“Professional Malfeasance is Appalling Beyond Imagination,” Says Dr. Jeffrey Satinover

In recent years, the psychological professional has been accused by critics of becoming so ideological that it is no longer open to competing ideas. Few professionals remain, however, who are now willing to speak up. The career cost is simply too high.

For a historical perspective on this alarming process, the following article quotes Dr. Nicholas Cummings, who was  a mainline psychologist and self-professed “liberal and promoter of diversity.”  He once served as the president of the American Psychological Association (APA). The article was published in a 2005 NARTH Bulletin.

A.P.A.Past-President Charges His Association with Stifling Discourse and Distorting Research

In a harsh critique of his own profession, a former American Psychological Association president told fellow clinicians at the NARTH Conference nearly twenty years ago that social science was in a state of alarming decline. The situation has since deteriorated rapidly and now, in 2024, may be beyond repair.

Speaking to a rapt audience of about 100 fellow professionals at the Marina Del Rey Marriott Hotel on November 12, 2005, psychologists Nicholas Cummings, Ph.D. and Rogers Wright, Ph.D. had much to say about the profession they had served throughout their long and distinguished careers — charging “intellectual arrogance and zealotry” within a profession that they say is now dominated by social-activist groups.

Dr. Cummings said he has had a career-long commitment to promoting diversity. Therefore has been dismayed to see activists exploit the stature of the parent body to further their own social aims — pushing the APA to take positions in areas where they have no conclusive evidence.

When APA does conduct research, Dr. Cummings said, they only do so “when they know what the outcome is going to be…only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible.”

When writing their book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, Wright and Cummings invited the participation of a number of fellow psychologists who flatly turned them down–fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. “We were bombarded by horror stories,” Dr. Cummings said. “Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.”

“‘Homophobia as intimidation’ is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda,” said Cummings. “Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians– who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression– once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves.”

He described his own experience of oppression and reverse bias: “This was aptly demonstrated,” he said, “during an interchange that took place in a large meeting assembled by the then-current president to address the future of the APA. I was just about to agree with one of the participants, when she stopped me before I could speak: ‘I don’t know what you are going to say, but there is nothing you and I can agree on, because you are a straight white male and I am a lesbian.’ Such blatant reverse discrimination was overlooked by everyone else in the room, but I was dumbfounded. This woman is prominent in APA affairs, is extensively published, and has received most of the APA’s highest awards. The APA continues to laud her, even though recently she had her license suspended for an improper dual relationship with a female patient! What would be the response had it been a straight white male in an improper dual relationship with a female patient?”

Regarding treatment for unwanted homosexuality, the American Psychological Association came very close to ratifying a statement which would declare therapy to modify sexual orientation “unethical.” But “why does free choice go only one way?” Dr. Cummings asked.

Cummings then discussed a 2004 resolution by the APA in favor of gay marriage, which APA recommended because it “promotes mental health.” What was the evidence APA offered? (Such a bold statement from APA, of course, would be used in the courts to decide key social issues.) The references APA cited, it turned out, actually proved only one claim– that as a general matter, “loving relationships are healthy.” “That was one of the worst resolutions,” Cummings said.

“When we speak in the name of psychology we are to speak only from facts and clinical expertise,” he explained. If psychology speaks out on every social issue, “very soon the public will see us as a discredited organization–just another opinionated voice shouting and shouting.”

Cummings’ co-author Dr. Rogers Wright (who like Cummings, described himself as a lifelong liberal) notes that “psychology has been ultra-liberal” and not particularly welcoming to the views of people of religious faith.

Wright described the difficulties he has encountered with the American Psychological Association since the Association instituted a “strategic decision not to respond” to their book in an effort to avoid attracting attention to it. Initially, the APA prohibited its member-publications from reviewing Destructive Trends. “So much for diversity and open-mindedness,” Wright added wryly.

Judicial Malfeasance by Activists

Joining them in yet another stinging critique of the mental-health profession was psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. In his talk entitled “Judicial Abuse of Scientific Literature on Homosexuality by the American Mental Health Professional Organizations,” Satinover offered a long, elaborately referenced description of ethics breaches in the recent legal cases that have set the stage for groundbreaking changes in family-law policy.

Satinover said the mental-health associations had allowed themselves to be used by gay activists who distorted the research findings to serve their own socio-political aims. This distortion of the science, he said, has been so great that it is “appalling beyond imagination.”

Dr. Satinover has taught constitutional law at Princeton University, and is presently doing research at the University of Nice. He showed the legal briefs to his students and told them, “Whether you become a leftist or a rightist, don’t hold yourself to such a standard.”

Given carte blanche, the activists wrote briefs that were “sophisticated, nuanced” but in many cases, almost entirely untrue. To Dr. Satinover’s dismay, the brief-writers’ testimony rarely matched the references they footnoted–but almost never directly cited–as corroborating evidence.

Called as an expert witness in court cases and asked to assess briefs being submitted to state and the U.S. Supreme Courts, Satinover had the opportunity to pour over hundreds of research papers offered as evidence by the gay activists who had been invited to represent the views of the major mental-health associations.

He quoted Susan Cochran, Ph.D., a lesbian activist advising the Lawrence v. Texas brief, which claimed that “Research has…found no inherent association between homosexuality and psychopathology.” The references she provided were largely self-references — referring not to corroborating sources, but directly back to her own published work.

Paradoxically, in those same studies, Cochran had consistently found more mental-health problems in lesbians and gay men — and she did not find that “social homophobia” was a sufficient cause for these problems. In fact, Cochran had concluded in one of her own referenced papers that “further research is needed to explore the causal mechanisms underlying this association.” In a follow- up paper, she herself showed that the effects of social homophobia couldn’t account entirely for the association.

Satinover also offered evidence from the Romer v. Evans brief that evidently came from gay- activist psychologist Gregory Herek, Ph.D., who wrote the brief on behalf of the APA. Herek, he says, distorted the findings of the authors of the research he cited; omitted available contrary evidence; and failed to mention the evidence for spontaneous changes of sexual identity. Herek also defined the term “homosexual” in an arguable manner that worked most effectively to meet the aims of his brief–a definition that was the outcome solely of his own work, and that deviated from widely-used, neutral scientific standards. In support of the argument that same-sex attracted people are as well-adjusted as straights, Satinover said, Herek also referenced the “notoriously flawed and out-of-date Hooker study, its claims long-since and multiple times overturned.”

Pedophile Supporters Offering Family-Law Testimony?

In the Romer v. Evans case, psychologist John Money, Ph.D. was referenced as an expert in sexual identity. In an interview published in the Dutch journal of pedophilia (PAIDIKA), Money once said, “If it [man-boy sexual contact] is consensual, it can be constructive.”

Another expert offered by Herek was John de Cecco, Ph.D., who has also written affirmatively of man-boy “intergenerational intimacy” in the Journal of Homosexuality, and is an editor of PAIDIKA.

Yet one other frequent contributor to legal testimony, the Lawrence brief included, is lesbian activist-researcher Charlotte Patterson, Ph.D., who in a landmark case of same-sex adoption was cited for refusing to turn over her research notes, contributing to her side’s defeat. “Her conduct was a clear violation of a court order,” said Satinover, “yet she is still writing briefs in current court cases.”

In discussing the overall “scope and type of malfeasance,” Satinover concluded the following:

1. “Briefs appear to be authored by a small circle of individuals who are called on repeatedly, with footnoted references that almost never properly substantiate their case.”

2. A common tactic is to reference studies “that are trivial or out-of-date, while ignoring more important, recent, larger, better, and superceding research.”

3.  “A substantial portion of the authorities cited [through footnotes] will be themselves.”

4.  “The most common pattern is by far the simplest: the overwhelming mountain of contrary evidence is simply never mentioned.”

“The malfeasance is relentless,” Satinover concluded. “It is appalling beyond imagination.”

A crucial turning point in the history of LGBT political activism was the decision by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to declare that homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disorder.

The late Dr Charles Socarides, clinical professor of psychiatry and a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, documented in detail the history behind the APA decision from a firsthand-witness vantage point. Along with a few other prominent psychiatrists including Irving Bieber, he tried to prevent the APA change, but their attempts were ignored or dismissed. All of the psychiatrists understood the motivating force that drove the decision– particularly, empathy for a population that was suffering from social discrimination– but they also knew that the decision, although motivated by benign impulses, would have unintended and far-reaching consequences.

Forty-five years ago, Dr Socarides predicted that if homosexuality was removed, the consequences would include:

1. Our understanding of what is healthy, normal or abnormal sexual behavior would have to be altered.

2. Sex education would have to teach homosexual conduct as normal.

3. Homosexuals wanting help would be in despair, because all of sudden, they wouldn’t have a condition that would justify treatment.

4. Dissatisfied homosexuals would be dissuaded from seeking therapy.

5. Suicides among persons with gender-identity disorder might increase.

6. Other medical disciplines would be affected, such as pediatrics.

7. Student doctors with a traditional understanding of sexuality would be unwilling to enter psychiatry out of fear of being branded bigoted.

How true were his predictions? Every one of them has come to pass.

Reference:

Socarides, Charles, “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality,” 1992.

“Why Christians Should Not Throw Reparative Therapy® Under the Bus”

by Robert Gagnon, PhD

(Presentation given at the Evangelical Theological Society Conference, Atlanta, Ga., Nov 2015)

Summary:  Some Biblical counselors reject Reparative Therapy®. One such counselor says that “God’s remedy for sin is not therapeutic attunement, but repentant faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”

In this speech, transcribed below, Dr. Gagnon offers a rebuttal. Evangelicals who reject RT’s insights “do that at our peril.” He says, “reparative therapy is not out to replace the Christian faith…it has a specialized ministry which is in no way incompatible.”

In fact, “reparative therapy should be embraced by Christians…not as a total answer” but as “one valid tool” in uncovering the answers to life.

———————–

This speech is available for download or streaming at http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=20619

———————-

Reparative Therapy® has been mostly attacked from within by psychology, but also by fellow Christians, although from a different angle. In psychology, this attack is coming from the LGBTQ stranglehold which it possesses on that profession.

In offering their own critique, the Christian community is giving aid and comfort to their enemies and distress to our friends. This is unintentional, but it is still happening. This is collateral damage.

I first heard that there was a problem, when I heard about comments by Rosario Butterfield in a blog she did for the Gospel Coalition in Feb. 2014, “You Are What and How You Read.” She was reporting on her experiences at Wheaton College. I want to make it plain that I love Rosario Butterfield and I have read her testimony and it is extraordinarily powerful. It is a great testimony. And I give great thanks to God for her witness and the vast array of things we agree on, and yet at this point, we differ. And that is her three biblical points, her so-called “Reparative Therapy Heresy,” and she says: “…a primary goal of Christianity is to resolve homosexuality through heterosexuality, thus failing to see that repentance and victory over sin are God’s gifts and failing to remember that sons and daughters of the King can be full members of Christ’s body and still struggle with sexual temptation.”

This ‘heresy’”… [that’s a very strong term] “this heresy is a modern version of the prosperity gospel.. name it, claim it, pray the gay away.” This is a very false witness about Reparative Therapists. That may be done out of ignorance, but that is not accurate. I can tell you that I know a lot of Reparative Therapists and this is not an accurate statement. If it were an accurate statement than I too would be opposed to Reparative Therapy®.

Then the second shock came to me in October of the same year. I read a statement by Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist ERLC (Evangelical Religious Liberty Commission) and this was recorded by the Religion News Service under the title of “Evangelical Leader Russell Moore denounces Ex-Gay Therapy.”

According to the article he called Reparative Therapy® “severely counterproductive.”  I quote, “The Utopian idea that if you come to Christ and if you go through our program you’re going to be immediately set free from attraction or anything you’re struggling with, I don’t think that is a Christian idea.” I don’t think it is either, but neither is it an idea of Reparative Therapy®. So what we are doing here is creating a straw man, beating on the straw man, and then pretending somehow we have effectively dealt with the issue. We haven’t, because these are not accurate statements but rather inaccurate depictions of Reparative Therapy®.

Lets catalogue some of those distortions.

1.  Reparative therapists believe that the primary goal of the Christian is that homosexually oriented persons must become heterosexually oriented persons. That’s a false statement.

2.  Reparative therapists operate under a premise that homosexuality can be changed easily and quickly. That too, is a false statement.

3. Reparative Therapist believe that all persons who experience homosexual attractions have bad relations with their same-sex parent. That too is a false statement.

So again, we have to deal with what they actually do believe and state, rather than a parody of what they actually believe and state.

A quote from Joseph Nicolosi who, of course– I guess if there was a father of Reparative Therapy® it would be Joseph Nicolosi– “Reparative Therapy® involves a collaborative relationship between the therapist and the client in which the therapist agrees to work with the client to reduce his unwanted attractions and explore, [note: explore] his heterosexual potential. No outcome can be guaranteed. Outcomes range along a continuum from complete change to partial change, that is management and reduction of unwanted feelings.”

Note, the word “management”… that does not necessarily preclude the possibility of an ongoing nature to those feelings, but the ability to manage them.   We do the same thing in Alcoholics Anonymous.

Note that it ranges from management, to “for some people, no change at all.” That’s not what I gathered from reading Heath and Burk’s quotations. Further, along with the same article, ”What is Reparative Therapy,” which can be found online, we read: “…a male client’s homosexual behavior may be an unconscious attempt to self-repair feelings of masculine inferiority.” Lots of people misunderstand Reparative Therapy® as trying to “repair” someone for having same-sex attractions. Well, that may be an element, but that’s not where the term Reparative Therapy® comes from. Reparative Therapy® has to do with self-repair on the part of those with same-sex attractions; an attempt– but inaccurate and wrong–at self-repair of feelings of masculine inferiority through a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex in order to validate their own sex.

Nicolosi goes on, “such feelings represent an attempt to meet normal, healthy masculine emotional needs.” That is, there is a purpose or method to the madness which has positive features to it, but they are going about it in the wrong way.  They are attempting to do something which is good,natural and acceptable, but they are going about it the wrong way. “For such a client, understanding the reparative concept increases self-acceptance and compassion regarding his desire for this unwanted behavior, which previously evoked only confusion, shame, and self-hatred. The term reparative, then, conveys an insight that same-sex attraction may be an unconscious effort at self-reparation.”

Continuing, “Reparative Therapy® views most same-sex attractions” didn’t say all, “as reparations for childhood trauma. Such trauma may be explicit, such as sexual or emotional abuse, or implicit in the form of negative parental messages regarding one’s self and gender. Exploring and resolving these childhood emotional wounds will often” (note, not always)  “result in reducing unwanted same- sex attractions. Same-sex attraction is associated with particular types of negative peer and family…” (note, not just family, but peer), “experiences. The consequent trauma can have damaging effects on gender-identity development. Some forms of homosexual orientation,” (note, not all) “some forms are based upon disturbances in gender-identity formation. The fulfillment of those needs can,” (note, not WILL), “reduce and sometimes,” (note, not always), “eliminate same-sex attraction.”  O.K., I think that is fairly well-qualified across the board.

In Nicolosi’s book “Shame and Attachment Loss” published by InterVarsity Press in 2009, he acknowledges that it not just all about trauma and childhood and that sort of thing. “Biological factors indeed probably influence some people toward homosexuality. Either genetic inherited factors that cause gender non-conformity or prenatal hormonal influences, especially in men, that may result in low-masculinized brains. Any factor in the biological or social environment that makes a male feel less secure in his maleness has the potential to effect his gender identity.”

A potential may not be necessary; some will, some won’t, because human beings are complex and undergo a complex array of environmental factors.  No single factor is always going to come in and change people. But, “none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design.“

These are our friends here in the Psychology profession. They acknowledge the basic point here, that we want them to acknowledge.  Further, none of them prove that homosexuality is inevitable, which is a point that I agree with. It is not a “fait accompli.”  It is not a question of biological determinism. Which is not to say that there aren’t biological factors. Nor would those factors make it necessarily unchangeable. Even somebody like J. Michael Bailey at Northwestern University who has done most of the identical twin studies and is thoroughly affirming of homosexual practice, acknowledges that last point himself, so that could hardly be a radical wrong-headed notion. Again, in “Shame and Attachment Loss,” Nicolosi summarizes by saying, “Reparative Theory holds that the origin of same-sex attraction is in unmet emotional and identification needs with the same sex.”

Now there are points of agreement and disagreement between what Heath and Denny believe and others, and what I believe. For example, we all believe that homosexual desire is sinful desire, right? If it were not sinful desire then you ought to be able to engage in it, right? You ought to be able to fulfill it. It is the fact that we know it to be sinful desire that we refrain from it. Why is it sinful desire? Very obviously it satisfies the definition of a sinful desire. It’s a desire to do something that God expressly forbids. If that is not a sinful desire then I don’t think I know what a sinful desire would be, OK, and I think I do know what a sinful desire would be! But then there is a point of disagreement at this level between us, I think.

Same-sex attracted persons, I believe that I could be misunderstanding their position, but, it seems to me they are moving in the direction of saying that same-sex attracted persons must repent for the mere experience of unwanted homosexual desire. I am not sure I go along with that. I mean, I would like to think about that some more. And I have thought about it already somewhat, and will continue to think about it in light of what you have written. If that is, in fact, what you mean. But at this point, I don’t agree with it. I don’t agree that persons are culpable from the very moment that same-sex attractions arise.  For example, in one particular case maybe the same-sex attraction might be due to early childhood sexual abuse of an adult male with a male child. OK. Am I going to blame that person and say that this person is at fault for the mere experience of same-sex attractions arising from such a horrific episode? I’m not going to do that.

Moreover, sin in Romans 7:15&23 can be viewed at times as an alien power. At least for those who want to do God’s will. What does Paul say, “If I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who am doing it, but it is Sin dwelling in me.” It is a bifurcated with regards to the inner human, as he puts it on the one hand, and the impulse of Sin operating in human members. It’s viewed there in Romans 7 as an alien power. Now maybe some of you will disagree with me here, but I am convinced that Romans 7:7 & 25 is indeed talking about the experience of a pre-Christian life. Not that a Christian couldn’t undergo a similar experience if they stop operating in the power of the Spirit. But Paul there is defining that as existence before coming to be in Christ.

But now “being in Christ,” which incidentally is not a static concept of being in Christ, but a dynamic concept of being brought under the controlling influence of Christ’s Spirit. So if you say that you are in Christ, but you are not led by the Spirit of God and you don’t put to death the deeds of the body, then you are deceiving yourself. That’s Paul’s view in Romans 8. If you are led by the Spirit of God, he concludes in the whole section that starts in 6:1, then you are the children, the sons and daughters of God. The initial experience of sinful desire of course must be rejected. So if I experience a desire that I regard as a desire to do something that God doesn’t want me to do, I don’t immediately repent of it, because I haven’t done anything. The desire just grew up in me. What am I going to repent of? I am going to repent of an involuntary unconscious urge that arose without being solicited on my part? Am I repenting how am I going to change my behavior subsequently to prevent that from happening?  I can’t, but what I can do is the moment that I experience it is, say, ‘You know that’s a desire to do something God doesn’t want me to do. I reject it.’ And that is the point where culpability or not kicks in. But prior to that point if I am repenting, I am turning from something that I’m doing previously that I ought not to be doing.  But I didn’t do anything; it just happened.

I’m not saying that that means only conscious impulse is sin, because eventually we can be trapped in sin, enslaved by sin, and then our whole thinking process itself becomes affected; in fact, it’s already affected us to some extent from the beginning. But that’ssomewhat different thing from what I am talking about here.

Another point of agreement is that describing one’s self as a gay Christian if one experiences same-sex attraction but wants to remain faithful, we agree that this is counterproductive.  In this, we disagree with somebody like Wes Hill and others who apparently is going to be speaking here in a plenary session. I think there ought to be a rejoinder of some sort, because I have some significant disagreements with Wes Hill on a number of key points. Wes Hill, when talking about gay marriage,said he had “weeping chills” when he saw a same-sex couple getting married. That’s an unredeemed view in my opinion that needs to be addressed. But that’s another talk, for another time, which I will probably never get!

I believe thinking of oneself as a gay Christian promotes an unhealthy spiritual confusion and it shows conflicted loyalties, as their association with the Gay Christian Network indicates. A gay Christian identity is an identity based on disordered desires and that’s incompatible with an identity in Christ. Sinful desire is something that humans feel, it does not define who Christians are. We are to put off the old humanity, not to define ourselves by it. Describing oneself as a gay Christian locks one into a false permanent identity mindset, which I think is inappropriate given the possession of the Spirit. So I think those are three good reasons for not identifying oneself as a gay Christian.

Another point of agreement is that orientation change is possible for some. We agree that empirically speaking, many same-sex attracted persons will not experience major or complete sexual- orientation change. And number three, we agree that change is a broader concept than orientation change. It may be that in God’s eyes, the biggest change possible is when God doesn’t change the direction of your desires. This is sort of like a thorn-in-the-flesh episode, right? Because God says, you know, I don’t have to take away your difficulty or deprivation in life in order for you to recognize that my grace is sufficient for you.  It’s enough. And by me not removing that difficulty in your life– it could be an external difficulty, it could be an internal difficulty–by not doing that, you are still going to have a meaningful, secured, satisfying life just because you know me.  Right?

Used to be, we used grace as a ticket for getting out of the difficult circumstance, but Paul is using it in II Corinthians 12 as a reason for God not taking you out of the difficult circumstance. That’s how great God is, right? We all know that God can take what seemingly is the worst event in human history, namely the Son of God being crucified in a shameful ignoble death on the cross, and turn it into the greatest event in human history that will ever be recorded. That’s the kind of God we serve.  We are all in agreement on this. I guess you’re wondering why we are even here, after awhile!

The goal of the Christian sexual life is not heterosexuality but holiness. I agree with that point. And we could add that the goal of the Christian life is not pair bonding, but purity. It’s no shame for anyone who doesn’t experience sexual-orientation change not to have experienced it, it’s not ultimately up to them. And God can use same-sex attractions, as we noted, to magnify His grace and power.

So there are two kinds of powers that can be demonstrated in the Christian scriptures.  On the one hand are these astounding miracles; people get raised from the dead: all these absolutely amazing things. And on the other hand, it is the great miracle of Paul going around the Mediterranean sharing the gospel even though he is going to be poorly sheltered, poorly clothed, poorly fed, in constant anxiety for all his churches, whipped thirty lashes minus one in the synagogue, beaten by secular authorities, shipwrecked, beaten by robbers en route (“Thanks for that, God! I wasn’t even sharing the gospel, why did that happen?”) stoned, we are not talking about drugs, this is Paul’s regular daily existence.  That he could get up in the morning and continue to share an undiluted gospel, that is a manifestation of power and probably the greatest manifestation of power. In all these things, we are in agreement.

Now we are going to go to some real, more traditional substantive disagreements, and Heath, I am going to quote you right off the bat here. Heath has an article, “What’s Wrong with Reparative Therapy?” Blew me away, Heath, the first time I read it. This is something Heath says with which I will disagree. “The goal of Reparative Therapy is heterosexuality.” I disagree. The Goal of Reparative Therapy® is, actually, the goal is bringing into harmony one’s birth sex with one’s self-understanding, whether or not attractions change. That’s the goal of every reparative therapist I have ever spoken with and read about. He says, “This goal is not one that biblical counselors can embrace.” Well, the one I am presenting which is the actual goal (of Reparative Therapy®) is one which we can embrace.

“The Bible never says that heterosexuality in general terms is a good thing.” I have a little bit of problem with that. I don’t think that is quite accurate; not totally wrong, but it’s not quite totally accurate in my opinion. “The Holy Spirit will not give his grace to pursue goals not prescribed in scripture.” Well, again not totally wrong, but not totally accurate in my opinion.

I do not think any of those arguments negate Reparative Therapy®. God implanted in man and woman mutual desire for each other. That’s clear in Genesis 2:21-24 with the response that Adam gives to the creation of woman. And heterosexual desire clearly facilitates the command to propagate given in Genesis 1:26-28.  We have a whole book of the Bible that is devoted to the beauty of a love between a man and a woman, Song of Solomon. Women are not here interpreted metaphorically, certainly with regard toChrist and the church, it certainly also involves this properly done. And while the Bible does not command people to “have a sexual desire of the opposite sex indiscriminately,” citing from their book, “some attraction for the opposite sex or at least for one’s opposite-sex spouse is generally conducive for marriage,” which I say with a little bit of tongue in cheek. And a verse that they even cite in their book from Proverbs 5:18-19, “ Let your wife’s breast fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.” That is kind of hard to do that if you don’t have any attractions for the other sex.

The heterosexual marital relationship reflects the reality of Christ’s love for the church in Ephesians 5 that is something very significant. Many same-sex attracted Christians would like to be in a God- ordained marriage to someone that they are attracted to. What’s wrong with that? Diminishing homosexual desires also reduces the intensity and difficulty of the daily battle with sinful desires. What’s wrong with that?  Most importantly the sense of gender identity deficit or incompletion in relation to the same sex should be resolved. Insofar as Reparative Therapy® helps with such, What’s wrong with that?

Now I am going to say something about the common reality of homosexuality, all homosexuality, objectively speaking. It is axiomatic that homosexual desire and behavior treats one’s own sex or gender as half-intact in relation to persons of the same sex. Rather than finding one’s sexual complement or counterpart in a person of the other sex by attempting or wanting to unite sexually with a person of the same sex as one flesh, they are making a statement as though their own sex is only half-intact in relation to their own sex, not the other sex. The image of that in effect is instead of the two halves of the sexual spectrum uniting to form a single-sexual whole, you have two half males becoming a whole male, you have two half-females becoming a whole female. That’s the logic of a same-sex union. The desire for homosexual relationships is a misguided attempt to repair the sense of something missing in one’s masculinity if male, or in one’s femininity if female. Even before we answer the question of how we got to this point, that is the problem that is the question that has to be resolved.

I will always remember a story from Nicolosi about a 35-year-old male client that he had. I will read you that story. This is the client speaking: “I recall the exact moment I knew I was gay. I was twelve years old and we were taking a shortcut to class. We were walking across the gym and through the locker room and an older guy was coming out of the shower. He was wet and naked and I thought, Wow! “ Nicolosi speaking here, asked the client: “‘Tell me again exactly what that experience was.’ He became very pensive and then he answered, “ The feeling was, Wow! I wish I was him!’”

That exactly symbolizes the problem experienced by persons with same-sex attractions: the feeling of gender-identity deficit in relation to persons of the same sex, which is remedied by uniting and drawing from those elements in the person with whom one unites sexually. Of course that is the wrong way to go, because that only normalizes the misconception that you are not whole or intact in terms of your own sex. You are, and to think otherwise that God has made you only a half male or half female, is as Paul talks about it in Romans 1:24 to 1:27, passions of dishonor. Because homosexual acts as Paul says, “dishonor their bodies among them,”  treating themselves as only half-intact in relation to their own sex.

And that is by definition a form of sexual narcissism, because you are erotically aroused or attracted by all the elements of your sex that you share in common with that person. Even if you don’t recognize that you share it in common with that person you do, and if you don’t recognize it then it’s sexual self-deception.

Homosexually attracted Christians, contrary to what Wes Hill sometimes states, should not simply wait for their resurrection bodies. They must reform daily the mental narrative of sexual incompletion and of viewing someone who is sexually same… and here I will use the term used by Dr. Hill himself.. of viewing a sexual same as one’s, quote, “significant other.”

Now where does Reparative Therapy® help with this? Even when Reparative Therapy® does not reduce same-sex attractions and/or develop heterosexual attractions, the recipient learns to appreciate the integrity and the wholeness of his masculine self or her feminine self as given to that one by God. “I wish I was Him,” is then replaced by, “God has already given to me what others of the same sex have,” which helps with management of same-sex attractions and a sense of gender-identity inferiority. The purpose of all this is to meet unmet needs of affirmation and affection. That is, Reparative Therapy® helps with that process.

Nicolosi again, citing from “Shame and Attachment Loss”:

“Of course, Reorientation Therapy is a long and difficult process with no guarantee of success. What if the man doesn’t change… will he have gained anything of value? There is far more to Reparative Therapy® than change of sexual behavior and attractions. He can explore past trauma, he can liberate himself for old patterns of shame and self-sabotage, he can grow beyond the emotional isolation and chronic loneliness that have so long limited him, he can develop genuine male friendships without an erotic attachment and he can discover healthier relationships with females even if he doesn’t have a relationship with them sexually. Rather than focusing on sexual-orientation change,” this is Nicolosi speaking, “rather than focusing on sexual-orientation change, the primary work of therapy,” are we hearing this??…  “ the primary work of therapy is to teach the client to relate from a place of authenticity, openness and honesty with regard to his gender integrity.”

There are unreasonable expectations that are placed on Reparative Therapy® I think, by my esteemed colleagues here.

Another unreasonable expectation is that “Reparative Therapy must cure everyone in order to be credible.”  That doesn’t happen with Alcoholics Anonymous or any other form of therapy, so why would we expect it from Reparative Therapy®?

And here’s the key argument they make, which I am going to spend a little bit of time focusing on, which is that “Reparative Therapy as secular therapy denies Christ by replacing redemption with mere moral repair.” A quote from a person who I highly esteem, Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, in comments made in an October 5, (2015) news conference preceding the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors conference on homosexuality. “We don’t think that the main thing that is needed is merely repair, but rather redemption. When it comes to sexuality we do believe that wholeness and holiness can come and will come to the one who faithfully follows Christ. The Christian Church has sinned against the LGBT community by responding to this challenge in a superficial way, i.e., with Reparative Therapy®. It’s not something that is so simple as converting from homosexual to heterosexual, and from our gospel- centered theological understanding, that would not be sufficient.”

Quoting from Heath in his article, “What’s Wrong with Reparative Therapy?”:   “God’s remedy for sin is not therapeutic attunement, but repentant faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” By the way, I am not opposed to repentance in Christ. I made that clear right at the beginning. This is the crucial matter:

“If the core problem of homosexuality is something other than sin, the solution will be something other than the grace of Jesus Christ. This is an unacceptable concession for Christians. The gospel is truly at stake in this issue. Any counseling approach that ignores the importance of repentance and the consequent centrality of Christ as Reparative Therapy does, is not worthy to be called Christian. We should reject Reparative Therapy as an approach to change.”

OK, my response. Reparative Therapy® is not out to replace the Christian faith! And that’s what those arguments seem to imply. Reparative Therapy® does not pretend to have all the answers to all of life’s problems. It simply asking too much of Reparative Therapy®, and it is thinking that Reparative Therapy® is claiming too much. Reparative Therapy® has a specialized ministry which is in no necessary way incompatible with the Christian faith.

Reparative Therapy® actually applies Christian principles of manhood and womanhood. For example, again, Nicolosi in Shame and Attachment Loss: “Gender identity and sexual orientation are grounded in biological reality.” You would think we are reading from Paul in Romans 1 here! Again:

“The body tells us who we are, and we cannot construct a different reality in which gender and sexual identity are out of synchrony with biology. The belief that humanity is designed for heterosexuality has been shaped by age-old religious and cultural forces which must be respected as a welcome aspect of intellectual diversity.” By the way, Nicolosi is Catholic.  He continues: “This viewpoint is not a phobia or pathological fear. Natural-law philosophy says this view derives from humankind’s collective, intuitive knowledge –a sort of natural, instinctive unconscious” and that as a result, “gay identity is a false construct.” Sounds good to me.  Simply calling people to “repent” of their involuntary same-sex attractions is unhelpful.

Again the example is of sexual abuse that I noted earlier. Uncovering experiences in life that create or reinforce a sense of gender incompletion can actually be a positive thing, providing the struggler with insights into why he is closing off the Gospel to this aspect of his existence. All right, we all bifurcate–compartmentalize– our lives in various ways. And we walk around still mouthing the platitudes of the Christian faith, and yet we walk around as wounded warriors because we have not made a connection between the Gospel and whatever specific area of our lives that it is we are having problems in. And sometimes, by going back into a person’s history, you can uncover reasons for why that may be the case– a lightbulb can go off, and you can then not feel so disempowered or unconscious or unaware about the way in which we are blocking the gospel. These insights may help the struggler to lower resistance to the gospel of God’s love in Christ. How can that be a negative?

The Bible doesn’t make a claim to close off further acquisition of knowledge for all time after the Bible was written. Were that the case, all institutions of higher learning would need to close down including Boyce College. Are we supposed to believe that no secular therapy has ever helped anyone? That those counselors who claim to use only the Bible have never used any information not drawn explicitly from the Bible? If you think that, you are kidding yourself.

Again Nicolosi, “It is the work of therapy to undo the shame stemming from perceived deficiency in one’s gendered self…to repair the attachment loss arising from a failure to bond with persons of the same sex,” and to bond non-sexually, “and reconnect the man back to the gendered being he was designed to be.” Who do you think he was designed to be by Nicolosi’s view? God!  How is that anti-Christian?

Conclusion. Descriptions of “Reparative Therapy Heresy” and denunciations of Reparative Therapies (there are actually more than one, really) as “non-Christian” or even “anti-Christian” are not helpful.

Reparative Therapy® should be embraced by Christians, not as a total answer to life, not as an alternative to the Christian faith, but as one valid tool for dealing with same sex attractions. Which again, it does not primarily have in view the altering of the attractions, but the altering of the dissonance between their understanding of their gendered self and their actual gendered self given to them by the Creator.

Finally, the church including Southern Baptist leadership, and I say this with all due respect….I actually love Southern Baptists….but there is sort of a phalynx not even of the whole Southern Baptist leadership, but the leadership for some reason at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and those associated with it. But I talk with many other leaders of the Southern Baptist communion and they don’t agree with that position.

The church should utilize the wealth of experience of Christian ministries open to orientation change such as those within, and here I have to indicate my own prejudices, within the Restored Hope Network, where I served as a member of the Board for many years and helped to found that group when Exodus was imploding. I do not think that the implosion of Exodus was a good thing. I mourned the implosion of Exodus, because Exodus had been a valued ministry that collapsed in light of the lack of doctrinal orthodoxy and fidelity of the leaders.

Restored Hope Network rose up to replace that. And that includes great people like Ann Paulk, Andrew Cominskey, Stephen Black, Gary Ingraham and others who have been shut out from a number of events in Southern Baptist leadership and yet they have years and years of experience working on their own same-sex attraction issues, working in ministries, counseling persons with same-sex attractions, applying some of the insights of Reparative Therapy® in a very overtly Christian context. Why should we leave that whole side of the Church out of this discussion?

I think we do that at our peril.

———

Robert A. J. Gagnon is an American associate professor of the New Testament at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He holds a BA from Dartmouth, a MTS from Harvard Divinity School, and a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is considered “the foremost traditionalist interpreter” on the issue of homosexuality in relation to Christianity and the Bible, and has published several books and articles on the subject, such as The Bible and Homosexual Practice.

“We’ve Lost Our Connection with Nature”

The Interviewer Asks:  Periodically, we see congressional bills being introduced which would prevent therapists from working with clients to reduce their unwanted homosexuality and explore their heterosexual potential. What is your opinion of this?

Dr. Nicolosi:  In introducing this bill, gay-activist legislators present a false argument; they say we use coercive techniques such as nausea-inducing drugs, electroshock, and force. None of this is true. Nor do I know any other practitioner who would work in such a manner.

Instead, we forge a therapeutic alliance with the client in his desire to grow in heterosexual identity. Over time, clients who believe their homosexual attractions do not reflect their true self, are often able to reduce their unwanted attractions and develop a degree of heterosexual attraction, while strengthening their chosen identity as heterosexual men. 

It is not an easy process.  We see– over and over– how trauma has constricted so many men in expressing their natural, gender-appropriate sexuality and stopped them from growing in their sense of maleness. This trauma could have come from sexual abuse; it could have also come from an interruption in the normal, gender-appropriate identification and attachment process.

It is true, some men cannot change, and of course, some do not want to change; if so, we accept them as they are. With such clients, I work on other problems– peer and parental conflicts, work-related issues, anxiety and depression.

Interviewer:  How do you feel about the possibility of a national ban on conversion therapy?

Dr. Nicolosi:  If Bruce Jenner, who believes he is a woman,  can have medical help to amputate his male sexual organs, and if he can get female hormones (which cause all kinds of havoc in his body), breast implants, facial surgery–and have a whole celebrity culture applauding him for finally finding his true self–why can’t a homosexually attracted man explore his heterosexual potential? 

When we applaud the one and prohibit the other, this shows that we’ve lost our connection with nature–  imagining that we can be our own creators and designers.

Transgenderism works against nature–remember, every cell in Bruce Jenner’s body tells us he is still biologically male. Our clients want to live out a sexual identity that is harmonious with biological reality.  

Interviewer:  Based on your experience, knowledge and personal beliefs, what is the impact of conversion therapy to the individual, the LGBT community and the entire nation?

Dr. Nicolosi:  Frankly, it is quite threatening to the gay-activist community; but if they believed in true diversity, not forcing their worldview on others, they would accept the fact that some people believe differently than they do.

Interviewer:  How has your life/work/practice been impacted by conversion therapy?

Dr. Nicolosi:  It has shown me how politicized my profession is, and how far it has strayed from science and from the respect for worldview and religious diversity that the profession claims to uphold.

Interviewer:  How would your practice change with a federal ban on conversion therapy for minors and adults?

Dr. Nicolosi:  I cannot even imagine such a thing happening.   We do not live in a communist country….but we may be headed that way. Our culture needs to wake up and see the Gestapo tactics that gay activists are using. Today it may be my freedoms being infringed upon, not yours; but tomorrow, it could be your freedom at stake. .. That’s an important fact to reflect upon. 

by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.”

–National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy director,
Paul Ettelbrick (Kurtz, 2003)

Today, with homosexuality no longer a disadvantage in many Western cultures, the promiscuous nature of gay men’s relationships is being more openly acknowledged.

In 1948, Kinsey observed that long-term homosexual relationships were notably few.  Now, more than fifty years later, long-term gay male relationships may be more common, but the fact remains that they are typically not monogamous.

In one notable study of gay male couples, 41.3% had open sexual agreements with some conditions or restrictions, and 10% had open sexual agreements with no restrictions on sex with outside partners. One-fifth of participants (21.9%) reported breaking their agreement in the preceding 12 months, and 13.2% of the sample reported having unprotected anal intercourse in the preceding three months with an outside partner of unknown or discordant HIV-status (1).

This study follows the classic research of McWhirter and Mattison, reported in The Male Couple (1984), which found that not a single male pair was able to maintain fidelity in their relationship for more than five years.  Outside affairs, the researchers found, were not damaging to the relationship’s endurance, but were in fact essential to it. “The single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel,” says the authors (p. 256).

The gay community has long walked a thin public-relations line, presenting their relationships as equivalent to those of heterosexual married couples.  But many gay activists portray a very different cultural ethic. Michelangelo Signorile describes the campaign “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely–to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” (1974, p 3).

Research Findings On Promiscuity

In 1968, Hoffman stated: “Sexual promiscuity is one of the most striking, distinguishing features of gay life in America” (p. 45).  A much-cited study by Bell and Weinberg (1978), published by the Kinsey Institute, and often called the most ambitious study of homosexuality ever attempted, gathered its data before the AIDS crisis had begun. This study showed that 28 percent of homosexual males had had sexual encounters with one thousand or more partners. Furthermore, 79 percent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers.  Only 1 percent of the sexually active men had had fewer than five lifetime partners.  The authors concede: “Little credence can be given to the supposition that homosexual men’s ‘promiscuity’ has been overestimated” (p.82).  “Almost half of the white homosexual males…said that they had had at least 500 different sexual partners during the course of their homosexual careers,” (p. 85).

A few years later, Pollak (1985) described sexual behavior among gays as “an average several dozen partners a year” and “some hundreds in a lifetime” with “tremendous promiscuity” (p.44).  He said:

The homosexual pick-up system is the product of a search for efficiency and economy in attaining the maximization of “yield” (in numbers of partners and orgasms) and the minimization of “cost” (waste of time and risk of one’s advances being rejected). Certain places are known for a particular clientele and immediate consummation: such as “leather” bars, which often have a back room specially reserved for the purpose, saunas and public parks. (p. 44)

William Aaron’s autobiographical book Straight draws similar conclusions:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible.  Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to “absorb” masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners].  Constantly the most successful homophile “marriages” are those where there is an agreement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement. [p. 208]

He concludes:

Gay life is most typical and works best when sexual contacts are impersonal and even anonymous.  As a group the homosexuals I have known seem far more preoccupied with sex than heterosexuals are, and far more likely to think of a good sex life as many partners under many exciting circumstances. [p.209]

Emphasis On Sexuality

One writer – who, it should be mentioned, strongly sympathizes with the gay community about the stresses of social discrimination – observes conditions among gay men as follows:

It must be remembered that in the gay world the only real criterion of value is physical attractiveness…The young homosexual will find that his homosexual brothers usually only care for him as a sexual object.  Although they may invite him out to dinner and give him a place to stay, when they have satisfied their sexual interest in him, they will likely forget about his existence and his own personal needs….Since the sole criterion of value in the homosexual world is physical attractiveness, being young and handsome in gay life is like being a millionaire in a community where wealth is the only criterion of value. [Hoffman 1968, pp. 58, 153, 155]

Aging is also viewed particularly negatively in the homosexual culture, with high value placed on youth (Bell and Weinberg 1978).

In his psychoanalytic study of ten couples, six of whom were homosexual, Gershman (1981) observed that in homosexual coupling, “sexuality is of greater importance and plays a larger role.” Gershman found that the majority of male couples he studied had agreed upon an open relationship, as long as the affairs were conducted discreetly.  He found that while the male couples studied were capable of high compatibility in many other respects, there was great difficulty in maintaining sexual interest.

With the exception of the pioneering work of Warren (1974), for many years, little attention was given to long term gay relationships.  When McWhirter and Mattison published The Male Couple in 1984, their study was undertaken to disprove the reputation that gay male relationships do not last.  The authors themselves were a homosexual couple, one a psychiatrist, the other a psychologist.  After much searching they were able to locate 156 male couples in relationships that had lasted from 1 to 37 years.  Two-thirds of the respondents had entered the relationship with either the implicit or the explicit expectation of sexual fidelity.

The results of their study show that of those 156 couples, only seven had been able to maintain sexual fidelity.  Furthermore, of those seven couples, none had been together more than 5 years.  In other words, the researchers were unable to find a single male couple that was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years. They reported:

The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals.  Heterosexual couples lived with some expectation that their relationships were to last “until death do us part,” whereas gay couples wondered if their relationships could survive. (p.3)

McWhirter and Mattison admit that sexual activity outside the relationship often raises issues of trust, self-esteem, and dependency.  However, they believe that

“the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel.  Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together. (p. 256)

Other researchers have also seen sexual freedom as beneficial to gay relationships (Harry 1978, Peplau, 1982).

Yet in reality, there remains a contradictory longing for greater stability. In a study of thirty couples, Hooker (1965, p. 46) found that all but three couples expressed “an intense longing for relationships with stability, sexual continuity, intimacy, love and affection”- but only one couple in her study had been able to maintain a monogamous relationship for ten years.  Hooker concluded, “For many homosexuals, one-night stands or short-term relationships are typical” (p.49).

The desire for sexual fidelity in relationships and the benefits of such a commitment are universal.  In the long history of man, infidelity has never been associated with maturity.  Even in cultures where it is relatively common, it is no more than discreetly tolerated.

Faced with the fact that gay male relationships are in fact promiscuous, gay writers have no choice but to promote the message that monogamy is not necessary.

Redefining “Fidelity”

McWhirter and Mattison believe that gays must redefine “fidelity” to mean not sexual faithfulness, but simply “emotional dependability.”

How can a relationship without sexual fidelity remain emotionally faithful?  Fidelity as such is only an abstraction, divorced from the body.  The agreement to have outside affairs precludes any possibility of genuine trust and intimacy.

A Clinical Understanding Of Gay Infidelity

Gay relationships are typically burdened with each man’s same-sex defensive detachment, and their need to compensate for that same-sex detachment.  Therefore the relationship will often take the form of an unrealistic idealization of the other person as an “image.”  In pursuing the other man as a representation the masculine introject that he himself lacks, many gay men either develop a self-denigrating dependency on the partner, or they become disillusioned because they discover “he has the same deficit I have.”

As he did in relationship with his father, the homosexual man fails to fully and accurately perceive the other man.  His same-sex ambivalence and defensive detachment mitigate against trust and intimacy.  When he becomes disillusioned, he will often continually set his hopes on the possibility of yet another, more satisfying partner.

In seeking out and sexualizing relationships with other males, the homosexual is attempting to integrate a lost part of himself.  Because this attraction emerges out of a deficit, he is not completely free to love.  He often perceives other men in terms of what they can do to fulfill his deficit.  Thus, a giving of the self may seem like more of a diminishment than a self-enhancement.

A man who is depressed may gain a temporary sense of mastery through anonymous sex because of its excitement, intensity, even danger – followed by sexual release and an immediate reduction of tension.  Later he is likely to feel disgusted, remorseful, and out of control.  He feels regretful, regains control and feels all right again.  But when there is nothing to “feed” that healthy state, it will be a matter of time until he gets depressed, feels powerless and out of touch with himself, and seeks anonymous sex again as a short-term solution to getting back in touch and feeling in control.

Often a homosexual client will report seeking anonymous sex following an incident in which he felt ignored or slighted by another male.  Feeling shamed and victimized, he acts out sexually as a way of reasserting himself and getting something back he feels was taken from him.  Once again, he feels guilty and has to repent or make amends.  Many gay men become addicted not just to the sexual release, but to the entire compulsive, life-dominating cycle– if not through overt behavior, then through preoccupation and fantasy.

In these repetitive, compulsive, and impersonal sexual behaviors, we see a focused engagement with the object–with a desire for an intense relationship, but at the same time, a resistance toward genuine intimacy.  Hoffman (1968) describes the “sex fetishization” found in gay life (p. 168), and Gottlieb (1977) points out the strong element of sexual fantasy that has become institutionalized in gay culture.  Masters and Johnson (1979) also found that those fantasies tend to be more violent than those of heterosexuals.

Homosexual attraction is often characterized by a localized response to body parts or aspects of the person, but when interest in these traits diminishes through familiarity, there follows a loss of interest in the person as a whole.  In comparison, “straight” men are generally, in my clinical experience, not as trait-fixated.  While some men may envision their ideal woman as tall, blond, blue-eyed, and large-breasted, we hardly see a distinct disinterest in women without these specific traits.

The Problem Of Sexual Sameness

In homosexual sex, the “body parts don’t fit.” Therefore sex must be “individually enjoyed rather than mutually experienced” (p. 214) by a technique of “my turn – your turn” (p.214) and “you do me, I do you.” (Masters and Johnson, 1979). Where orgasmic episodes are experienced separately, considerable discussion is required for their negotiation.

Sexual sameness also diminishes long term interest and creates the need for greater variety, including other partners (Masters and Johnson 1979).

McWhirter and Mattison (1984)  corroborate this viewpoint, saying, “The equality and similarities found in male couples are formidable obstacles to continuing high sexual vitality in their lasting relationships” (p. 134).

These similarities between two men provide one possible explanation for gay promiscuity. Women are “wired” for nurturance and child-rearing, and a stable primary relationship is necessary for their protection and the protection of their children. Thus a woman introduces a restraining influence into the relationship that two men will never experience.

Indeed, gay-activist social commentator Andrew Sullivan has found that as a gay man matures, his relationships will likely split between those men he is friends with, and those he has sex with, but that the two groups will not likely overlap. Gay men, he says, “have a need for extramarital outlets.” (1995, p. 95).

This “new order” approach advocated by gay activists is part of a general cynicism toward mainstream values and the possibility of monogamy. Churchill, for example, is a gay advocate a and strong critic of Judeo-Christian influence in society. His work in the social-science literature reveals a deep hopelessness about the possibility of enduring relationships, either homosexual or heterosexual:

It may be reasonably supposed that there never was nor ever will be any person who can fulfill all of the spiritual and physical needs of another person.  Hence, husbands and wives alike must spend a good deal of time and effort in artful deception and flattery… They must sustain the illusion upon which their marriage is based and upon which their sexual relationship is justified. [1967, p. 301]

Churchill describes the “dreary” picture brought to mind by the term family man:

It is difficult…to imagine any person who is engaged with the world at large as a family man or a homebody.  It is almost impossibility for any man or woman who is laden with the cares and preoccupations particular to family life to be very deeply concerned with others. (p. 305)

Of the traditional Judeo-Christian family, he says:

Far from being the source of each and every good, it is one source of a great many social and moral evils.  If all the homely virtues are learned in the bosom of the family….it should not be forgotten that many of the more contemptible vices are also learned in the bosom of the family: complacency, jealousy, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, envy, selfishness, rivalry, avarice, prejudice, vanity, and greed. (p. 304)

Conclusion

Although homosexuals do lack cultural supports, such as the freedom in every culture to marry a same-sex partner, I believe this is not the cause of gay promiscuity. I believe the central cause of gay promiscuity is to be found in the inherent sexual and emotional incompatability between two males. Men were designed for women, and when some factor—psychological, biological, or a combination of both—interferes with that wired-in design, the freedom to marry a partner of the same sex cannot change the fact that “something’s not working.”

For additional data, see “Romantic Relationship Difficulties,” (pages 70-71), “Interpersonal Relationships,” (page 80-81) and “Promiscuity as a New Social Norm,” (pages 81- 83), in the Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 1, 2009, published by NARTH, www.narth.com.

Footnote

(1)   Neilands, Torsten B.; Chakravarty, Deepalika; Darbes, Lynae A.; Beougher, Sean C.; and Hoff, Colleen C. (2010), “Development and Validation of the Sexual Agreement Investment Scale,” Journal of Sex Research, 47: 1, 24 — 37, April 2009.

References:

Aaron, W. (1972). Straight. New York: Bantam Books.

Bell, A., and Weinberg, M. (1978). Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Churchill, W. (1967). Homosexual Behavior Among Males: A Cross-cultural and Cross-species Investigation. New York: Hawthorne Books.

Gershman, H. (1981). Homosexual Marriages. American Journal of Psychoanalysis 41:149-159.

Gottlieb, D. (1977). The Gay Tapes. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Stein and Day Scarborough House.

Harry, J. (1978).  Marriages between gay males. In the Social Organization of Gay Males, ed. J. Harry and V. Devall. New York: Praeger.

Hoffman, M. (1968). The Gay World: Male Homosexuality and the Social Creation of Evil. New York: Basic Books.

Hooker, E. (1965). An empirical study of some relations between sexual patterns and gender identity in male homosexuals. In Sex Research, New Developments, ed. J. Money, pp.24-52. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B. and Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.

Kurtz, Stanley, “Beyond Gay Marriage,” The Weekly Standard, August 4 – August 11, 2003, Vol. 8, No. 45.

Masters, W., and Johnson, V. (1979). Homosexuality in Perspective. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

McWhirter, D., and Mattison, A. (1984). The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Peplau, L. (1982). Research on homosexual couples: An overview. Journal of Homosexuality 8:3-7.

Pollak, M. (1985). Male homosexuality. In Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Signorile, Michaelangelo, “Bridal Wave.” In Out, December 1994.

Sullivan, Andrew, Virtually Norman: An Argument about Homosexuality, New York: Knopf, 1995.

Warren, C. (1974). Identity and Community in the Gay World. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Today, if a man such as Bruce Jenner thinks he is, in fact, a woman, he is applauded –  and given medical help to make his body look female. Hormone injections, breast implants, removal of his sex organs and beard – all this is offered by medical professionals who help him identify as the opposite sex. And the media will immediately call him “she.”

What about the man with unwanted homosexual desires? He believes that a gay identity violates his deepest sense of self. Perhaps it interferes with his marriage and his commitment to his children; it violates a higher commitment to his faith; and it does not reflect “who he is” in the truest sense. Instead of being “celebrated,” this man is committing a politically incorrect act. “You ARE gay, whether you believe it or not,” says our culture.

We disagree. “Choice” in choosing one’s identity must go both ways.

Furthermore, let us consider Bruce Jenner’s choice. Yes, it’s his choice to make, but it conflicts with biological reality. The same-sex-attracted man, too, has the choice to define himself…  but his choice is in harmony with biological design.

by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

The American Psychological Association has officially proclaimed that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder.  We do not attempt to challenge their decision. Similarly, many individuals say they are happy identifying as gay, and we do not oppose their right to define themselves, and to live their lives as they wish.

However, some clients come to us with a different understanding of what it means to live out their lives in the most satisfying way. It is to these people– who come to us with their own, self-defined problems in living– that we offer our help.

So then, what is Reparative Therapy®, and why is it so controversial? Opponents of the practice say that it involves shaming the client, causing him to deny his true self, and breaking up family ties. I would like to take this opportunity to explain what Reparative Therapy® actually is.

Equally important, I would like to explain why “sexually questioning” teens must have the chance to investigate all of their options — not just be encouraged by counselors into adopting a gay identity and living a gay lifestyle.

First: The Client Sets The Goals

First, as with all good therapy, Reparative Therapy® never involves coercion. The client has come to the therapist seeking assistance to reduce something distressing to him, and the RT psychotherapist agrees to share his professional experience and education to help the client meet his own goal. The therapist enters into a collaborative relationship, agreeing to work with the client to reduce his unwanted attractions and explore his heterosexual potential.

The foundation of RT, as with all good therapy, is the establishment of the therapeutic alliance. This important alliance is defined as follows: the client and therapist agree to work together toward clearly defined objectives as defined by the client, and those goals and objective can always be redefined. Beyond his determining what he wants from therapy as a whole, the client is further encouraged to explain what his goals are for each session, i.e. to bring into each session his “identified conflict.” In short, the client must always lead.

This collaborative relationship could not, of course, include imposing methods or techniques attempting to “cause” sexual-orientation change — which would, anyway, be quite impossible!– but utilizes four basic methods of intervention. These interventions will result in reducing, and sometimes eliminating, sexual or romantic attractions toward individuals of the same sex. But no outcome can be guaranteed. There must be an understanding from the outset that reducing same-sex attraction and developing heterosexual potential will be achievable along a continuum from complete change, to partial change (management and reduction of the unwanted feelings), to, for some people, no change at all. Some clients decide to return to a gay lifestyle. Others, particularly religiously committed clients, will ultimately decide to accept the persistence of their unwanted feelings but commit to chastity.

Sometimes, the client does not know what he wants, as is often the case with the teenager asked to come into treatment by his parents. In those cases, if the teenager does decide to come in, we agree NOT to work on his homosexuality, and the therapeutic alliance is founded upon some other of the client’s goals, such as managing parental disapproval without family breakup, or dealing with problems of peer rejection.

The Gay-Affirmative Therapist Fails To Ask Questions

The RT therapist does not simply accept at a surface level the client’s sexual or romantic feelings and behaviors, but rather, invites him into a non-judgmental inquiry into his deeper motivations. The RT psychotherapist always asks “why” and invites the client to do the same.

The gay-affirmative therapist, however, typically addresses this clinical material regarding homosexual attractions “phenomenologically” (i.e. accepting the attractions at face value without questioning their origins). This is a highly unprofessional omission.

The RT therapist must go much deeper: he recognizes, for example, that a teen may believe he is gay for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with his core sexual identity. His sexual feelings may be rooted in a need for acceptance, approval, of affection from males, or may reflect his loneliness, boredom, or simple curiosity. He may engage in same-sex behavior for adventure, money, peer pressure; or to express hostility against male peers, or general rebellion. He may also find himself reenacting an early trauma of sexual molestation by another male (Fields, Malabranche and Feist-Price, 2008).

A higher-than-average percentage of homosexually oriented men were sexually abused in childhood by an older male. One study found that 46% of homosexual men compared with just 7% of heterosexual males reported homosexual molestation. The same study also found that 22% of lesbians reported homosexual molestation compared with just 1% of heterosexual women (Tomeo, et.al., 2001). In these cases where the person was molested in childhood, homosexual behavior reenacted in adulthood can represent a repetition compulsion.

Indeed, a teenager may become convinced that he is gay through the influence of a persuasive adult– a gay-affirmative therapist, mentor, teacher, or even his own molester. Such influential adults could succeed in swaying an uncertain youth that homosexuality, is for him, simply inevitable.

Homosexual behavior may also reflect some kind of developmental crisis that has evoked insecurities, prompting the fantasy that he can receive protection from a stronger male. Anxieties and insecurities regarding approaching the opposite sex (heterophobia) may also prompt the search for the perceived safety and ease of finding a partner for same-sex behavior.

Environmental factors such as incarceration in a prison, or living in a residential treatment facility where young males sleep together and are isolated from females, may promote same-sex behavior and consequent gay self-labeling. In addition, gay self-identification may represent a political or ideological statement to the world, as seen in radical-feminist lesbianism in the women’s movement (Whisman, 1996). In short, any textbook on adolescence will acknowledge that homosexual feelings and/or behavior can be seen within the normal (i.e., “not unusual”) range of the adolescent experience.

These and many other examples of homosexuality may appear in adolescence but then discontinue as the teen moves on to adulthood. This is confirmed by studies which show that as these teens get older they are increasingly less likely to self-identify as gay. A study of 34,707 Minnesota youth reported that 25.9 % of 12-years-olds were uncertain if they were heterosexual or homosexual (Remafedi et. al, 1992). In contrast, only about 2 to 3% of adults eventually label themselves as homosexual. This means that approximately 90% of these “sexually questioning” teens could erroneously be identified as homosexual, if they are affirmed as gay by a gay-affirmative therapist, school counselor or an on-campus gay club.

For all these reasons the teenager deserves the right to explore the reasons he thinks, feels, acts or believes he is gay.

Why The Name, “Reparative” Therapy?

Attempts have been made to stigmatize the term “reparative therapy,” and to marginalize those who participate in it. However, the “reparative” view of homosexuality provides a special dimension of understanding between the client and the therapist that can further the client’s goals.

Many gay-identified persons find the word “reparative” offensive: “I don’t need to be fixed, mended or repaired.” Our answer is, “Of course not; no one can ‘fix’ another person. But if you wish to promote your own change, you do have options.”

In contrast to the gay-identified person who is offended by this term, many reparative clients find comfort and reassurance in the awareness that their homosexual behavior may be an unconscious attempt to “self-repair” feelings of masculine inferiority and that such feelings represent an attempt to meet normal, healthy, masculine emotional needs.

For such a client, understanding the “reparative” concept increases self-acceptance and compassion regarding his desire for this unwanted behavior, which previously evoked only confusion, shame and self-hatred. The therapist who adopts the reparative theoretical model will also find a gratifying conceptual link between his work and the rich psychodynamic tradition spanning pre-Freud to the present. This body of literature better informs his work with the client through which he can connect the searching client to an established therapeutic modality.

The term “reparative,” then, conveys an insight about the nature of homosexuality, which is that same-sex attraction may be an unconscious effort at self-reparation. Through this shared perspective, client and therapist collaborate as they probe deeper for a fuller understanding of the client’s experience.

The Four Principles Of Reparative Therapy®

The four principles of RT are (1) the therapist’s disclosing of his own views; (2) encouragement of the client’s open inquiry; (3) resolving past trauma; and (4) education regarding associated features of homosexuality.

(1) Disclosing versus imposing

From the very start of therapy, the RT psychotherapist should disclose his views on homosexuality, not only as a scientist-practitioner but also his views from a personal, philosophical or religious perspective. (The gay-affirmative therapist will also disclose his philosophical views to the client, but from a quite different, gay-affirmative perspective that sees homosexuality as a developmental path that is parallel and equivalent to heterosexuality.) The RT client needs to be clear about the therapist’s understanding of homosexuality as an adaptation to childhood trauma and as often representing a reparative behavior with serious future consequences. At the same time, the therapist must not impose those views on his client, but give him space to explore his own sexual identity and make his own self-determination. The RT therapist (like the gay-affirmative therapist) must not pressure or manipulate the client to believe or accept the same viewpoint as he does. Indeed, the therapist accepts and values the client as a person, no matter what his sexual orientation, behavior or self-label.

(2) Encouraging Inquiry

While the client may be motivated to enter RT to reduce his SSA, the RT therapist does not suggest any techniques that attempt to directly eliminate the client’s SSA. Such attempts never work. Rather, the RT psychotherapist invites and encourages the client to inquire. He is encouraged to ask questions of himself, and to look into his feelings, wants and desires that may lie beneath his SSA.

This brings us to another important rule of RT: The therapeutic alliance must include the mutual understanding that the client can always feel free to disagree with the therapist (Nicolosi,J.,2009).

(3) Resolving Past Trauma

Reparative Therapy® views most same-sex attractions as reparations for childhood trauma. Such trauma may be explicit, such as sexual or emotional abuse, or implicit in the form of negative parental messages regarding one’s self and gender. Exploring, isolating and resolving these childhood emotional wounds will often result in reducing unwanted same-sex attractions.

(4) Education

It is the responsibility of the therapist not to withhold information that can be of use to the client. What the client does with that input is left for him to decide.

The RT psychotherapist is better informed than most general-practice mental-health professionals about same-sex attraction. His educational responsibility consists of three general areas:

(a) Causation. Research shows that same-sex attraction is associated with particular types of negative peer and family experiences (Bieber at al, 1962; Green, 1996). When combined with a sensitive nature in the client, the consequent trauma can have damaging effects on both individuation and gender-identity development. The focus of treatment is identifying and resolving those traumatic experiences (Bieber,et.al.,1962; Greenson, 1968; Tabin,1985; Nicolosi, Byrd and Potts, 2002).

(b) Underlying motivations. There is a substantial body of evidence supporting the understanding of at least some forms of homosexual orientation as based upon disturbances in gender-identity formation (Coates, 1990; Green, 1993; Horner, 1992; Fast, 1984; Coates and Zucker, 1988; Nicolosi, Byrd and Potts 2002). The fulfillment of those needs can reduce, and sometimes eliminate, same-sex attraction (Nicolosi, Byrd, and Potts, 2002).

(c) Health Consequences. As part of his discernment process, the client deserves to know the longterm medical and emotional liabilities associated with of a gay lifestyle, including the common maladaptive behavioral patterns (2). The timing and manner of delivery of these educational opportunities should be determined by the RT psychotherapist’s sensitivity to the client and when it is in the client’s best interest.

All such therapeutic interactions are in accord with the NARTH Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Unwanted Same-Sex Attractions and Behaviors. These guidelines assure respect for the client and offer ethical parameters for treatment and educational interventions.

Endnotes

1. “All the Facts about Youth and Homosexuality,” NARTH, The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, (www.narth.com).

2. Journal of Human Sexuality, vol.1, 2009; see also Winn, Robert, The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, “Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Health Care Providers,” 2012, wwwglma.org.

References

Bieber, I., Dain, H., Dince, P., Drellich, M., Grand, H., Gundlach, R., Kremer, M., Rifkin, A., Wilbur, C., and Bieber T. (1962). Homosexuality: A Study of Male Homosexuals. New York: Basic Books.

Greenson, R. (1968). Disidentifying from mother: its special importance for the boy. In Explorations in Psychoanalysis, pp. 305-312. New York: International Universities Press.

Coates, S. (1990) Ontogenesis of boyhood gender identity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis 18:414-418.

Coates, S. and Zucker, K. (1988). “Gender Identity Disorder in Childhood.” In Clinical Assessment of Children: A Biopsychosocial Approach, Eds. C.J. Kestenbaum and D.T. Williams. New York: New York University Press.

Fast, Irene (1984). Gender Identity, A Differentiation Model; Advances in Psychoanalysis Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 2. University of Michigan: The Analytic Press.

Fields, S.D., Malebranche, D. and Feist-Price, S. (2008), Childhood sexual abuse in black men who have sex with men: Results from three qualitative studies. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14,385-390.

Green, Richard (1993). The Sissy Boy Syndrome. New York: Harper Collins.

Horner, Althea, “The Role of the Female Therapist in the Affirmation of Gender in the Male Patient,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, vol. 20, n. 4, 1992, pp. 599-610.

Nicolosi, Joseph, (1991). Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.

Nicolosi, Joseph, (1993. Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy. N.J.: Jason Aronson.

Nicolosi, Joseph (1993). “Treatment of the Non-Gay Homosexual Man,” Journal of Pastoral Counseling, Vol. XXVIII, p. 76-82.

Nicolosi, Joseph (2009). Shame and Attachment Loss, The Practical Work of Reparative Therapy. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, pp. 23-26.

Nicolosi, J., Byrd, D., Potts, R.W. (June, 2002). “A Meta-Analytic Review of Treatment of Homosexuality,” Psychological Reports.

Nicolosi, Joseph, and Nicolosi, Linda Ames (2002). A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press.

Remafedi, G., Resnick, M., Blum, R. and Harris, L., “Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents,” Pediatrics, vol. 89, April 1992., pp.714-21.

Rekers, George, “Homosexuality: Developmental Risks, Parental Values and Controversies,” In Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, G. Rekers, Ed., N.Y.: Lexington Books, 1995.

Satinover, Jeffrey, B., The “Trojan Couch”: How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science.” National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, http://www.narth.com/docs/ TheTrojanCouch Satinover

Tabin, Johanna (1985) On the Way to the Self: Ego and Early Oedipal Development. New York: Columbia University Press.

Tomeo, E. Marie, et.al., “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 30, No.5, 2001.

Whisman, V. (1996) Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men and the Politics of Identity. N.Y., N.Y.: Routledge.

Zucker, Kenneth, and Bradley, Susan (1995). Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents. New York: Guilford.

Zucker, K. and Green, R., “Psychosexual Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence,” J. of Child Psychiatry, 33, 107-151, 1996.

Back to Papers

by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

In my search for the particular quality of father-son bonding that is fundamental to the development of the boy’s masculine identity, I have been led to a phenomenon that I call “a shared delight.”

I am convinced that the healthy development of masculine identification depends on this phenomenon. This special emotional exchange should be between the boy and his father, although a father figure or grandfather may serve the purpose where no father is available. It is not a single event or one-time occurrence, but should characterize the relationship.

This particular style of emotional attunement is especially important during the critical developmental gender-identity period.

Homosexual men have great difficulty recalling childhood father-son activities that were fun, exciting and enjoyable and included success and achievement for the client– a shared delight. They typically do not have many positive memories of their fathers coaching them to gain a new skill that involves bodily activity or strength. Indeed, many lament this deprivation.

An example of “a shared delight” is found in writer and social commentator Malcolm Muggeridge’s autobiobiography. Malcolm’s father was his hero; and as a teenager, Malcolm would travel to his father’s office in London. When the young man arrived, he noticed an embodied shift in his father:

“When he saw me, his face always lit up, as it had a way of doing, quite suddenly, thereby completely altering his appearance; transforming him from a rather cavernous, shrunken man into someone boyish and ardent. He would leap agilely off his stool, wave gaily to his colleague… and we would make off together.

“There was always about these excursions an element of being on an illicit spree, which greatly added to their pleasure. They were the most enjoyable episodes in all my childhood.”

As we work with men who experience same-sex attractions, we hear that repeated theme–their inability to recall “a shared delight.”

Physical interaction between father and son appears essential in making the father feel familiar, non-mysterious, and approachable in the boy’s eyes.

So much of what lies behind adult same-sex attraction is that deep, lingering, unsatisfied desire for physical closeness with a man. With internalization of the father’s masculinity, there will be no need to sexualize another man.

by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

The client who enters Reparative Therapy® is in the midst of a crisis that is disordering his life. Now, his heart and mind have been opened to the need to look within. His intent is to rid himself of a behavioral problem as quickly as possible, but there will be no quick fixes: to re-order the dis-order, he must first descend into the depths of his deeply felt emotions.

Reparative Body Work

During therapy, he will encounter a course of what we call Body Work. It consists of three phases – (1) the defensive; (2) the core-affective encounter, and (3) a final, integrative phase.

Our client begins the session in the defensive phase, not wanting to face and fully feel the conflict in his life. His state of mind is dominated by self-protection as the therapist attempts to move him beyond his anxiety and into the core-affective phase.

Slowly surrendering his defenses, he will enter into and become overwhelmed by his deepest feelings about his personal struggle. This is the essence of Body Work; while maintaining emotional contact with the therapist, he must fully engage (on a body-memory as well as psychic level) his core-affective state, along with the physical tension responses that retain those feelings.

Then begins the cognitive integration phase, where he attempts to understand how his life history has influenced the behavioral decisions that have brought him into therapy. This is the period of Meaning Transformation, which integrates his life crisis into a larger perspective.

Those three phases of the psychological journey may be understood as a microcosmic sequence of the same personal transformation that is represented in the epic themes of both Greek classic and religious literature. Across time and cultures, the three phases convey the same universal truth about human development.

The client believes his problem is one of unwanted attractions; but as he plumbs the depths of the unconscious, he discovers that his problem is really not so much about sexuality, as it is about everything else – particularly, it is a deeper identity problem.

The Universal Transformative Experience

In the epic poems of the Greeks, the transformative experience shows us a three-phase passage: exile, journey, and the return home. Christian literature portrays the three phases as descent, conversion, and ascent. Old Testament biblical stories depict sin, repentance, and grace. In the Book of Exodus, the great transition is the journey from slavery in Egypt to the Promised Land; in psychology, the slavery is emotional repression and the Promised Land is self-autonomy.

This journey always begins with the warrior (or pilgrim) who must radically interrupt his everyday life to be confronted with a test. Our client, confronting his deepest emotions, like the warrior, will encounter frightening forces which are to be wrestled with and tamed.

Returning Home: The Classic Tradition

In Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Virgil’s Aeneid, we have epic tales of descent into the wilderness, and of progress through purification experiences – ending with a final, glorious ascent. Among the Greek mythologies, the allegory of the soul’s progress is found in Homer’s Odyssey. With the warrior Ulysses, we see a man cast on the ocean and tossed about in a small boat that brings home the lesson of his frail human power.

The Christian Tradition

This same quest to go home, to people of faith, is the struggle toward holiness. Within the Christian literary tradition we see the inspiration of the Biblical stories, foremost of which is Christ’s crucifixion and death; his descent into Hell; and his final resurrection. In the Bible, we see the story of the prodigal son who squandered his inheritance, then returned, chastened, and was ultimately redeemed. Greatest among the Old Testament stories is the account of the exodus from Egypt, vividly describing Israel’s escape from slavery, the perilous desert crossing and fording of the Jordan River, and ultimate release into the Promised Land.

In Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress and St. Bonaventure’s The Journey of the Mind Into God, the wayfarer takes a similar journey. In Dante’s medieval poem, The Divine Comedy, we see the pilgrim traveling into the Inferno, through Purgatory, and then into Paradise. The Divine Comedy portrays the same three phases of interior transformation: descent, conversion, and finally, ascent.

The Journey as Purification

In many of the texts about transformation, the journey is viewed as a process of purification. Successful completion of the process, in Greek mythology, requires the purging of pride (hubris). In religious texts, the pilgrim must purify himself of the Seven Deadly Sins. Within both secular and religious traditions, this purging process is vividly experienced as a sort of “death.”

Reparative Therapy® acknowledges a similar process; we see a death of narcissistic and False-Self defenses with which the client on some level identifies, mistakenly thinking them to represent his True Self. Here, something old (the False Self) must die in order for something new, more beautiful, to be born. Re-birth involves the client’s transformative discovery that life can be lived without those old defenses. When he surrenders the Shame Posture and begins to relate to others through the Assertive Self, he sees his True-Gendered Self slowly emerging.

And always, the journey ends the same way: with a return home to the woman. In all these traditions, it is the feminine who is the giver of life, the mediator of the inner world. Fulfillment of masculine identity – the goal of Reparative Therapy® – now permits the client to receive this once-feared feminine power.