I've seen lots of assertions that it's a "myth" that gays and lesbians try to recruit others into homosexuality. (See, among many other examples, here and here.) Yet it seems to me that this assertion of "myth" is likely itself something of a myth, or at least quite incomplete.
I rather doubt that many gays and lesbians harbor hopes that many heterosexuals will "become homosexual." That just isn't likely to happen, and I doubt that gays or lesbians make plans around it. Moreover, it may well be that you can't really change a person's sexual orientation, in the sense of whom the person is attracted to. (I'm not sure whether that's right, but I'm willing to assume it for purposes of this post.)
But sexual orientation is not the same as sexual behavior. In particular, people who are at least in some measure attracted to both sexes may be seen as having a bisexual sexual orientation, but they may choose to behave heterosexually, homosexually, or bisexually. And in fact, it appears that the majority of men — and nearly all women — who are at least in some measure attracted to the same sex are also at least in some measure attracted to the opposite sex:
| Sexual attraction | Among men | Among women |
| Only opposite gender | 93.8% | 95.6% |
| Mostly opposite gender | 2.6% | 2.7% |
| Both genders | 0.6% | 0.8% |
| Mostly same gender | 0.7% | 0.6% |
| Only same gender | 2.4% | 0.3% |
| Time frame in which the person has had some same-sex partners | Fraction of male respondents (the ones who had some same-sex partners) who had partners of both sexes | Fraction of female respondents (the ones who had some same-sex partners) who had partners of both sexes |
| In the last year | 25% | 25% |
| In the last 5 years | 50% | 60% |
| Since age 18 | 80% | 90% |
The gay rights movement has aimed — in my view, on balance quite laudably — to make homosexuals feel more comfortable with their homosexuality, and to help people who are attracted to the same sex be more willing to act on that attraction. But it follows that the movement also necessarily, and I suspect intentionally, also helps people who are attracted to both sexes be more willing to explore the homosexual facet of that attraction. It thus increases the likelihood that the bisexually-attracted people who would otherwise engage in purely heterosexual relationships (because of fear of social stigma, or because of their own disapproval of their homosexual attraction) will instead be also willing to engage in some homosexual relationships.
If I'm right, the movement thus is trying to convert those who have a bisexual orientation but act purely heterosexually — or would act purely heterosexually, if we're talking about people who haven't started having sex yet — into also experimenting with homosexuality. This doesn't mean that most gays and lesbians are trying to do this to particular people up close and personal; there are obvious costs to that, such as the risk of rebuff if you get the other person's interest wrong, or the risk of quick abandonment if the other person is interested in experimenting but then concludes the experiment has been a failure from his or her point of view, so many gays and lesbians might well prefer partners who have a more definite homosexual preference. But there are many actions that might go into this sort of "conversion" (if only a conversion into a mix of homosexual/heterosexual behavior, and a conversion that in many cases will end up proving to be only temporary): Providing oneself for the actual sexual behavior is one, but so is public action to destigmatize homosexual behavior, or to provide positive homosexual or bisexual role models, something that for perfectly understandable reasons many gays and lesbians are indeed trying to do.
To further illustrate this, ask yourself: How would most gays or lesbians who believe that homosexuality is perfectly proper respond to these questions?
(1) A person who has had only heterosexual experiences is feeling some homosexual attraction. Should he or she experiment with homosexual relations to see if he or she finds them more rewarding, or at least a valuable facet of his or her future sex life (assuming this wouldn't constitute infidelity, that it's done with the proper protection against disease, that it's done with the right person, and so on)?
(2) Should gay rights groups try to change society so that such experimentation is less stigmatized?
(3) Should gay and lesbian friends of this person urge the person (of course, sensitively and without browbeating) to experiment, and to see if — given that he or she feels at least some same-sex attraction — he or she might indeed find same-sex relationships more rewarding?
(4) If this were a friend of yours to whom you were attracted, you knew that he or she felt at least some same-sex attraction, and you weren't worried about the emotional risk to yourself, would you consider having you be the person with whom the friend experiments? (Again, assume that neither of you is otherwise committed, the approach would be suitably sensitive, and so on; naturally, even sexual behavior that's perfectly proper in the abstract can be made wrong if done under the wrong circumstances.)
(5) Do you think that older teenagers (say, 16 and above) should have out-of-the-closet gay, lesbian, and bisexual role models so that those of the teenagers who feel some same-sex attraction would feel more open to experimenting to see if same-sex relationships will be more rewarding to them than opposite-sex relationships? (I'm not asking about sexual experimentation with the role models, but rather about the role models' presence making the teenagers more comfortable with their same-sex attractions.)
I suspect that most gays and lesbians who think homosexuality is proper would say "yes" to most or all of these questions. I know that if I were a heterosexual in some hypothetical future overwhelmingly homosexual society, and I were asked similar questions about "converting" people who were open to heterosexuality but had so far had only engaged in homosexual behavior into practicing bisexuals or heterosexuals, I'd say "yes." If you think some behavior can be proper and, for some group, very rewarding, you would naturally want people who aren't sure whether they fall into that group to try it out.
And if that's true, then gays and lesbians (though not necessarily each gay and lesbian) are trying to get others who have been behaviorally heterosexual, but who might be open to homosexual behavior, to try homosexual behavior. They almost certainly don't see all heterosexuals as likely converts. But they probably do think (with good reason) that some fraction — a substantial fraction compared to the number of pure homosexuals — might well be willing to change behaviors, especially if they are made to feel right and welcome in doing so. And, yes, that would include teenagers as well as fully grown adults. If most people think the age of sexual consent should be around 16 (the legal norm in the country), then I doubt that most gays and lesbians would think that it's wrong to encourage 16-year-old boys and girls who have some same-sex attraction to experiment with that attraction.
Now, as I've suggested, I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about such attempt to convert people away from purely heterosexual behavior, if they are interested in homosexual behavior, and of course if the "conversion" is done without force, imposition on those who are genuinely too young to decide, and so on. If it weren't for the disproportionate and grave health danger from male homosexual activity, I'd think such encouragement to explore which relationships give people the most happiness would be positively quite good. (Yes, I realize that the danger can be reduced by not engaging in anal sex, always using a condom, not having sex with a partner unless he's been tested and had not had sex for some months before the test, and so on. But most people are not nearly this cautious, and the reality thus remains that, given the vastly disproportionate prevalence of HIV among gays in America today, the greater risk from anal sex, a practice that for understandable reasons many male homosexuals do not want to forego, and the notorious difficulty with getting people to actually practice safe practices — whether aimed at preventing disease or conception — the fact remains that experimenting with male homosexuality is dangerous activity.) Given this danger, I'd prefer that men with bisexual orientations who can be happy with women not experiment with men; but that's a judgment about medical risk, not about the inherent morality of "conversion" attempts, and in any event it doesn't apply to lesbianism.
Nonetheless, if I'm right, then I don't think we should deny that the gay and lesbian movement does aim in part at "converting" people who have a wholly or partly bisexual orientation from a purely heterosexual behavior pattern to one that involves at least some (initially experimental) homosexual behavior.
UPDATE: A bunch of commenters think I shouldn't use the word "convert," for various reasons. The reason I'm using it is that I'm responding to an alleged "myth": People claim that it's a "myth" that gays and lesbians try to convert or recruit others, and I am arguing that this "myth" claim is "likely itself something of a myth, or at least quite incomplete." If you prefer to describe this not as "converting," but as something else (e.g., "influencing the person to change his practices"), that's fine. But if my analysis above is right, then one still shouldn't deride claims of conversion as "myth," even if one thinks that the word is slightly imprecise or has a bad connotation.
But in any event, it seems to me that the term is fine. It is hardly inherently pejorative: Changes in religious beliefs and practices are called conversions, and if people view them negatively, they do so because they disapprove of the new belief or practice, not because they disapprove of "conversion."
And it's also quite sensibly applied to changes in behavior (especially behavior that many people find important to their felt identity) and not just changes in some supposed inherent nature. If you persuade someone to become a vegetarian, you can be said to have converted him to vegetarianism. He's still biologically an omnivore, but his practices are now different. Likewise, changing someone from (a) being an orientational bisexual who engages solely in heterosexual relationships to (b) someone who is an orientational bisexual who engages solely in homosexual relationships, or to (c) someone who is bisexual both by orientation and practice strikes me as quite rightly called a "conversion."
Related Posts (on one page):
- Those Who Sincerely Wonder Whether My Posts Are Motivated By Anti-Gay Animus
- Sssh! We're Not Supposed To Be Talking About
- Dangerousness of Male Homosexual Activity:
- One More Final Post on Sexual Conversion:
- Gays and Lesbians and Golf:
- One Last Thought on Conversion and Sexual Orientation:
- Why Wouldn't Gays and Lesbians Want the Bisexually Oriented to Experiment with Homosexual Behavior?
- Response to Eugene's Post on Gay "Conversion":
- Gays and Lesbians Trying to Convert Others to Homosexual Behavior:
I'm not sure how typical my response would be - I suspect that there are more than a few doctrinaire types who would agree with this construct (and I suspect they would be disproportionately young, or recently out, or both). But I'd bet that my views are of a majority. Too many of us have sat through tedious conversations with family and friends who, with various levels of good intent, ask us how we can know that we haven't found the right person-of-the-opposite-sex. I don't think many of us would be willing to inflict the same conversations on others.
All that your post suggests (accurately or otherwise) is that homosexuals might want to have people who are already inclined to behave in a homosexual fashion (because they have the desire to do so) to follow that inclination/desire. This is hardly a "conversion" in the sense that the people who subscribe to the oft-critiqued myth of conversion seem to be advocating.
It's the difference between entrapment and not-entrapment: we don't say that the police have entrapped someone who already has a tendency to do the act, just as we don't say the gay rights folks have converted someone who already has a tendency.
So I think you're misusing a word with unnecessarily negative connotations (no matter that you deny the connotations, the word still has them) when you attempt to redefine this behavior as "conversion."
Paul: I don't think there are negative connotation to "conversion" as such. Religious conversion, for instance, is quite neutral; likewise for conversion as to sexual behavior. Naturally, one could disapprove of particular conversions -- Catholics, for instance, would probably like conversions to Catholicism and not conversions from it, and people who oppose homosexuality would dislike conversion to homosexual behavior but would like conversion away from it. But the negative meaning is not in the word "convert"; it comes in one's judgment about the merits of the conversion.
As to whether conversion means change in quality or character rather than behavior: It seems to me that it can mean both, even in the religious context.
Other than to listen, comfort and share my own experience with my sexuality, I have no idea how to respond and it is heartbreaking to witness the internal turmoil he is experiencing.
Based on my own experience over the years (I'm single and am free to have sex whenever and however I wish) I have come to recognize that our culture has eroded the purpose of sex by reducing it to simply an act of pleasure. Yes, sex is pleasurable but this is not it's innate natural driven purpose.
Personally, having lived a number of years simply engaging in sex as a means for pleasure has actually brought to my life a great deal of misery.
I am of the first generation of the sexual revolution born from the late 60's into the 70's and personally, I find the entire experiment to be a complete failure. Margaret Sanger's philosophy, much of what inspired radical American feminism in the 60's/70's, is that sex is all about pleasuring one's self and forget about your womb's ladies however to live such a philosophy brings about no real pleasure at all and is completely devoid of human intimacy.
This (mis)use of the word "convert" will not be lost on those whose hostility the gay community fears most -- rabid religious fundamentalists, especially those who feel they themselves can "convert" gay and lesbian people into being straight. "Conversion" implies a permanent reorientation of, say, religious belief or sexual activity. After all, Christians celebrate when a Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah but hardly mention those Christians who, um, go the other way. (And there must be some, even if the number is comparatively smaller.) Likewise, if these people believe that gay and lesbian people can be converted into straight people, pointing out how gays and lesbians are attempting to "convert" straight people simply ignites their moral indignation. Theirs is religiously motivated hostility; yours, Professor, is merely an empirical observation. I don't trust them to keep the two distinct.
You say, "If I'm right, the movement thus is trying to convert those who have a bisexual orientation but act purely heterosexually — or would act purely heterosexually, if we're talking about people who haven't started having sex yet — into also experimenting with homosexuality." You mean, of course, "experimenting with homosexual behavior." You're not saying that the movement is saying, "hey, come join our team," but rather that it is saying, "it's okay to act on these desires if they arise for you, and there are others out there who do this as well." Calling that latter message an attempt at "conversion" doesn't quite capture it. It is more accurately an attempt to reduce stigma and increase freedom of behavior. Unfortunately, I can't think of a single word that captures that idea. Maybe someone else can?
Let's face it. The only people actively trying to "convert" people to their brand of sexuality are HETEROSEXUALS. The whole ex-gay movement is a conversion movement. Of course it doesn't work, but that's another matter altogether.
I really think you need to meet some real live gay people and talk to them before posting crap like this. And it is crap. It's based on absolutely zero evidence except what you "hypothesize" to be true.
And your hypothesis and assumptions are completely wrong. I'm gay and I couldn't give a crap if someone is having gay leanings. Whether or not they care to act on those feelings is not my business. But if they are gay, they should not feel like they should have to hide in the closet. And they should not be discriminated against.
My friend just ran into a closeted friend in a gay bar. The closeted friend was all embarrassed and worried that he would be outed. My friend said not to worry and he wouldn't say anything. The other friends said he thinks he's bi, and maybe he's not really gay, etc. My friend, who thinks the guy is definitely gay, responded by saying "yup. maybe you're bi. you should date girls to find out, as maybe you're straight." Of course, my friend realizes that that once the other guy tries to date girls, he'll realize that nope, he's not straight and he really is gay. Exactly has happened with most gay people (if you bothered to talk to them of course - you'd know this).
So your whole argument goes out the window. Because it's based on your bigoted assumptions. Not facts.
And as you stated previously, the whole notion of bisexuality is probably very, very small, if it exists at all.
Did you attend Church or something yesterday, which is inspiring you to write this junk? This really is beneath you.
My sense is that Eugene's right, and I read both "should" and "convert" (in the post) in the senses that his comment endorses. I wonder how fair it is to characterize this as "trying to convert others" given the connotations THAT phrase has taken on, though. When Christians "try to convert others" that is usually taken to mean organized, intentional programs to bring others into one's faith. It might include a "come to a service, see how you like it" component, but the underlying belief is that your church is the correct one, and anything other than joining it is an error.
I believe relatively few homosexuals/lesbians feel that way about their inclinations, despite a very loud effort by people opposed to "the homosexual agenda". Eugene does a good job of *explaining* how such a situation has evolved, and the mindset on the "pro-homosexual side". But I fear the terminology has by now gotten poisoned, and we'll have to come up with something more neutral-sounding.
Does it make any difference to your answer whether or not I myself smoke pot?
I would say "no" and "no."
If you don't believe me, check out the stats for HIV rates for black men vs. white men. It's extremely tough to be gay in the black community, which is why so many gay black men have sex on the "down low", i.e. in the closet. Out gay men are much more likely to have stable, monogomous relationships. But if you're hiding the fact that you're gay, you're much more likely to have one-night stands, etc., which is much riskier. It's hard to have a monogomous relationship and keep it hidden from all of your friends and families, etc.
Also - you conviently forget that HIV rates for lesbians (remember them) are lower than the rate for heterosexuals. So you're argument falls apart there as well. Should we discourage people from being lesbians, because the HIV rate for gay men is higher? Huh? That argument makes zero sense.
Amusingly, this is an utterly stereotypical comment from the gay perspective. Most het people I've spoken to don't care much about bisexuality, or they view it the same way they do homosexuality. Gays, on the other hand, much more universally condemn the very concept of bisexuality, at least in my reading and conversations. Most boil down to "it doesn't really exist". Which is odd, as both my wife and my best friend are bi.
It's true that we probably wouldn't say, except jokingly, that someone has been converted to eating asparagus; I suspect that changes in behavior would rarely be called "conversions" unless they are changes in something that's pretty important, and that's relevant to many people's conceptions of their own identities. That's true of vegetarianism, and I think it's also true of homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual practices.
Anderson: If you don't just favor decriminalizing pot, but think that for many people pot is a really important way of becoming happy, and that denying one's desire for pot is likely to be emotionally stultifying, then I'd think you would want people to at least try smoking pot, especially if they already have some reason to think that they'd get a lot of happiness out of it.
"You converted to Catholicism."
"I converted you to Catholicism."
The latter seems (to my ears at least: I don't know that there's any empirical evidence) to suggest the use of some force or improper practice. For example, compare:
"I convinced you that Catholic doctrines were true."
"I converted you to Catholicism."
Again, the second seems more imposing.
Likewise, we can create two very different sentences by comparing
"I convinced you to stop repressing your homosexual desires."
"I convinced you to act on your homosexual desires."
"I converted you to homosexuality."
Even though those last three sentences, on your argument above, would or could be equivalent, the second sounds rather dramatically worse, more forceful, more imposing than the first two.
As for the use of the word "convert" to mean "change in character" rather than "change in behavior," I think it might be helpful to look at how those who are against homosexuality use the word in the opposite direction. When they speak of their intent to "convert" gays into straight people, they do not speak of a mere change in behavior, of stopping the homosexual conduct. Rather, they speak of a change in something more internal -- something with a first person ontology rather than a third person ontology we might say -- changing the presumably more innate desires.
For example, this fellow describes his experience as follows (if the Post's characterization is accurate):
"Cohen said the man served as a mentor, enabling him to forgive his father, relinquish his guilt about being molested and rid himself of same-sex attraction."
This isn't stopping behavior, it's changing orientation.
Of course, the waters are muddied by the fact that the anti-gay groups maintain largely that homosexuality is non-biological, thus, for them, there would be no difference between changing either to or from homosexual behavior and changing to or from homosexual natures. Still, it seems that the "converting" accusation is one of creating homosexuals, not manifesting them.
Hmm. Downtown Lad, perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems to me that this response, rather than disagreeing, expresses complete agreement with Professor Volokh's point. I don't see how encouraging someone to try dating women to see if you're really bi or heterosexual is so different from encouraging someone who has only had heterosexual relationships previously to try having a homosexual relationship if he is unsure or has questions. People who are comfortable with both homosexuality and hetereosexuality will encourage people to be willing to date either men or women and to experiment with sex with either. If your friend is willing to tell someone who is unsure about whether he really is gay to try dating women, would he not also tell someone is who unsure about whether he really is straight to try dating men? (Whereas certainly people who disapprove of homosexuality would not suggest the latter, though they would suggest the former.) Why is suggesting that the latter would occur homophobic?
Downtown Lad: My argument would fall apart, if it had been as you had read it. But I'm afraid you misread it: I wrote "Given this danger, I'd prefer that men with bisexual orientations who can be happy with women not experiment with men; but that's a judgment about medical risk, not about the inherent morality of 'conversion' attempts, and in any event it doesn't apply to lesbianism."
As to HIV in-the-closet/out-of-the-closet danger, you may well be right; but, again, please read closely my assertion: "Given this danger, I'd prefer that men with bisexual orientations who can be happy with women not experiment with men; but that's a judgment about medical risk, not about the inherent morality of 'conversion' attempts, and in any event it doesn't apply to lesbianism." If someone can be happy with women, and doesn't experiment with men, he's safer than if he does experiment with men. I'm not suggesting that he experiment with men but stay in the closet -- I'm suggesting that he not experiment with men. And because that latter option is much less feasible for men who can't be happy with women, I explicitly limited my claim to men who can be happy with women.
Whether or not homosexuality is genetically determined, my gay acquaintances have all assumed as much. So they would laugh off the "conversion" suggestion, though "oh, *I* could change him!" remains a common laugh-line.
If I think that people with gay preferences can and should feel free to realize same in their sexual practices, that just isn't "conversion" in any meaningful sense. To "convert" is to change a not-A into an A.
Whereas unless vegetarianism or, um, carnivorism(?) is likewise determined, no one just *is* a vegetarian; it's an optional belief to which one may be "converted."
Gays, on the other hand, much more universally condemn the very concept of bisexuality, at least in my reading and conversations. Most boil down to "it doesn't really exist". Which is odd, as both my wife and my best friend are bi.
I think that this does relate to Professor Volokh's post. If true bisexuals exist, then efforts to stigmatize homosexuality have at least some potential payoff for those who do so, disapproving of homosexual behavior-- discouraging bisexuals from experiencing and getting them to ignore their homosexual attractions in exchange for heterosexual relationships. The existence of a continuum of orientations also seems make the idea of people changing their orientation more possible than a binary hetero/homosexual divide. If bisexuality does not truly exist, then that makes stigmitizing homosexuality even more pointless than it current is.
I don't think I am saying anything new here. What I am saying is that a study is a waste of time, and I'm sure tax money was wasted somewhere here to tell us what we should already know.
I won't get into all the reasons I don't think the post was homophobic. I just wnat to point out how your last post sems to misread what Eugene wrote. Eugene does not say we should discourage people from being Gay because of HIV (which you post seems to suggest). He states that if Gays are trying to persuade people on the fence to engage in homosexual activity and if this persuasion were done without force, etc. he sees that as an overall positive thing. The only downside he could think of was the increased risk of HIV among male homosexuals. A downside tha is undeniable but nowhere does Eugene imply that it outweighs the good. Thus, A) he isn't arguing that it is bad to encourage people to be gay because of HIV and B) he didn't forget about lesbians as you post implies, he doesn't mention them because (as you note) lesbian activity doesn't have the same risk of HIV.
Conversely in politics the point is to take known phenomenon and put your phrasing on to it. The whole point is to use phrases whose baggage hints at something else.
I agree with many of the commenters here that "convert someone" carries a lot more baggage and doesn't at all mean what Eugene is defining it to me. The scholar in me doesn't mind, so long as he is precise. But the political part of me recoils in that the practical affects of saying something like "gays really are trying to convert your kids" has nothing to do with this precise meaning.
John - No. The point is that most gay people don't feel like it is their job to bring someone out of the closet. They basically feel that it is best if the person figures it out on their own. If this guy thinks he's bi, then fine, let him think that. He'll eventually figure it out.
I came out in my thirties, quite late. I had about three friends that are gay men and I hadn't told them I was gay. When I finally came out, they said "yeah - we had known all along.". They never tried to convert me. They never hinted at it previously. Because all gay men know that coming out is one of the most difficult processes one goes through. And everyone has to do it on their own terms.
It's funny though, because once I came out, about five straight people I know actively tried to convert me back to heterosexuality, practically begging me to attend ex-gay seminars, threatening to cut off any contact with me if I didn't, etc. And then following through on that thread when I said I was comfortable being gay and would not (could not) change.
Like I said - it's the heterosexuals who are the recruiters, not gay people. If you'd actually sit down and talk to a real live gay person, you'd get a similar story.
When we see a potentially valid point made with evidently inflammatory language, we wonder whether the objective was the point itself, or the inflammation.
Myself, giving Prof. V. the benefit of the doubt, I think he enjoys the exercise of arguing against the conventional wisdom, and that his use of the "conversion" terminology derives therefrom, not from any desire to stir people up against gays.
Which reminds me of the criticism one hears directed at Nietzsche, that words have consequences and one should be conscious of the unintended consequences of one's rhetoric. I never thought this was a fair criticism of N., so I would be hypocritical to apply it to Prof. V.
The implication with conversion is that homosexuality is not immutable. It has nothing to do with being a positive or negative connotation.
As if its a simple choice like cutting out hamburgers in favor of tofu.
The bisexual thing is a non-starter. You would find a tough time finding a gay person who was happy to find out they were gay at first. No amount of acceptance by society will change that. Nobody wants to be in a minority if they don't have to. So I think it's inevitable that the vast majority of gay people will deny to themselves that they are gay at first. Then they will say that maybe they are bi and start dating women. Eventually they'll realize they are gay (unless they really are bi). But yes, in the meantime, there certainly are greater risks for women who date bi men unknowingly.
As for whether bi people exist - I don't know. But I thought the scientific study says that they don't exist was quite interesting. And it goes hand in hand with what I've experienced. Most gay people claim to be bi at first. I had myself convinced that I was bi. But I never was. But hey - if people claim they are bi - I will support them 100%.
To "convert" someone who IS gay means to change who they are. To "convert" someone to the act of engaging in homosexual behavior is much less offensive.
I really don't mean to start an argument on which viewpoint is right, but I have a pretty good idea that Mr. Volokh and those who pounced on his terminology disagree on this point.
1. If someone's history is heterosexual-only, but that person is feeling homosexual attraction, I think that that person *should,* for his/her personal/emotional health, etc., do something to figure out the source/depth of the homosexual attraction, rather than trying to repress it. (Although, one thing that the person could do is try to repress the feelings and see if they come back). I don't think that sexual experimentation is necessarily the way to go about it, for health/moral reasons (here, my objection is to promiscuity, not homosexuality), but some sort of introspection is in order.
2. Following #1, I think that gay rights groups would do well to encourage introspection of some kind rather than repression as the appropriate response when one feels homosexual attraction.
3. I don't know. I think that a person's friends, whether gay or straight, should support and listen to a person who feels homosexual attraction, and only encourage "experimentation" with same-sex relationships if that seems to be right for the person feeling homosexual feelings (in light of that person's particular circumstances --- not all instances of homosexual attraction need to be followed up by experimentation). I think it depends on the person and shouldn't have anything to do with "recruiting."
#4 and 5 -- I think I'd have to be gay to give a decent response to those questions.
I think that the fundamental point that comes out when you ask those questions is "what is the appropriate response when a person with heterosexual-only history feels homosexual attraction?" And I think that the proper response is that that person's friends, regardless of who they are, should try to help that person figure his/her feelings out, and whatever they do for that person should be motivated to that end only.
I can't tell if you're insinuating that selfishly-motivated friends may try to "recruit" that person or otherwise exploit those homosexual feelings instead of merely helping the friend sort them out.
Most of my gay friends simply don't have the time to deal with people who are coming out of the closet, let alone try and "convert" people. I think straight people would be shocked out how dismissive an out gay person can be to another gay person who's in the closet. It's actually quite selfish. Rather than trying to help the person in the closet come to terms with their sexuality, most gay people are just like "I don't have time for that. I dealt with that myself when I came out of the closet, but I've moved beyond that, and I have to live my own life. Let them figure it out on their own".
At least that's how it was for me. My gay friends didn't help me at all when I came out. It was my straight friends who wanted to talk about it.
I think that's understandable though. Coming out is a very tough time, and if gay people have a choice, they really don't want to revisit that time in their life (the coming-out process). They'd rather just forget it and move on.
It is the same here: by trying to reduce the stigma and increase the acceptance of homesexual lifestyles/experiments/feelings/whatever, they (we) are trying to allow people to be who they are or who they want to be, etc.: allow people to make their own decisions without fear of prosecution, violence or discrimination. How does it then follow that it is a conversion? Creating freer societies does not imply active or passive conversion, regardless of which definition of "convert" you use, IMHO.
To make your abortion analogy accurate, we'd have to have a particular woman who deep down wants an abortion but can't admit it to herself and won't get one, and a friend who is actively helping her "come to terms with" getting one.
The data cited is of behavior.
The post describes orientation, and treats it as something different, and questions whether there is an attempt by persons engaging in certain behaviors to have persons of identified orientations engage in those behaviors when they have not been.
Whether homosexual orientation is immutable or not, behavior is the manifestation of choice -- behavior is never immutable. The argument here, if I understand it, is that the gay rights movement wishes to have behavior more accurately reflect orientation. And that suggestion amounts to "most homophobic post I've read in a while"?
Of course, whether behavior generally should be in line with any orientation involves many questions that Eugene only scratches the surface on, and then only from a public/personal health perspective. (Because, I presume, this post is about whether there is a conversion at all, not whether it is right). Suffice it to say, what is natural (the orientation) is not always how one should behave (consider the unnaturalness of monogamy ot the naturalness of feeling angry). But sometimes the natural should dictate behavior. Is homosexual behavior the latter camp? By its own terms, Eugene's post does not seriously tackle that question, and I don't think he should be speared for it.
It may be common in law, philosophy, or for that matter, engineering redefine a word and use it to communicate. However, you can't then use it both wasys.
The problem is not that one decide to that "conversion" does not carry the nuance most of us think it conveyes. The problem is that Eugene then goes on to suggest that gay rights groups are dissembling when they say they are not "trying to convert" anyone, but when they use the term, they are using "convert" in what I would take to be the "normal" sense, which carries an evangelical nuance.
Now, I will grant that the nuance I read into that word may be one Eugene doesn't hear when the word is used. I was brought up Roman Catholic, and I assure you, the word "convert" carries a evangelical nuance when I hear it.
Christian in general is very evangelical. If you grow up going to mass and hearing of effort to convert people, the phrase "Trying to convert someone", generally brings to mind a fairly vigorous campaign to make people adopt new behaviors and beliefs. Historically, these vigorous campaigns ranged from shouting "the word" from street corner, creating legal sanctions against those who don't convert, to, well, killing people who refused to convert.
The phrase "trying to convert" indicates intent. However, as Prof. Volokh has described the scenario, it is one in which an agenda in making "homosexuals feel more comfortable with their homosexuality" is the goal. Although this may have the result of allowing or encouraging those with ambivalent (and not so ambivalent) sexual preferences to engage in homosexual experimentation, that does not mean that such experimentation was the goal.
If such experimentation was simply an unintended consequence, there would be no intent. Is it not possible that the agenda is promoted, not in order to bring about such experimentation, but in order to increase the personal happiness of the affected parties? If true, this is not an example of "trying to convert."
Further, it seems odd to speak of conversion as encouraging people to have their external behavior match their internal desires/genetics/background/etc. As others have noted, one expects "conversion" to mean a change of external and internal attributes to meet a new norm. Although there has been some discussion of "precision," it is odd to define a loaded word in a way which ignores the implications of that word.
Yes, I'm talking about every straight guy who has tried to convince his girlfriend to sleep with another girl.
Again - the only people trying to "convert" anyone are straight. Maybe someone should blog about that.
Not necessarily. That is one possible scenario, but not the only one. The issue is that allowing people to make decisions in whatever way they choose, with whatever support structure they have or don't, is easier if the person faced with the choice does not have to think about some of the negative consequences of the decision which society currently has, such as: arrest, discrimination, religious condemnation, family rejection, etc. Abortion activists want women to be able to choose abortion or not without worrying about those things. By advocating acceptance of homosexual behavior, gay activists do the same.
David Berke, you made the explicit the link to "intent" that I was trying to make. I agree.
An interesting experiment here is replacing "gay" with "Jewish". The two groups are similar in their history of being oppressed by the majority. I think they're similar in their approach to conversion as well-- you can be born Jewish or if not and you want to convert there's a whole host of reasons not to; subtle and not-so-subtle social bias, family condemnation, just the plain weirdness of doing something abnormal. Jews who fight for equal rights and against anti-Semitism aren't trying to convert people, they're just trying to make things more fair for themselves and others like them.
As soon as I started reading this post, I disagreed with your inexact language, and I'll agree with Paul and others who have noted that the use of "convert" is not correct for what you mean, unless you're trying to be subversive in some manner. Conversion deals with changing of a thing's nature. I can't buy your argument that "convert" can be used in relation to behavior, because behavior is influenced by one's nature and does not exist on its own. Unless you mean that homosexuals are trying to "convert" someone's "nature" (by "turning" them homosexual or bisexual), which would be an unbelievable assertion for someone of your sense, then that language is inappropriate.
At the very least, you should be using language closer akin to "encourage," which applies more to behavior and makes clear that the essential nature of the person is really what leads to the possibility of the change in behavior.
To imply with a straight face that there are no negative connotations to "conversion" in this circumstance is to totally ignore that many groups which aim to "convert" do so because they don't like the nature of one thing and wish to change it to another.
Yes, &he was full of it, too. As the other comment about "conversion porn" also indicates, this has more to do with gay machismo &fantasy than with reality.
Straight-male readers can easily test this by asking themselves how readily they could be "converted" by Lawbot's co-worker. Personally, I think the requisite quantity of Maker's Mark would have me comatose long beforehand.
So, gay porn (which is for, you know guys who are already gay) is an effort at conversion? Does that mean straight porn is an attempt at converting pizza deliverers and pool boys into having sex with the housewives they visit? LOL It's a fantasy for gay ppl, not an outreach program.
Unless the "straight man" and "gay-for-pay" porn is being handed out at frat houses with toll-free hotline numbers at the bottom, I don't really see any effort at conversion...
I think the assumption of question of 'when is someone gay' erroneous.
The idea that somehow we are all creatures of genetics is, frankly, a little scary.
If (big if) "gayness" is only hereditary, then recruitment would make no sense.
If (big if) it is a "choice" or partly hereditary, partly behavioral, then there is a very large can of worms to be opened
If (big if) it is mainly behavioral and choice then "recruitment" is possible, if not probable
I have seen (in theschool I work) stuff from "gays" that only could be termed "recruitment" - or, maybe a demand for affirmation that kids who have homosexual thoughts act and become "gay"
If there is a fungibility (big word - always like to use it) to sexual orientation, if people can change back and forth, then recruitment is the word.
regards
mackinacnick
Basically, I believe that Prof. Volokh's argument suffers from not being precise about what he means people are being converted to and from.
To say that homosexuals are trying to convert people to homosexual behavior is, I think, unfair. While some may attempt this (I wouldn't know), I think a fairer statement of the conversion they desire would be:
From: A society in which people do not feel comfortable exploring their sexuality; people feel pressures to be/not be a certain sexuality.
To: A society in which everyone feels free to discover their own sexuality, be it hetero, bi, gay.
Stated this way, I think the phenomenon that Prof. Volokh posits is a _secondary_ effect of homosexuals' desired conversion.
I believe it is fairer to say that gays want everyone to feel free to discover their own sexuality. They may believe that this will result in people "converting" to homosexuality. But this is a byproduct of their goal, not the goal itself.
As long as everyone is truly free to discover their own sexuality, I believe gay people would be happy, even if that meant an overall _decrease_ in the number of gays.
This is why I think saying that the homosexual movement "does aim in part at "converting" people who have a wholly or partly bisexual orientation from a purely heterosexual behavior pattern to one that involves at least some (initially experimental) homosexual behavior." is unfair.
The movement's goal is not to increase the number of gay people. It is to ensure that everyone feels free to choose their own path. Their primary concern is not behavior, but the level of acceptence of and freedom to engage in certain behavior.
I got quite tired of hearing that if I tried it, I would like it. I am still happily hetrosexual. Indeed, today at lunch, looking at some high school coeds, I was just wishing I were that young again - they got my juices going, despite being three times their ages.
Maybe culture changed. Maybe it was because I graduated from college. But in any case, this sort of thing pretty much died out for me about that time, for which I was quite happy.
You know - the same kind of persistence as when a really ugly guy keeps trying to convince a blond bombshell that she should date him. Of course there's zero chance in hell that the girl will ever actually associate with the guy - but hey, the guy keeps trying anyway. He's persistent.
And both are incredibly stupid too.
I think you'll get a lot of blank stares. And if you're straight, ask yourself who converted you to being straight.
The problem is obvious when you consider that the original claim "Gays are converting others to homosexuality"is being used in an almost entirely pejoritive sense.
But there are many actions that might go into this sort of "conversion" (if only a conversion into a mix of homosexual/heterosexual behavior, and a conversion that in many cases will end up proving to be only temporary)
Conversion does not usually imply a mix of behaviors. A Jew who converts to Christianity does not go to synagogue on Saturday and church on Sunday. He does not engage in "a mix of Jewish/Christian behavior." Coversionimplies a complete switch. That's not what you are talking about.
When this argument is ordinarily made in political discussion, the assumption is that gays are trying to convert at random, or at least indiscriminately. The myth Eugene discusses is reasonable only in proportion to the extent that his assumption about who could be converted is accepted. After a couple of decades of listening to this debate on all sides, I can say that I think the assumptions underlying the debate are far more irresponsible than this hypothetical suggests.
I think you're actually wrong on this point. For example, the United Ministry at Harvard describes itself (at http://www.ministry.harvard.edu/about_us.php) as being founded on "collaborative code of non-proselytization and mutual respect." That is to say, they will allow any beliefs, but they ban anyone who tries to convert people to their own belief. This is a clear example of a group which disapproves of "conversation" per se and not because of the new belief.
I know this is just one example, but I think the phenomenon is widespread.
Nope. Professor Robert L. Spitzer—who led the 1970s effort to remove homosexuality from DSM-III—has published a study in Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32:5 [October 2003], 403-417, that concludes that about half of all homosexuals who make a serious effort to change not just behavior but orientation are successful at doing so.
Why are only half successful? I don't know. It is possible that homosexuality has multiple causes. Perhaps for some it is truly a choice. I've pointed out that the very high levels of childhood sexual abuse and adult substance abuse among homosexuals might indicate that for some homosexuals, their sexual orientation is a symptom of abuse.
If someone is completely happy being a homosexual, I can't imagine that any coercive measure is going to change them. There are homosexuals who are not happy about their orientation, however, and pretending that none of them have any choice in the matter smells suspiciously like recruiting. It is now apparently a criminal offense in Britain to tell homosexuals that they don't have to be that way.
Your stats are completely false. Even many of the spokespeople of the "ex-gay" movement have since come out as gay.
I suggest anyone with an open mind (i.e., NOT Clayton Cramer) check out www.exgaywatch.com for more info.
In the meantime, Clayton is going to continue to try and "recruit" people and "convert" them to heterosexuality.
From the Washington Post article last Tuesday.
Again - for anyone with an open mind (i.e. NOT Clayton Cramer)
Not that Clayton needs any defense, but he is hardly an anti-gay bigot. I have read his prior posts and there's nothing hateful about them.
Religious people are going to be more motivated to change because they want to do what is right in God's eyes. An atheist isn't going to consider what God thinks. People in the MCC aren't going to consider what God thinks because they're being lied to. A Christian with homosexual desires cannot reconcile his feelings with his religion. God isn't going to change, so the Christian has to.
The word "conversion" doesn't seem to be as accurate as some of the alternatives, but given the intent of the post (which was to dispute the conventional wisdom about so-called conversion), I think it's justified, especially considering the professor's (somewhat inconsistent) use of scare quotes around the word.
I called Clayton Cramer an anti-gay bigot. He IS an anti-gay bigot. Would you care to point out one of his "pro-gay" statements. If you can actually find one, I'll retract my statement. Perhaps you should look up the definition of bigot in the dictionary, becuase it fits Clayton rather well.
And I think it's quite obvious that he's anti-gay. If not, why is he so intent on converting us?
He's also a liar. Not only does he falsely claim that gay people were molested as children and are all drug addicts, but he claims that half of all gay people can be converted to being straight, when in reality the author of that study says it's "pretty rare" for a gay person to change his orientation.
But since when did an "unwanted advance" translate into a "conversion" movement by the entire gay community.
When someone is attracted to someone, they make that known. So what? If you don't like those advances, then rebuff them. But that's not conversion.
I'm gay. Straight women hit on me all the time. Would you really say that they are trying to "convert" me? I don't. They're probably just hoping I'm bi.
You have to be wildly and unapologetically pro-gay in order to be not considered an anti-gay bigot? Wow. The vast majority of Americans probably wouldn't describe themselves as "pro-gay." They probably don't view the lifestyle as particularly healthy or a life to envy. Few want their children to be gay. Are all of these people anti-gay bigots? I mean, you're basically asking people to celebrate homosexuality or face your charge of anti-gay bigotry. That's probably not the best approach, Lad.
The fact is that yes, the VAST MAJORITY of Americans are anti-gay bigots.
And they make that pretty clear at the ballot box everytime they vote to deny us our rights.
I don't know what percent of gays try to "convert" straights, but I think it's pretty clear it happens. That was all Volokh was saying, I thought. That it's not a "myth."
Sure - here you go:
In response to your comment about assaults: I don't think it is really that rare for gays to hit on straights, whether on purpose or on accident. Certainly, depending on the context and the individual, there is a deterrence because a lot of men may respond physically, but I wouldn't describe it as "rare" either.
So we shouldn't be surprised if a gay man hits on a straight man once in a while. And I can guarantee you that the gay man is secretly hoping that the "straight" man is really gay. And guess what? Sometimes they are.
So all in all, where is the beef in Prof. Volokh's post? It seems to me that he is merely saying that in a society that doesn't stugmatize gay sex, more people will try it. True, but the percentage is likely to be small, because of the small percentage of bi's to begin with.
It's true that if one is a bisexual, one chooses whether to act homosexually or heterosexually (almost nobody permanently chooses to act truly bisexually, that is, having sex and relationships with both men and women at the same time, and there is no separate bisexual identity--bisexuals are more like bilingual people than like interracial people, since sexuality is defined by actions and not appearance). But if one accepts bisexuality as a possible orientation, there is no room in it for the concept of conversion. A bisexual already accepts both orientations, but conversion is a binary thing, you can't be a little bit converted to something. Conversion implies a crossed threshold, and a person calling themselves bi has crossed it already.
Prof Volokh is also wrong about how gay people would answer his questions, especially in the case of bisexuals. For example, a subset would prefer that bisexuals stick to straight behavior, because rejection by a bisexual feels like a double rejection of oneself as a person and as a homosexual, and so worse than a rejection by a homosexual, which at least does not invalidate your own desires.
One of the biggest things the GLBT(*) community does for society is challenge its Victorian sexual ethic. I'm constantly amazed at the Payton Place my small town is...but nobody actually talks about it. Consider some of the famous evangelists who have had extra-marital affairs...maybe we ought to be changing the cultural preconceptions about marriage, bonding, monogamy, etc. That's why GLBT folk scare the hell out of conservatives: they challenge some of those presuppositions.
When you evaluate any hierarchy of personal values, the data Prof. Volokh reports are at one level, from which he attempts to draw some conclusions. I submit, however, that when you move up to the next logical level (in the G. Bateson sense), you find that GLBT are, in fact, mainly interested in having their own life choices (and, by extension, those of every one else) valued as valid for them. I know of very few GLBT who try to pursue people not already self-identified as G/L/B/T, as appropriate. There are, to be sure, some arrogant pathologies in people who find it challenging to "convert" those whom they decide "are not willing to admit it to themselves that they're interested." I put them in the same category as heterosexuals who arrogantly believe they "know better" what's good for GLBT.
In sum, what I'm suggesting is that GLBT folk are in touch with who they are and why they are, and they're happy with that (usual psychological caveats admitted). They also wish everyone could be that self-actualized...and if it means you're ardently heterosexual, that's fine, too. But, having been through their own "dark night of the soul," they wish others' sexuality were self-determined, instead of being projected onto them (or accepted through social pressure from) those members of society who want to limit how others wish to express their sexuality.
(And, I don't think anything goes: There are legitimate social interests in prohibiting certain sexual behaviors, such as pedophilia, and the like. I just don't believe that consensual behaviors, in private, between consenting adults is anybody else's business--especially the governments'.)
(*) Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered
Basically you've just decided you disagree with him, and you've written him off entirely (and the rest of America, apparently) and you've given up providing any substantive arguments against him. That's fine... but it'd be classier if you could do it without the name calling.
Nothing. If he was one. Your proof of his bigotry is his absence of pro-gay statements. Hey, you didn't say you didn't hate black people yet. You didn't profess your love for all things black! You must be a bigot. I think you get the point, Lad. You're not stupid, just overly passionate.
How does it feel?
Sorry - but when someone uses those words against me, solely because I'm gay, I'm not afraid to call them a bigot.
How dare you justify blatant bigotry and then try to silence me from calling a spade a spade.
The simple Google Search should make it apparent.
The 93.8 figure is composed of a) straights and b) closeted gays and bisexuals. There's no known way to break it down further without more data. Elsewhere we looked at problems with the Pew study about consenting adults in the home.
Studies don't always reveal what they are claimed to.
What's the incentive to tell the truth? A cookie? Not even a cookie? What's the percent who answered "none of your business!" The incentive to lie may be to avoid being killed, divorced, fired, shunned, excommunicated, laughed at, loss of status, protecting a loved one, etc. I've been out as bi since the 70s, but I'd be unlikely to reveal that in a phone survey. The kinsey study suffered from sample bias and is unreliable, but it did at least make an effort to develop enough rapport with subjects to get past initial reluctance to discuss such things. I don't know the details behind the above numbers, but I'm deeply suspicious of them.
In cultural contexts that reward/incentivise bisexuality, the numbers tend to be high, probably a majority. In cultures where open bisexuality is taboo, both among straight and gay populations, the numbers tend to be low.
Eric Raymond has recently blogged about how, in his circles, bisexuality is not taboo for women, and the numbers tend to be high, but he rarely meets self-identified bi males.
Disgusting.
HOWEVER (!) who are the "bisexuals" who have meaningful choices as "fence sitters"? I would submit it's only the Kinsey 3s (those perfectly and evenly attracted to both genders), who are relatively rare (whereas Kinsey 1s,2s,4s,&5s AS A GROUP are WAY more common). If one is fully attracted to one gender but only attracted to the other in a diminished sense, it's impossible, I submit, to make a long-term meaningful relationship with that gender to which one is not fully attracted. The full passion has got to be there to begin with in order to build a life with someone.
I don't doubt that "gay American" Jim McGreevey is in some sense a bisexual (somewhere between a 4 and a 5) and was attracted to his wife in *some* way. He couldn't make it work in the long run though. Ditto with Leonard Bernstein, Anthony Perkins, etc. and all of the other gay men who marry women and sire children.
Challenge thinks that gay people should just accept these slanderous charges and not be able to defned themselves.
Challenge must agree with this trash? Otherwise, why would he be defending it so strongly?
a) Challenge didn't say that, Clayton did.
b) You still havn't answered the assertion, you've just tossed insults that seem calculated to cause others to disregard the assertion out of hand.
c) If true, there is nothing about this statement that makes it facially "anti-gay"
d) even if false, clayton can believe it without being an "anti-gay bigot" as you seem to be calling everyone. Perhaps if you provided information to the contrary it would help?
e) Slander is spoken. If anything, these "charges" would be libel :)