and you opened up this rickety trapdoor and went down these creaky old steps into a dark and damp-smelling basement. My father would escape from the rest of us and spend hours there in his machine shop. But I was forbidden to go there – I might break his tools or get hurt, is what he told me. So I would lie on my belly up above, looking down and watching Dad work. What I’ll never forget is that feeling of mystery about what was going on down below. Eventually my Dad let my two older brothers help him, and they’d be talking and working and laughing. It wasn’t just the mystery of what was being done in the cellar . . . it was the whole mystery of who Dad was, because to this day, I really don’t understand him. If I had to draw just one picture that would represent my entire childhood, it would be of me peering down into the darkness below at my father and my brothers. (p. 102)

For many years research has indicated that “there is a high correlation between gender nonconformity in boyhood and adult homosexuality” (p. 12). The authors concede that biological factors may play a part in the development of homosexuality, but contend that family and environmental influences are far more powerful in determining its ultimate expression. Thus when families notice that a young boy is having difficulty accepting his masculinity or engaging masculine activities and interests, the family can make environmental changes that will in time help the boy more easily accept his gender. Normally these changes consist of focused and loving attention for the boy from his father. The authors are careful not to confuse the encouragement of a “macho” style with what parents need to cultivate in the gender-confused boy. “Of course, the . . .child should not be forced into a predetermined mold that will cause him to deny his fundamental nature – his natural gifts of creativity, sensitivity, kindness, gentleness, sociability, intuitiveness or high intellect” (p. 38). “A gender-nonconforming boy can be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle – and heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician – and a heterosexual. . . . No one should try to discourage those abilities and traits” (p. 48).

One very useful feature of the book consists of transcripted interviews Dr. Nicolosi includes as a major portion of the final chapter. He conducted interviews with parents of prehomosexual boys who had been his patients years earlier and asked these parents to reflect on the slow but gradual changes they observed in their sons as the parents made changes to encourage the boy’s acceptance of his masculinity. Included in this section of the book is a rather extended journal written by a mother of a prehomosexual boy that chronicles the slow changes she was able to observe in her son on his way to becoming a much less gender-confused child. For families wondering what to do about a son who displays difficulty accepting his masculinity, this is the book to read. Its practical suggestions for parents will help them deal with an otherwise baffling problem.

James R. Beck, Ph.D.
Professor of Counseling
Denver Seminary