What's the difference between being a defender and an apologist? It may be easier to point you to the supporters of Roman Polanski and David Letterman.
Let's start with the Oscar-winning director first. You surely know that he fled the country more than 30 years ago rather than face sentencing for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. As a consequence, he's never stepped foot on U.S. soil since, for fear of landing in jail.
Well he landed in jail anyway, but just over a month ago in Zurich, and he and his legal team are fighting extradition back to Los Angeles.
Immediately after his arrest, some big Hollywood names - including Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and Harvey Weinstein - rushed to his defense. But you would have thought a saint was about to be burned at the stake. Many decried this as unfair persecution, pointing to his artistry, the grisly death of his wife to Charles Manson's followers, and his survival of the Holocaust as proof that he's suffered enough.
And then there's Letterman. A blackmail plot of a CBS producer thwarted by federal officials revealed he had several affairs with female staffers over the years. This from a man who joked for years about not getting any.
Quite a few celebrities, media commentators and fans thought there was no harm, no foul. All the sex was consensual, so who cares? And they feel that those who attack Letterman are moonlighting as moral police officers.
Well, I'm not one to shake a moral stick at anyone but I think both men's supporters are ignoring some inconvenient truths.
Let's start with Polanski. Yes, a recent documentary showed the judge in his case loved publicity and seemed ready to renege on a plea bargain. However, there's a powerful central truth. He plied a 13-year-old girl with champagne and Quaaludes and had sex with her over her protests.
The same documentary showed the same girl, all grown up, stating she forgave Polanski, has moved on and thinks everyone else should, too. But she also reminds the viewer that...Polanski had sex with a 13-year-old girl, which is illegal.
As for Letterman, a former female staffer (who did not have sexual relations with that man) recently wrote a piece exposing the environment created from Letterman's dalliances. While the staffer never witness anything she'd categorize as sexual harassment, there was indeed favoritism. Apparently, Letterman's girls, many very young and with negligible experience, got plum assignments. Some others employees were uncomfortable but felt powerless to speak up.
Plus, there's the general folly of sex in the workplace (Grey's Anatomy notwithstanding). Can a boss who chooses certain employees for sex really create a fair environment? At the very least, there's a skewed balance of power at stake. At worst, an emotional fallout could make things messy - and litigious.
Polanski may have been made into a monster by some zealots, but his supporters queasily go to the extreme in the other direction. They rhapsodize about the movie Chinatown but they easily ignore that...he had sex with a 13-year-old girl, which is illegal.
And Letterman supporters point out he's an entertainer, not a politician bound to a moral code. True. But he also crossed the sexual line on the job and humiliated his wife (who has been with him for 20 years) and the mother of his child with his unfaithfulness (Letterman himself has noted this).
The apologists need to realize that the only apologies in these cases need to come from the men who affected people's lives with their reckless actions.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Men Behaving Badly
Well, it seems our political husbands have been behaving badly lately. And it makes you wonder. Why are so many policymakers intent on blocking strides to legalize gay marriage when they’re doing such a poor job with marriage themselves?
We have John Edwards, whom I thought was as scalded as he could be in the hot water he brewed for his affair with Rielle Hunter. Remember the good old days when it was only an issue that Edwards merely had an affair with the women in charge of making videos for his presidential campaign and maybe the baby she had was really his?
This past week, a book proposal leaked to the media from a former Edwards campaign worker who claimed that his admission of being the father of the baby was a lie to protect Edwards, the real father. Oh, and apparently Edwards told Hunter that when his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth dies, they will get married in New York and be serenaded by the Dave Matthews Band.
And of course, you recalled South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s moronic dance this summer. He was found to have an Argentine mistress, whom he visited on the taxpayers’ dime. I loved how he called his mistress the love of his life but said he would try to fall in love again with his wife, who bore him four sons. Apparently, she is shopping a book of her own.
Lump those jokers in with fellow adulterous (and Republicans) David Vitter and John Ensign – and throw in Elliot Spitzer’s romp with hookers and his resignation of the New York governorship - and you have a peanut gallery of men behaving badly.
And all of this behavior has made my blood boil, as I think about the gay marriage fight, especially as Washington, DC seems poised to approve gay marriage and is bound to face legal opposition. Let’s not talk about if some members of Congress intervene to kill it.
Why don’t these anti-gay conservatives who are trying to protect the “sanctimony” of marriage throw some criticism at married, straight politicians who don’t seem too concerned about respecting their own marriages?
Inevitably, we will have policymakers at the local and national level like Sanford and Ensign who oppose gay marriage and would deny a right to citizens on “moral grounds,” even while they act immorally in their private lives.
It isn’t merely about hypocrisy. It’s the diehard American tendency to uphold ideals that we don’t always follow personally as part of this idea of creating the greater good for larger society. So even if a politician has a dalliance, he likes to think of himself as protecting the family and moral landscape for the good of the country when he votes to strike down a gay marriage initiative or inhibit a woman’s right to an abortion because it offends his vision of right and wrong.
So when there’s another inevitable scandal, I can’t wait to see if the next stooge has gone on record fighting gay marriage and otherwise preaching moral standards. And he’d better be careful walking to avoid the shards from his glass house.
We have John Edwards, whom I thought was as scalded as he could be in the hot water he brewed for his affair with Rielle Hunter. Remember the good old days when it was only an issue that Edwards merely had an affair with the women in charge of making videos for his presidential campaign and maybe the baby she had was really his?
This past week, a book proposal leaked to the media from a former Edwards campaign worker who claimed that his admission of being the father of the baby was a lie to protect Edwards, the real father. Oh, and apparently Edwards told Hunter that when his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth dies, they will get married in New York and be serenaded by the Dave Matthews Band.
And of course, you recalled South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s moronic dance this summer. He was found to have an Argentine mistress, whom he visited on the taxpayers’ dime. I loved how he called his mistress the love of his life but said he would try to fall in love again with his wife, who bore him four sons. Apparently, she is shopping a book of her own.
Lump those jokers in with fellow adulterous (and Republicans) David Vitter and John Ensign – and throw in Elliot Spitzer’s romp with hookers and his resignation of the New York governorship - and you have a peanut gallery of men behaving badly.
And all of this behavior has made my blood boil, as I think about the gay marriage fight, especially as Washington, DC seems poised to approve gay marriage and is bound to face legal opposition. Let’s not talk about if some members of Congress intervene to kill it.
Why don’t these anti-gay conservatives who are trying to protect the “sanctimony” of marriage throw some criticism at married, straight politicians who don’t seem too concerned about respecting their own marriages?
Inevitably, we will have policymakers at the local and national level like Sanford and Ensign who oppose gay marriage and would deny a right to citizens on “moral grounds,” even while they act immorally in their private lives.
It isn’t merely about hypocrisy. It’s the diehard American tendency to uphold ideals that we don’t always follow personally as part of this idea of creating the greater good for larger society. So even if a politician has a dalliance, he likes to think of himself as protecting the family and moral landscape for the good of the country when he votes to strike down a gay marriage initiative or inhibit a woman’s right to an abortion because it offends his vision of right and wrong.
So when there’s another inevitable scandal, I can’t wait to see if the next stooge has gone on record fighting gay marriage and otherwise preaching moral standards. And he’d better be careful walking to avoid the shards from his glass house.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Enablers
It was supposed to be the moment that Whitney Houston achieved personal, if not career, redemption.
She sat across from Oprah in an empty theater Monday to divulge some unsavory aspects of the last decade of her life when she was at her worst under a haze of drugs and marriage to Bobby Brown. The interview may not have gone as well as Whitney hoped. People have already speculated that she wasn’t completely honest about all the drugs she did. Some thought the whole thing seemed stage-managed for both parties.
But what stayed with me is Whitney as Enabler.
When she was explaining her drug addiction, she said Bobby was the ultimate drug. She was weak with him. He was her addiction. When Oprah asked about abuse, Whitney declared that Bobby was not abusive. But when recounting their life together, she backpedaled.
It seems he “only” slapped her once and shoved her into a wall once (glad that wasn’t a habit, there). Oh and he spit on her – only once. But apparently he belittled her out of professional jealousy and painted evil eyes on their bedroom wall. If that’s not abuse, then what is? But she said everything – the drugs, the appearing very ghetto on Being Bobby Brown – was because she was being the good wife, desperately wanting to please him.
So one of the most popular and powerful women in the history of music didn’t feel empowered enough to leave a bad situation and, what’s more, felt cowed into doing things she supposedly wouldn’t do by a man with a fraction of her talent, wealth, and staying power.
This instantly reminded me of Rihanna another Enabler. After her vicious beatdown by Chris Brown, she was reportedly still seeing him and refused to say a negative thing about him publicly. And did you see Chris Brown’s lame mea culpa on Larry King last week? He was barely apologetic about what he did, refused to give any details of that night or his relationship with Rihanna, and tried to convince America the person that night was not really him.
Now that a judge has forced Chris Brown not to be in contact with Rihanna for five years, I guess she has moved on, if forcibly by law.
Are these women that weak? Are they behaving just as most of us would, convinced our partner “didn’t mean it” and must be supported? But there’s a certain point where accepting certain behavior under the hope of a change or the disillusion of loyalty makes us part of the problem, instead of part of the solution.
A few things have happened in my life personally, where I’ve examined people (formerly) close to me. It’s a battle. One action or even two doesn’t make a whole person. But it’s indicative of character. And there’s a line. Even with forgiveness, there’s a line. These women were clearly dragged over it, although both supposedly are stronger and know better. And one would think the logic they used to choose to stay with their men through the ugliness is faulty.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens again to Whitney, Rihanna, or anyone else. We so easily get sucked into believing things will be better and people will be better.
But we’d better be prepared to act on our own best interests if they aren’t.
She sat across from Oprah in an empty theater Monday to divulge some unsavory aspects of the last decade of her life when she was at her worst under a haze of drugs and marriage to Bobby Brown. The interview may not have gone as well as Whitney hoped. People have already speculated that she wasn’t completely honest about all the drugs she did. Some thought the whole thing seemed stage-managed for both parties.
But what stayed with me is Whitney as Enabler.
When she was explaining her drug addiction, she said Bobby was the ultimate drug. She was weak with him. He was her addiction. When Oprah asked about abuse, Whitney declared that Bobby was not abusive. But when recounting their life together, she backpedaled.
It seems he “only” slapped her once and shoved her into a wall once (glad that wasn’t a habit, there). Oh and he spit on her – only once. But apparently he belittled her out of professional jealousy and painted evil eyes on their bedroom wall. If that’s not abuse, then what is? But she said everything – the drugs, the appearing very ghetto on Being Bobby Brown – was because she was being the good wife, desperately wanting to please him.
So one of the most popular and powerful women in the history of music didn’t feel empowered enough to leave a bad situation and, what’s more, felt cowed into doing things she supposedly wouldn’t do by a man with a fraction of her talent, wealth, and staying power.
This instantly reminded me of Rihanna another Enabler. After her vicious beatdown by Chris Brown, she was reportedly still seeing him and refused to say a negative thing about him publicly. And did you see Chris Brown’s lame mea culpa on Larry King last week? He was barely apologetic about what he did, refused to give any details of that night or his relationship with Rihanna, and tried to convince America the person that night was not really him.
Now that a judge has forced Chris Brown not to be in contact with Rihanna for five years, I guess she has moved on, if forcibly by law.
Are these women that weak? Are they behaving just as most of us would, convinced our partner “didn’t mean it” and must be supported? But there’s a certain point where accepting certain behavior under the hope of a change or the disillusion of loyalty makes us part of the problem, instead of part of the solution.
A few things have happened in my life personally, where I’ve examined people (formerly) close to me. It’s a battle. One action or even two doesn’t make a whole person. But it’s indicative of character. And there’s a line. Even with forgiveness, there’s a line. These women were clearly dragged over it, although both supposedly are stronger and know better. And one would think the logic they used to choose to stay with their men through the ugliness is faulty.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens again to Whitney, Rihanna, or anyone else. We so easily get sucked into believing things will be better and people will be better.
But we’d better be prepared to act on our own best interests if they aren’t.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Measure of a Man
As Bernie Madoff sits in his jail cell reflecting on his 150-year sentence, he may be feeling sorry for more than his $55 billion Ponzi scheme. He may be lamenting that his monstrous felony came from an inferiority complex for his small dick.
How do I know his is small? I don’t, at least from firsthand experience (perish the thought). But that’s a juicy truffle of information that comes from a new book written by his mistress who alleges that his insecurities, including those over his, uh, member, contributed to his reckless behavior.
Sheryl Weinstein, the former CFO of the Jewish women's volunteer organization Hadassah, details her yearlong extramarital affair with the world’s best known (and ugliest) swindler in Madoff's Other Secret: Love, Money, Bernie, and Me. She waxes on his capability of sweet romance, but that will surely be overshadowed by discussion of an un-capability.
Weinstein unapologetically declared publicly Madoff’s poor endowment created issues. (Ya think??) She said in a Time magazine article: “I started doing some research, and it can impact the psyche from a very early age. I really did feel that this was a part of Bernie's makeup, a big part of his psyche. I think it started with feelings of inadequacy, his inability to accept failure, his fear of failure.”
A lot of men, at least those under ten inches, occasionally feel a little insecure about size, probably not enough to commit massive fraud but enough to make it – shall we say – front and center We tie our sense of manhood, masculinity, and vitality in our penis, probably without thinking about it.
We joke about friends who are size queens, but we all are in a sense. Do any of us look for small dicks? No. Just like we think about bulging biceps and six packs, we like to imagine big shafts. They’re hot and desirable, and we automatically assign them sexual prowess, though reality has proven that’s not always the case.
When I look back, it’s funny how some guys I met in person from online were proven to have lied about the size they boldly advertised in their profiles. The really funny thing is that some of these guys were nine-plus inches, yet they lied about that extra inch.
Most of us believe bigger is better. The flip side of it is that if we aren’t up to par – in the eyes of ourselves or others – then we become less than. And it affects our security, self-esteem, and ultimately our relationships if we left it.
I admit I give myself the occasional inferiority complex because of my size. I’ve fallen into the thinking that I would be sexier, more desirable if I were bigger. I’ve imagined if a lover felt the least bit disappointed, especially if I thought he was comparing me to someone else who was bigger. I consider myself to have a healthy sexual self-esteem but I work at it because our culture and my insecurities try to steer me on the wrong path. The funny thing is that at the core, I know better but still.
We place so much disproportionate importance on sex and what’s below the waist to define who we are and what we can be. Women seem to be smarter at it and don't have a similar complex. I don’t think Kim Kardashian wishes she were Dolly Parton.
Somehow it’s easy to be seduced into lazy assumptions of how size translates into manhood. I can imagine that money and power boosted Madoff’s sense of masculinity, and it may have assuaged his self consciousness of what Weinstein has painstakingly detailed for Borders shoppers.
Would people not have lost millions if Madoff was happier with what he had? Maybe not. But Madoff could have been happier, and at least knew having a mistress or a big dick doesn’t make you more of a man.
How do I know his is small? I don’t, at least from firsthand experience (perish the thought). But that’s a juicy truffle of information that comes from a new book written by his mistress who alleges that his insecurities, including those over his, uh, member, contributed to his reckless behavior.
Sheryl Weinstein, the former CFO of the Jewish women's volunteer organization Hadassah, details her yearlong extramarital affair with the world’s best known (and ugliest) swindler in Madoff's Other Secret: Love, Money, Bernie, and Me. She waxes on his capability of sweet romance, but that will surely be overshadowed by discussion of an un-capability.
Weinstein unapologetically declared publicly Madoff’s poor endowment created issues. (Ya think??) She said in a Time magazine article: “I started doing some research, and it can impact the psyche from a very early age. I really did feel that this was a part of Bernie's makeup, a big part of his psyche. I think it started with feelings of inadequacy, his inability to accept failure, his fear of failure.”
A lot of men, at least those under ten inches, occasionally feel a little insecure about size, probably not enough to commit massive fraud but enough to make it – shall we say – front and center We tie our sense of manhood, masculinity, and vitality in our penis, probably without thinking about it.
We joke about friends who are size queens, but we all are in a sense. Do any of us look for small dicks? No. Just like we think about bulging biceps and six packs, we like to imagine big shafts. They’re hot and desirable, and we automatically assign them sexual prowess, though reality has proven that’s not always the case.
When I look back, it’s funny how some guys I met in person from online were proven to have lied about the size they boldly advertised in their profiles. The really funny thing is that some of these guys were nine-plus inches, yet they lied about that extra inch.
Most of us believe bigger is better. The flip side of it is that if we aren’t up to par – in the eyes of ourselves or others – then we become less than. And it affects our security, self-esteem, and ultimately our relationships if we left it.
I admit I give myself the occasional inferiority complex because of my size. I’ve fallen into the thinking that I would be sexier, more desirable if I were bigger. I’ve imagined if a lover felt the least bit disappointed, especially if I thought he was comparing me to someone else who was bigger. I consider myself to have a healthy sexual self-esteem but I work at it because our culture and my insecurities try to steer me on the wrong path. The funny thing is that at the core, I know better but still.
We place so much disproportionate importance on sex and what’s below the waist to define who we are and what we can be. Women seem to be smarter at it and don't have a similar complex. I don’t think Kim Kardashian wishes she were Dolly Parton.
Somehow it’s easy to be seduced into lazy assumptions of how size translates into manhood. I can imagine that money and power boosted Madoff’s sense of masculinity, and it may have assuaged his self consciousness of what Weinstein has painstakingly detailed for Borders shoppers.
Would people not have lost millions if Madoff was happier with what he had? Maybe not. But Madoff could have been happier, and at least knew having a mistress or a big dick doesn’t make you more of a man.
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Lion in Summer
Over these next several days, the newspapers and the TV stations will talk about Ted Kennedy’s lineage, triumphs, scandals, speeches, and most certainly his loving relationship with his wife and his grand role as patriarch to America’s foremost dynasty. Very few are talking about his role as one of the LGBT community’s fiercest supporters.
I’m watching his memorial service live on CNN as we speak. Legions of leaders and celebrities have commemorated what Kennedy has done and what he’s meant. So far (and maybe I just missed it) I haven’t heard anybody talk about his extensive work and unwavering support for gays. It’s too bad that may end up being his most unsung quality.
In a moment to where our president seems to be waffling about his support of us, and when ignoramuses seem to be making a second career of quashing work done for marriage equality, someone as unwavering as Ted Kennedy feels refreshing.
The senator proved to be a brave ally way back in the 80s when he was an advocate for HIV/AIDS, a remarkable thing in a climate when many people, including his colleagues on the Hill, were antagonistic to gays and ignorant of the big disease with the little name. Since then, he repeatedly struck against those, including Jesse Helms, who disparaged gays and actively worked to discriminate against us legally.
Recently, Kennedy had mightily voiced his support Kennedy in 1996 was among 14 senators to vote on the Senate floor against the Defense of Marriage Act. When the Federal Marriage Amendment came to the Senate floor in 2004, Kennedy spoke passionately against banning same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution.
“Make no mistake, a vote for the federal marriage constitutional amendment is a vote against civil unions, domestic partnerships and other efforts by states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law,” Kennedy said. “It is a vote for imposing discrimination, plain and simple, on all 50 states.”
I met him in person very briefly over two years ago when I worked for a nonprofit that sponsored at an event where he spoke about, among other things, income inequality. He was very nice and passionate about what he believed.
He also proudly and consistently identified him as a liberal. He believed in universal health care, eradicating poverty, and equal rights for all. He frequently reached out across the aisle and was even good friends with Orren Hatch of all people. But that didn’t mean he abandoned his beliefs for political expediency or survival. That’s instructive as we watch President Obama concede large swaths of his health care proposals because of protests and GOP disapproval and refuse to curb the sweetheart deals insurers are receiving in this proposal (and receive on a daily basis).
Obama can take a cue from Kennedy over the coming months (or years?) and show us the support of LGBTs that he pledged in the campaign. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and gay marriage are just two topics up to bat. The president has been distressingly quiet on our issues, but he can stand to swallow down a cup of courage and prove his convictions.
The Lion of the Senate has given the Lamb of the White House a lot of lessons to learn.
For a full list of Sen. Kennedy’s leadership on LGBT issues, please visit: http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/08/sen-kennedys-leadership-on-lgbt-equality/
I’m watching his memorial service live on CNN as we speak. Legions of leaders and celebrities have commemorated what Kennedy has done and what he’s meant. So far (and maybe I just missed it) I haven’t heard anybody talk about his extensive work and unwavering support for gays. It’s too bad that may end up being his most unsung quality.
In a moment to where our president seems to be waffling about his support of us, and when ignoramuses seem to be making a second career of quashing work done for marriage equality, someone as unwavering as Ted Kennedy feels refreshing.
The senator proved to be a brave ally way back in the 80s when he was an advocate for HIV/AIDS, a remarkable thing in a climate when many people, including his colleagues on the Hill, were antagonistic to gays and ignorant of the big disease with the little name. Since then, he repeatedly struck against those, including Jesse Helms, who disparaged gays and actively worked to discriminate against us legally.
Recently, Kennedy had mightily voiced his support Kennedy in 1996 was among 14 senators to vote on the Senate floor against the Defense of Marriage Act. When the Federal Marriage Amendment came to the Senate floor in 2004, Kennedy spoke passionately against banning same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution.
“Make no mistake, a vote for the federal marriage constitutional amendment is a vote against civil unions, domestic partnerships and other efforts by states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law,” Kennedy said. “It is a vote for imposing discrimination, plain and simple, on all 50 states.”
I met him in person very briefly over two years ago when I worked for a nonprofit that sponsored at an event where he spoke about, among other things, income inequality. He was very nice and passionate about what he believed.
He also proudly and consistently identified him as a liberal. He believed in universal health care, eradicating poverty, and equal rights for all. He frequently reached out across the aisle and was even good friends with Orren Hatch of all people. But that didn’t mean he abandoned his beliefs for political expediency or survival. That’s instructive as we watch President Obama concede large swaths of his health care proposals because of protests and GOP disapproval and refuse to curb the sweetheart deals insurers are receiving in this proposal (and receive on a daily basis).
Obama can take a cue from Kennedy over the coming months (or years?) and show us the support of LGBTs that he pledged in the campaign. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and gay marriage are just two topics up to bat. The president has been distressingly quiet on our issues, but he can stand to swallow down a cup of courage and prove his convictions.
The Lion of the Senate has given the Lamb of the White House a lot of lessons to learn.
For a full list of Sen. Kennedy’s leadership on LGBT issues, please visit: http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/08/sen-kennedys-leadership-on-lgbt-equality/
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The Path of Least Resistance
Well, it’s officially been sanctioned that it’s harmful to be forced to play for the other team. But it’s not all cheering from the sidelines.
The American Psychological Association earlier this month repudiated gay-to-straight counseling in a report, stating that this reparative therapy actually led to depression and suicidal tendencies. And, by the way, it totally doesn’t work.
When I first heard the news, I let out a whoop. The whole notion of using psychology to “change” someone into something more “desirable” left a bad taste in my mouth to say the least.
Under the guise of helping people, gay-to-straight therapy introduced the patently false idea that orientation – indeed a viable identity – could just be changed for the sake of hewing to a societal norm, whatever that is these days. It also brimmed with the cruel irony that idea that steering someone from something “unnatural” was actually betraying that person’s nature.
It’s good to know that an organization that just 40-odd years ago saw homosexuality as a mental disorder is now advising its members, and implicitly all psychiatrists and psychologists, to stop getting clients to magically turn straight.
However, there’s a fly in the ointment, and it’s a buzzing, annoying one.
In addition to instructing members not to seek to change a patient's sexual orientation via therapy because there is no evidence that this is successful, the APA also issued additional guidelines advising therapists how to deal with a patient struggling with their sexual identity. And these guidelines explicitly state that it may sometimes be appropriate for a therapist to help a client deny his sexual orientation because of his faith.
Basically, if the client still believes that affirming same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.
Oh, yeah, that sounds lovely and fulfilling. I don’t belittle faith as I have it in abundance. But it seems to me this exception is a back door method of placing the conflicted person back in the land of shame. Sure, shrinks no more are saying they can or should change orientation, but they will facilitate making the orientation into an eternal struggle that can’t be fulfilled and is violating the person’s Maker.
So, the APA’s new report isn’t quite the progress it seems on the surface. But at least it helps that you have seen ex-ex gays decry their reparative therapy. And fresh on my mind is the Sigourney Weaver TV movie “Prayers for Bobby,” based on the true story of Mary Griffith, a gay rights crusader whose teenage son committed suicide due to her initial religious intolerance. The story painfully conveys the tragedy of shame and self-hatred of one’s sexuality.
I wonder about those gay men and women visiting their therapists who are no longer pushing the fallacy of an orientation change but aren’t encouraging them to embrace who they are. Those poor folks are in a no man’s land. They don’t even have a team of their own.
The American Psychological Association earlier this month repudiated gay-to-straight counseling in a report, stating that this reparative therapy actually led to depression and suicidal tendencies. And, by the way, it totally doesn’t work.
When I first heard the news, I let out a whoop. The whole notion of using psychology to “change” someone into something more “desirable” left a bad taste in my mouth to say the least.
Under the guise of helping people, gay-to-straight therapy introduced the patently false idea that orientation – indeed a viable identity – could just be changed for the sake of hewing to a societal norm, whatever that is these days. It also brimmed with the cruel irony that idea that steering someone from something “unnatural” was actually betraying that person’s nature.
It’s good to know that an organization that just 40-odd years ago saw homosexuality as a mental disorder is now advising its members, and implicitly all psychiatrists and psychologists, to stop getting clients to magically turn straight.
However, there’s a fly in the ointment, and it’s a buzzing, annoying one.
In addition to instructing members not to seek to change a patient's sexual orientation via therapy because there is no evidence that this is successful, the APA also issued additional guidelines advising therapists how to deal with a patient struggling with their sexual identity. And these guidelines explicitly state that it may sometimes be appropriate for a therapist to help a client deny his sexual orientation because of his faith.
Basically, if the client still believes that affirming same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.
Oh, yeah, that sounds lovely and fulfilling. I don’t belittle faith as I have it in abundance. But it seems to me this exception is a back door method of placing the conflicted person back in the land of shame. Sure, shrinks no more are saying they can or should change orientation, but they will facilitate making the orientation into an eternal struggle that can’t be fulfilled and is violating the person’s Maker.
So, the APA’s new report isn’t quite the progress it seems on the surface. But at least it helps that you have seen ex-ex gays decry their reparative therapy. And fresh on my mind is the Sigourney Weaver TV movie “Prayers for Bobby,” based on the true story of Mary Griffith, a gay rights crusader whose teenage son committed suicide due to her initial religious intolerance. The story painfully conveys the tragedy of shame and self-hatred of one’s sexuality.
I wonder about those gay men and women visiting their therapists who are no longer pushing the fallacy of an orientation change but aren’t encouraging them to embrace who they are. Those poor folks are in a no man’s land. They don’t even have a team of their own.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
One Moment In Time
The NAACP just turned 100 and we’re at a crossroads in more ways than one.
In an address to thousands of civil rights leaders, President Obama marked the centennial of the NAACP by paying tribute to its history but calling on activists to tackle modern-day problems. One of these problems was homophobia, and Obama addressed it head on in his discussion of how the pain of inequality long felt by African Americans is felt by people everywhere.
Obama said: "By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights."
Considering the historical reluctance of the African-American community to embrace gays – not to mention the inherent furor for some that gay rights can ever be mentioned along with what’s traditionally seen as “civil rights” – I can imagine that statement was met with polite applause if not a stony silence by some members of the audience.
But that tide is turning. The NAACP's LGBT Equality Task Force was unveiled at a session that spotlighted anti-gay hate crimes and discrimination in schools, employment and marriage. Even five years ago, you wouldn’t have caught me guessing that LGBT issues would be dealt with directly inside the NAACP.
And luckily there are some who are eradicating this false line between the black and gay world. As the National Black Justice Coalition's "At the Crossroads" reported, black LGBT men and women can be disproportionately hurt by government policies harming gay families because, for example, black same-sex households are nearly twice as likely as white ones to having children.
While the traditional civil rights movement is becoming more gay-friendly, it is also incumbent upon gay rights leaders to be more black-friendly. If there was one thing that the Prop. 8 debacle called attention to is that black and gay leaders were not communicating with each other.
The NAACP’s new president Benjamin Jealous seemed to throw down the gauntlet. In an interview, he said, “If gay rights groups want to change the opinion polls in the black community, they have to invest in it. It’s a long-term conversation. The battle to oppose Prop 8 could have been much better run. They came to the black community late, with the expectation that they were going to get certain results.”
Jealous clearly expects gays to mobilize African Americans instead of the other way around, and that’s not a bad idea. There will be a moment that, despite our different histories, we will see that we’re fighting some of the same battles against larger society. And we’ll remember there are those who are African-American AND gay, and we need to fully acknowledge that.
There’s no reason that moment can’t be now.
In an address to thousands of civil rights leaders, President Obama marked the centennial of the NAACP by paying tribute to its history but calling on activists to tackle modern-day problems. One of these problems was homophobia, and Obama addressed it head on in his discussion of how the pain of inequality long felt by African Americans is felt by people everywhere.
Obama said: "By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights."
Considering the historical reluctance of the African-American community to embrace gays – not to mention the inherent furor for some that gay rights can ever be mentioned along with what’s traditionally seen as “civil rights” – I can imagine that statement was met with polite applause if not a stony silence by some members of the audience.
But that tide is turning. The NAACP's LGBT Equality Task Force was unveiled at a session that spotlighted anti-gay hate crimes and discrimination in schools, employment and marriage. Even five years ago, you wouldn’t have caught me guessing that LGBT issues would be dealt with directly inside the NAACP.
And luckily there are some who are eradicating this false line between the black and gay world. As the National Black Justice Coalition's "At the Crossroads" reported, black LGBT men and women can be disproportionately hurt by government policies harming gay families because, for example, black same-sex households are nearly twice as likely as white ones to having children.
While the traditional civil rights movement is becoming more gay-friendly, it is also incumbent upon gay rights leaders to be more black-friendly. If there was one thing that the Prop. 8 debacle called attention to is that black and gay leaders were not communicating with each other.
The NAACP’s new president Benjamin Jealous seemed to throw down the gauntlet. In an interview, he said, “If gay rights groups want to change the opinion polls in the black community, they have to invest in it. It’s a long-term conversation. The battle to oppose Prop 8 could have been much better run. They came to the black community late, with the expectation that they were going to get certain results.”
Jealous clearly expects gays to mobilize African Americans instead of the other way around, and that’s not a bad idea. There will be a moment that, despite our different histories, we will see that we’re fighting some of the same battles against larger society. And we’ll remember there are those who are African-American AND gay, and we need to fully acknowledge that.
There’s no reason that moment can’t be now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)