Jason International

Christian Self-Support Organization and Christian Counseling Service for Gays and Ex-Gays

Heilung

Heilung - was ist das überhaupt?


Jason International praktiziert keinerlei Form von Therapie. Wir sind eine Selbsthilfegruppe und Seelsorge-Organisation.

Was kursieren da nicht für Ansichten über Organisationen wie die unsere - zumeist von Menschen, die uns nie kennen gelernt haben.


Wir würden therapieren, was nicht als krank gilt, wir treiben Menschen angeblich in psychische Erkrankungen, sind fundamentalistische Christen, verklemmt, radikal, rechts-populistisch, wir hätten es nur selber nicht geschafft, eine befriedigende gleichgeschlechtliche Beziehung aufzubauen, kurz: wir müssen schnellstmöglich aus der Öffentlichkeit zum Wohle derselben verschwinden.


Zuallererst: Wir sind eine Seelsorge-Organisation, die (kostenlos!) Selbsthilfegruppen und Einzelgespräche für Menschen mit ungewollten gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen, deren Freunde  und Familienangehörige und alle sonstigen Interessierten anbietet. Wir betreiben keinerlei Therapie (allerdings befürworten wir das Recht eines jeden Einzelnen zur Wahl einer Therapie mit dem Ziel seiner Wahl) . Auch ist unser Ziel nicht, Menschen von "schwul" zu "hetero" zu bringen. Ein solches Ziel wäre für uns zu kurz gegriffen. Als Christen ist unser Ziel das eines jeden Jüngers Jesu: Heiligkeit. Wir sind aber auch für Menschen anderer Glaubensrichtungen - oder Nicht-Gläubige - offen. Die einzige Bedingung für eine Teilnahme an unserem Programm ist der Wille zur Veränderung (wie die dann aussieht, entscheidet letztendlich der Einzelne). Ohne dem wäre alles weitere sinnlos.


Wir arbeiten mit einem 14-Schritte Programm, das teils auf den üblichen 12-Schritte Programmen basiert und für die Bedürfnisse von Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen angepasst wurde, teils auf Erfahrungen unserer Gründer. Derartige 12-Schritte Programme sind international anerkannt und werden auch weithin verwendet.


Ebenso fließen gängige Instrumente aus der christlichen Seelsorge oder christlichen Programmen mit ein, die bei der Suche nach der eigenen Identität behilflich sind.


Alles in allem also nichts Außergewöhnliches oder Verdächtiges.


Bei der Entwicklung menschlicher Sexualität spielen viele Faktoren eine Rolle: Gene, die Umwelt, die Erziehung, das Verhältnis zum gleichgeschlechtlichen Elternteil oder zu Gleichaltrigen, Missbrauch und vieles mehr. Die Epigenetik hat mittlerweile herausgestellt, dass die früher oft verwendete Formel, ein Gen würde zwangsweise zu einem Verhalten führen, so nicht haltbar ist. Viele Faktoren spielen bei der Entwicklung von Genen eine Rolle. Ebenso verändert sich unser Gehirn jede Sekunde eines Lebens: Gene werden auf Basis verschiedenster Einflüsse in unterschiedlicher Stärke ausgebildet oder gar rückgebildet, oder es werden aufgrund unseres Verhaltens oder unserer Umweltbedingungen neue Gene begründet (!).


Wir sehen Menschen so, wie die Bibel sie sieht: Als untrennbare Einheit von Körper, Seele und Geist. Insofern sehen wir gleichgeschlechtliche Empfindungen nicht einfach als "Krankheit". Das wäre eine unzulässige Reduzierung eines sehr komplexen Sachverhalts. Als Christen wissen wir, dass wir alle gebrochene Menschen sind, die der Gnade Jesu Christi bedürfen.


Was wir tun, ist, die Hintergründe dieser Neigungen im Rahmen von Seelsorge und Gruppengesprächen anzugehen: Identitätsfragen, unbefriedigte emotionale, soziale, spirituelle und sonstige Bedürfnisse, das Verhältnis zu Gott, zu Familienangehörigen oder Freunden, eine Sinnfindung im Leben, um nur einiges zu erwähnen.


Es gibt also so einiges im Leben von Menschen, was "gebrochen" sein kann und im übertragenen Sinn einer "Heilung" bedarf, ohne dabei einfach nur eine psychische Erkrankung im Sinn zu haben.


Kurz und gut verstehen wir unter "Heilung" also die (Wieder-)Herstellung eines ganzheitlich ausgeglichenen Zustandes von Körper, Seele und Geist auf Basis des christlichen Glaubens.



Ist die sexuelle Neigung nun festgeschrieben oder veränderlich?

Hier widersprechen sich momentan einige wissenschaftliche Theorien, Forschungen und selbst Argumente von schwulen Aktivisten.

Hatte man bisher darauf gepocht, dass die menschliche Sexualität in Stein gemeißelt und damit unveränderbar ist, sprechen heute viele Wissenschaftler (und auch Schwule) von einer "Fluidität" der sexuellen bzw. auch der geschlechtlichen Identität.

Gestützt wird diese These neben wissenschaftlichen Forschungen auch von vielen Lebensberichten von Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen bzw. von Menschen allgemein. Sie berichten davon, dass sich ihre sexuelle Orientierung hinsichtlich der Intensität und Häufigkeit, aber auch hinsichtlich des Objekts der Begierde (homosexuell vs. heterosexuell) während ihres Lebens verschoben hat - von minimalen Änderungen bzw. hin zu dramatischen Wechseln.

Es wäre nicht wissenschaftlich und zudem ethisch verwerflich, die Authentizität dieser Aussagen generell in Zweifel zu ziehen bzw. außer Acht zu lassen.


Ihr seid doch für Menschen mit "ungewollten" gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen da. Heißt das nicht automatisch, dass diese Menschen dann ihre Neigungen dann ändern wollen? Führt das nicht logischerweise zur "Konversionstherapie"?

Keineswegs. Viele von uns hatten in frühester Jugend mit dem Anbruch der Pubertät und den ersten gleichgeschlechtlichen sexuellen Empfindungen eine tiefe Ablehnung diesen Neigungen gegenüber. Diese Ablehnung hat sich dann oft ihr ganzes Leben lang nicht geändert. Andere sind erst in späteren Jahren zu diesem Entschluss gekommen. Das heißt aber nicht automatisch, dass sie dann "heterosexuell" sein wollen. Für diejenigen unter uns etwa, die Christinnen und Christen sind, ist diese Frage unerheblich. Wir wollen mit ganzem Herzen Jesus Christus nachfolgen. Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen haben in vielerlei Hinsicht aus der Norm fallende Gaben und Talente. Sie müssen ihre sexuelle Energie also nicht zwangsweise in gleichgeschlechtlichen sexuellen Begegnungen ausleben, sondern können sie verwenden, um diese Gaben und Talente zu stärken und fördern. Nicht nur in der freien Wirtschaft kann es von Vorteil sein, die Dinge anders als alle anderen Menschen zu sehen und anzugehen. Mit "ungewollten" gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen meinen wir also, dass wir diese nicht ausleben wollen - weder in der schwulen Szene noch in einer gleichgeschlechtlichen Beziehung. Das bedeutet nicht, dass wir unsere Neigungen deshalb verleugnen, unterdrücken oder was auch immer. Wir definieren uns nur nicht über sie und haben für uns entschieden, dass wir ein anderes Leben führen möchten. Gleichzeitig bieten wir den Menschen Unterstützung an, die ebenso denken und empfinden.

Diese unsere freie Entscheidung bitten wir doch zu respektieren. Es ist in hohem Maße verwerflich, wenn uns von psychischen Krankheiten bis zur Selbstverleugnung alles Mögliche unterstellt wird, ohne jemals mit uns Kontakt aufgenommen zu haben.

Mit der Toleranz und dem Respekt ist es nämlich so eine Sache - die kann man nicht einfach nur für sich selbst einfordern, die muss man auch anderen gewähren.


Responding to new UK report on "conversion therapy":

To the editor:
Kashmira Gander's recent piece on "conversion therapy" [https://www.outrightinternational.org/content/pioneering-report-exposes-global-reach-so-called-conversion-therapy] was quite a feat: It painted a one-sided, misleading and sensationalist picture of a practice that doesn't even exist. There is, flatly, no such recognized mental-health procedure; "conversion therapy" is a political label hung on any effort to help individuals overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. Using the inflammatory name, and spotlighting truly heinous practices like electroshock as if they were common today rather than treatments of the 1950’s, gay activists are winning battles in state legislatures.
Restored Hope Network does not force its message of hope on anyone, rather, we provide support for people who are not satisfied with their sexuality and are seeking prayer support and conventional talk therapy to overcome their attractions. Shouldn't such individuals be allowed to pursue happiness as they define it in a free country that celebrates individuality and the sanctity of choice? We and our member ministries think so, and we will continue to stand for our clients' rights to pursue and receive the same kind of freedom so many of us enjoy.
Anne Paulk
Director, Restored Hope Network,
Colorado Springs, Colo.



Weder Homosexuals Anonymous noch Jason International geben irgendwelche Heilversprechen ab noch bieten wir eine Psychotherapie an. Wir sind Selbsthilfegruppen und bieten Hilfesuchenden seelsorgerischen Beistand. Uns geht es nicht darum, Menschen von "homosexuell" zu "heterosexuell" zu machen. Einerseits, weil dies grundsätzlich nicht unser Ziel ist (das Ziel eines Christen ist letztendlich die Heiligkeit. Ein keusches, gottgefälliges Leben ist bestenfalls Ausdruck und Weg des Glaubens, nicht aber das Ziel. Nicht-Christen unter uns stehen wir bei, ein selbstgestecktes Ziel zu definieren und zu erreichen. Auch hier liegen die Ziele in der Regel ganz wo anders).

Gleichwohl anerkennen wir das Recht von Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen, die unter diesen leiden, eine Therapie mit einem Therapieziel ihrer Wahl in Anspruch zu nehmen.

Heutzutage wird ja immer gerne die moralische Verwerflichkeit von "Reperativtherapien" oder "Konversionstherapien" herausgestellt - vor allem von aktiven Schwulen selbst. Die Wissenschaft springt leider gerne auf diesen Zug - auch wenn ein derartiges Vorgehen wissenschaftlicher Forschung widerspricht. Es ist nicht Aufgabe der Wissenschaft, moralische Urteile zu fällen. Auch darf Wissenschaft niemals freie Forschung unterdrücken, nur weil diese politisch unkorrekt ist.

Die heutige wissenschaftliche Datenlage:

Sexualität wird von vielen verschiedenen (!) Faktoren beeinflusst. Aktuelle Forschung weist darauf hin, dass sexuelles Empfinden durchaus zur Fluidität neigen kann - also keineswegs in Stein gemeißelt ist.

Selbst genetische Prädisposition (die im Falle von "Homosexualität" keineswegs belegt ist) bedeutet keinesfalls, dass jemand, der ein (fiktives) "schwules" Gen hat, auch zwangsweise gleichgeschlechtlich empfinden wird oder gar so handeln muss (wir sind nicht Sklaven eines Gencodes).
Epigenetik hat uns gelehrt, dass es von weiteren Faktoren (etwa der Umwelt) abhängt, ob und inwiefern Gene zum Tragen kommen oder deaktiviert werden. Umweltbedingungen etc. können sogar zur Änderung der DNA (also des "Gencodes") und der Gehirnstruktur beitragen (was ganz neue Schlussfolgerungen zulässt!).

Ein pauschales Urteil darüber, ob sexuelle Orientierung veränderbar ist, halten wir aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht deshalb nicht für möglich (aus spiritueller Sicht sehr wohl - was für den Menschen unmöglich ist, ist für Gott möglich!). Geschweige denn dass wir anderen vorschreiben, ein solches Urteil als richtig oder falsch anzuerkennen.

Für uns ist dies aus eingehender Argumentation heraus auch unwichtig, da unsere Aufgaben und Ziele anderswo liegen.

Wo jedoch Grenzen überschritten werden, ist, wenn wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse (etwa DNA-Markierungen) als Begründung für moralische Akzeptanz oder "Natürlichkeit" herhalten müssen. Das ist nicht mehr Wissenschaft, das ist Propaganda übelster Art.

Würde man diese Argumentation logisch weiter führen, würde man schnell zu absurden Ergebnissen führen.

Wir fordern deshalb Wissenschaftler auf, sich für die Neutralität der Wissenschaft einzusetzen.

Politiker fordern wir auf, dem Druck einer Minderheit stand zu halten und für ihre Werte einzustehen!

Geistliche fordern wir schließlich auf, ihre Aufgabe wahrzunehemen und Menschen, die ein gottgefälliges Leben führen wollen, dabei zu unterstützen - koste es, was es wolle!



Ist "Homosexualität" eine Krankheit?

13.06.2019 – Robert Gollwitzer



Allein die Fragestellung dürfte jeden politisch korrekten Menschen nach Luft schnappen lassen. Wie kann man das nur in Betracht ziehen?

Man kann, darf – und muss vielleicht sogar. Wissenschaft und Therapie sind schon lange nicht mehr frei. Sie sind dem Zeitgeist und der politischen Korrektheit unterworfen. Mediziner und Therapeuten plappern nach, was ihnen vorgesagt wird – und die meisten Menschen glauben ihnen, ohne ihren gesunden Menschenverstand zu benutzen. Ganz so einfach und logisch ist die Angelegenheit nämlich keineswegs.




„Homosexualität“ wurde erst ab den 70ern von der Liste der psychischen Störungen genommen. Nicht etwa aufgrund neuer medizinischer Erkenntnisse, sondern einzig und allein wegen des politischen Drucks der Schwulenbewegung.



Um oben genannte Frage zu beantworten, bedarf es vorab einer Begriffsklärung: Was meinen wir, wenn wir über „Homosexualität“ reden und was ist eine „Krankheit“?



Mit „Homosexualität“ bezeichnen wir die Tatsache, dass sich jemand überwiegend und über einen längeren Zeitraum hinweg in sexueller und/oder emotionaler Hinsicht zum eigenen Geschlecht hingezogen fühlt. Manche bevorzugen aber den Begriff "gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen" und sehen „Homosexualität“ nicht als eigenständige Identität an.



„Krankheit“ wiederum wird von Wikipedia wie folgt definiert:

"Krankheit ist ein Zustand verminderter Leistungsfähigkeit, der auf Funktionsstörungen von einem oder mehreren Organen, der Psyche oder des gesamten Organismus beruht und zurückgeht.

(...)

Krankheit wird oft im Gegensatz zu Gesundheit definiert. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) hat allerdings Gesundheit auch schon 1946 als idealen Zustand optimalen Wohlbefindens definiert. Zudem ist Krankheit nicht die einzige mögliche Ursache für mangelhafte Gesundheit. Die Übergänge zwischen „Gesundheit“ und „Krankheit“ sind fließend. Vieles mag letztlich einfach eine Frage der Sichtweise sein, zumal der Ausdruck Krankheit keine biologische Konstante, sondern ein kulturelles wertbezogenes Konstrukt darstellt. (...)

Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat am 21. März 1958 definiert: „Krankheit ist jede Störung der normalen Beschaffenheit oder der normalen Tätigkeit des Körpers, die geheilt, d. h. beseitigt oder gelindert werden kann.“ Nach einer neueren Formulierung des Bundessozialgerichts (BSG) wird im Kranken- und Unfallversicherungswesen unter Krankheit „ein regelwidriger Körper- oder Geisteszustand, der ärztlicher Behandlung bedarf und/oder Arbeitsunfähigkeit zur Folge hat“ verstanden. Dadurch ist der medizinische Krankheitsbegriff nicht deckungsgleich mit dem sozialrechtlichen.“



Viele Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen fühlen sich damit nicht wohl – unabhängig vom Urteil der Gesellschaft. Ihr „optimales Wohlbefinden“ wäre also zumindest gestört.

Krankheit als Gegensatz zur Gesundheit bzw. zum optimalem Wohlbefinden zu definieren, ist eine mehr als zweifelhafte Definition. Folgt man der Logik dieser Argumentation, führt dies zu absurden Ergebnissen. Wenn alleine das subjektive Wohlbefinden über Krankheit oder Gesundheit entscheidet, so bedeutet das zum einen, dass Menschen mit ungewollten gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen, die darunter leiden, Anspruch auf eine Therapie hätten. Es würde weiterhin bedeuten, dass Menschen mit wie auch immer gearteten sexuellen (oder sonstigen) Normabweichungen anführen könnten, dies sei nicht krankhaft, da sie sich subjektiv "wohl" fühlen.

Norm kann im Übrigen vieles sein - das, was die Mehrheit tut oder eine mehrheitlich anerkannte Werte- und/oder Verhaltensgrundlage. Die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung hat keine gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen und praktiziert keinen gleichgeschlechtlichen Sex. Was die Akzeptanz, moralische Wertschätzung oder zumindest Gleichgültigkeit des überwiegenden Teils der Bevölkerung angeht, so wage ich hier keine Schätzung. Meine Erfahrung ist, dass selbst diejenigen, die nach außen eine "leben und leben lassen"-Mentalität haben, bei näherem Nachfragen bzw. wenn es die eigenen Kinder betrifft doch schnell eine Ablehnung homosexuellen Handels aufweisen.



Da der BGH bei der Bewertung von Krankheit ausdrücklich auf die „normale“ Beschaffenheit und Tätigkeit des Körpers Bezug genommen hat, muss im vorliegenden Fall geklärt werden, ob „Homosexualität“ zur „normalen“ oder „natürlichen“ Beschaffenheit oder Tätigkeit des Körpers zählt.



Wenn mit „natürlich“ "sich aus den Gesetzen der Natur ergebend" gemeint ist, so ist dies eher zu verneinen. Ist sie dann "in der Natur des Menschen begründet"? Wer vermag das zu beantworten?

Dient sie der Arterhaltung? Auch hier ein klares Nein. Bedeutet das also, dass hier ein von der Norm abweichender Körper- oder Geisteszustand vorliegt? Ist Homosexualität eine "Störung der normalen Beschaffenheit des Körpers oder der Psyche"?

Nun, sie entspricht zumindest nicht der normalen - also in der Mehrheit der Menschen vorzufindenden - Beschaffenheit. So gesehen also durchaus eine "Störung" oder "Regelwidrigkeit" (wie auch immer man diese Worte definieren mag).

Bedarf „Homosexualität“ deshalb der ärztlichen Behandlung und führt zur Arbeitsunfähigkeit? Mit derselben Logik könnte man fragen, ob „Transsexuelle“ einer ärztlichen Behandlung bedürfen und möglicherweise arbeitsunfähig werden. Ein Bewertungskriterium hierfür dürfte wohl die persönliche Wahrnehmung sein. Fühlt sich der Klient bzw. die Klientin durch ihren momentanen Zustand nicht nur geringfügig belastet? Ist die Belastung unter Umständen so groß, dass sie zur Arbeitsunfähigkeit führt?

Für gewöhnlich lautet die Argumentation wie folgt: „Homosexualität“ ist keine Krankheit. Damit kann (und darf) sie nicht therapiert werden. Dies würde außerdem zu psychischen Störungen führen. Es gibt auch keine „Heilung“.

Diese ist aber beim Vorhandensein einer „Krankheit“ keineswegs notwendig. Allein die Möglichkeit einer Linderung – etwa des persönlichen Leidensdrucks – wäre ausreichend. Wer sich durch seine gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen nicht nur geringfügig belastet fühlt und eine Linderung des Leidensdrucks wünscht, würde also unter diese Kategorie fallen.

Die oft angeführten „psychischen Schäden“, die durch eine therapeutische Begleitung entstehen würden, sind bei näherem Hinsehen doch etwas anders zu bewerten: In den 15 Jahren, die mittlerweile vergangen sind, seitdem ich meine langjährige Zeit in der schwulen Szene beendet habe, durfte ich viele Menschen mit ungewollten gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen („Ex-Gays“) begleiten. Nicht eine/r davon trug dadurch psychische Schäden davon. Gleichwohl habe ich eine Menge meiner schwulen Freunde verloren, die an den Folgen ihres Lebenswandels gestorben sind – Drogen, ansteckende Geschlechtskrankheiten etc. Ein Blick auf die Statistiken des Robert-Koch Instituts bestätigt dies: ein verschwindend geringer Prozentsatz der Bevölkerung („Männer, die Sex mit Männern haben“) hat doch einen enorm hohen Anteil an eben diesen Geschlechtskrankheiten. „Safer Sex“ schützt beileibe nicht vor allem.



Wer meint, im Körper des falschen Geschlechts geboren worden zu sein, darunter leidet und die erforderlichen psychologischen Gutachten beibringt sowie zusätzliche Voraussetzungen erfüllt, darf gegebenenfalls eine „geschlechtsangleichende Operation“ vornehmen lassen. Hier werden also psychische Leiden „therapiert“, indem man gesunde Körper verstümmelt. Dieser offenbare Bruch des hippokratischen Eides scheint aber kaum jemanden zu stören. Wer aber für sich in Anspruch nimmt, unter seinen gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen zu leiden, dem soll eine therapeutische Unterstützung untersagt werden, weil hier ja keine „Krankheit“ vorliege, sondern „nur“ der subjektive Wunsch des Leidenden und dieser subjektive Wunsch zwangsweise zu psychischen Störungen führen muss? Ist nicht euer Ernst.



Robert Gollwitzer



www.jason-international.org

www.misererenobis.org

www.homosexuals-anonymous.com



Ist "Homosexualität" eine Krankheit?

Allein diese Frage würde Schwule schon auf die Palme bringen. Wie ein Kniereflex kommt es von deren Seite: "Homosexualität ist keine Krankheit und bedarf deshalb keiner Therapie".

Ist dem so?

In den 70ern wurde Homosexualität in den USA - und daraufhin auch in anderen Ländern - von der Liste der psychischen Störungen genommen. Ursache hierfür waren keineswegs neue medizinische Erkenntnisse (die gab es seinerzeit nicht und die gibt es heute nicht), sondern allein politischer Druck.

Sehen wir uns die Definition von Krankheit an, wie sie uns Wikipedia liefert:

"Krankheit ist ein Zustand verminderter Leistungsfähigkeit, der auf Funktionsstörungen von einem oder mehreren Organen, der Psyche oder des gesamten Organismus beruht und zurückgeht. Diese Störungen werden ihrerseits durch strukturelle Veränderungen von Zellen und Geweben hervorgerufen.
Die Lehre von den Krankheiten ist die Pathologie, während die Nosologie sich mit der systematischen Einteilung von Krankheiten beschäftigt.
(...)
Krankheit wird oft im Gegensatz zu Gesundheit definiert. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) hat allerdings Gesundheit auch schon 1946 als idealen Zustand optimalen Wohlbefindens definiert. Zudem ist Krankheit nicht die einzige mögliche Ursache für mangelhafte Gesundheit. Die Übergänge zwischen „Gesundheit“ und „Krankheit“ sind fließend. Vieles mag letztlich einfach eine Frage der Sichtweise sein, zumal der Ausdruck Krankheit keine biologische Konstante, sondern ein kulturelles wertbezogenes Konstrukt darstellt. So hat sich der Begriff Befindlichkeitsstörung für Einschränkungen des leiblichen oder seelischen Wohlbefindens ohne objektivierbaren medizinischen Krankheitswert eingebürgert. Andererseits können als krankhaft definierbare Zustände auch ohne subjektiven Leidensdruck vorliegen.

Die normale Funktion eines Organismus ergibt sich aus der Regelhaftigkeit der Lebensvorgänge; in unterschiedlichem Ausmaß beinhaltet sie die Fähigkeit zur Anpassung an veränderte innere und äußere Bedingungen. Ihre Beurteilung durch Menschen weist auch Abhängigkeit von deren Normvorstellungen auf.

Als Funktionsstörung kann Krankheit verschiedene Bereiche lebendigen Seins betreffen und sich in deren Wechselwirkungen entwickeln. Physiologische Funktionen sind wesentliche Eigenschaft des Lebens. Organismen existieren in komplexen Umwelten und erhalten, erneuern und verändern sich durch beständigen stofflichen und energetischen Austausch. Viele Arten von Organismen leben in sozialen Zusammenhängen. Zu den Funktionen des Lebens gehört auch Verhalten und höherentwickelte Organismen weisen emotionale Funktionen auf. Die Personalität und Sozialität von Menschen funktioniert auch in Abhängigkeit von ihrer kulturellen Welt.
(...)
Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat am 21. März 1958 definiert: „Krankheit ist jede Störung der normalen Beschaffenheit oder der normalen Tätigkeit des Körpers, die geheilt, d. h. beseitigt oder gelindert werden kann.“ Nach einer neueren Formulierung des Bundessozialgerichts (BSG) wird im Kranken- und Unfallversicherungswesen unter Krankheit „ein regelwidriger Körper- oder Geisteszustand, der ärztlicher Behandlung bedarf und/oder Arbeitsunfähigkeit zur Folge hat“ verstanden. Dadurch ist der medizinische Krankheitsbegriff nicht deckungsgleich mit dem sozialrechtlichen. Entscheidende Kriterien für die Beurteilung als Krankheit im Sozialrecht sind:

Behandlungsbedürftigkeit (nicht bei altersbedingten Erscheinungen; kosmetischen Behandlungen, die rein ästhetischer Natur sind (wie beispielsweise Haartransplantation), sehr wohl jedoch, wenn eine anerkannte medizinische Notwendigkeit vorliegt (wie beispielsweise Korrektur der Nasenscheidewand oder Behandlung von Narben))
Wahrnehmbarkeit nach außen (z. B. Disharmonien der genetischen Werte erfüllen den Sachverhalt nicht)
Besserung des Leidens oder Verhütung von Verschlimmerungen (die Behandlung muss nach den Grundsätzen der ärztlichen Wissenschaft erfolgversprechend sein)"

Ist Homosexualität eine Funktionsstörung der Psyche oder liegt ihr eine Zellveränderung zugrunde? Das zu beantworten, wird wohl noch einige Jahrzehnte dauern.

Krankheit als Gegensatz zu Gesundheit bzw. zu optimalem Wohlbefinden zu definieren, ist eine mehr als zweifelhafte Definition. Folgt man der Logik dieser Argumentation, führt dies zu absurden Ergebnissen. Wenn alleine das subjektive Wohlbefinden über Krankheit oder Gesundheit entscheidet, so bedeutet das zum einen, dass Menschen mit ungewollten gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen, die darunter leiden, Anspruch auf eine Therapie haben. Es würde weiterhin bedeuten, dass Menschen mit wie auch immer gearteten sexuellen (oder sonstigen) Normabweichungen anführen können, dies sei nicht krankhaft, da sie sich subjektiv "wohl" fühlen.

Mit dieser Argumentation begibt man sich also auf Glatteis.

Wie sieht es mit dem Bezug auf "Normvorstellungen" aus? Norm kann vieles sein - das, was die Mehrheit tut oder eine mehrheitlich anerkannte Werte- und/oder Verhaltensgrundlage. Die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung hat keine gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen und praktiziert keinen gleichgeschlechtlichen Sex. Was die Akzeptanz, moralische Wertschätzung oder zumindest Gleichgültigkeit des überwiegenden Teils der Bevölkerung angeht, so wage ich hier keine Schätzung. Meine Erfahrung ist, dass selbst diejenigen, die nach außen eine "leben und leben lassen"-Mentalität haben, bei näherem Nachfragen bzw. wenn es die eigenen Kinder betrifft, doch schnell eine Ablehnung homosexuellen Handels aufweisen.

Ist Homosexualität "natürlich"?

Erneut eine Definitionsfrage. Wenn hiermit "sich aus den Gesetzen der Natur ergebend" gemeint ist, wohl eher nicht. Ist sie "in der Natur des Menschen begründet"? Wer vermag das zu beantworten?
Dient sie der Arterhaltung? Auch hier ein klares Nein.
Diese Frage eröffnet mehr weitere Fragen als dass sie Antworten liefert.

Ist Homosexualität eine "Störung der normalen Beschaffenheit des Körpers oder der Psyche" - und damit doch eine Krankheit?

Nun, sie entspricht zumindest nicht der normalen - also in der Mehrheit der Menschen vorzufindenenden - Beschaffenheit. So gesehen also durchaus eine "Störung" oder "Regelwidrigkeit" (wie auch immer man diese Worte definieren mag).

Zusammenfassend kann man also durchaus sagen, dass die momentane Rechtslage und gelte politisch korrekte Meinung durchaus Anlass zu Rückfragen gibt. Diese Rückfragen müssen erlaubt sein - auch und gerade im Sinne der Betroffenen. Man hilft niemanden, wenn man alles schön redet oder der Wissenschaft einen politischen und juristischen Knebel verpasst.


Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy (SAFE-T):
Creating a clearer impression of professional therapies that allow for change
Christopher Rosik, Ph.D.

During its May 27th, 2016, meeting, the board of the Alliance
for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI) voted unanimously to endorse new terminology that more accurately and effectively represents the work of Alliance therapists who see clients with unwanted same-sex attractions. The board has come to
believe that terms such as reorientation therapy, conversion therapy, and even sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) are no longer scientifically or politically tenable. Among the many reasons the board felt it time to retire these older terms as much as possible were the following:
1. These terms imply that categorical change (from exclusive SSA to exclusive OSA) is the goal. This is a degree of change that is
statistically rare and not demanded of any other psychological experience as a condition of legitimate psychological care.
2. The current terms imply there is a specific and exotic form of therapy that is being conducted (not standard therapeutic modalities)
3. These terms imply that sexual orientation is an actual entity (i.e., the terms all reify sexual orientation as immutable).
4. The terms imply that change is the therapist’s goal and not that of the clients (i.e., it’s coercive rather than self-determined).
5. These terms (especially SOCE) do not differentiate between professional conducted psychotherapy and religious or other forms of counseling practice.
6. These terms have been demonized and/or developed by professionals completely unsympathetic to therapies that allow for change in same-sex attractions and behaviors.

This means that Alliance clinicians are immediately on the defensive as soon as they reference their therapeutic work in these terms.
For all these reasons and more, first the Alliance Executive Committee and then the Alliance Board discussed potential new terminology and finally settled upon the name "Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy" (the acronym of which is SAFE-T). The Board believes this term has many advantages that commend its usage. First, it addresses all of the concerns noted above. It does not imply that categorical change is the goal and in so doing
create unrealistic expectations for many clients. Nor does it imply that change which is less than categorical in nature cannot be meaningful and satisfying to clients. It also makes clear that
SAFE can occur in any number of mainstream therapeutic modalities. Furthermore, by focusing on sexual attractions it avoids the implicit assertion that orientation changes or that orientation as
an immutable reality even exists. By stressing therapeutic exploration, the new term accurately conveys that the therapist is not being coercive but merely assisting individuals in a client-centered examination of their sexual attractions. The Board also appreciated the fact that the acronym SAFE-T immediately challenges portrayals of the professional therapy utilized by
Alliance clinicians as harmful.
Scientifically, the fluidity of sexual orientation (and, for our purposes, especially same-sex attractions) for many women and men is now beyond question (Diamond & Rosky, 2016; Katz-Wise, 2015; Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2015). The language of SAFE-T highlights this reality and points to human experience that cannot be denied, again without the complicating focus on orientation. The only counterarguments to SAFE-T on fluidity grounds might be that therapy-assisted fluidity has not been proven to occur and such efforts could be harmful. These arguments are much easier to defend against with SAFE-T than when one is trying to defend implications of complete orientation change. First, we know that sexual attraction fluidity occurs in response to relational and environmental contexts, the very factors that therapists routinely
address in their work (Manley, Diamond, & van Anders, 2015).
Second, there is research in progress to support the occurr
ence of therapy-assisted sexual attraction fluidity (Santero,
Whitehead, & Ballesteros, 2016; Pela & Nicolosi, 2016), not to mention a rich history of past research, as good as any research of its era (Phelan, Whitehead, & Sutton, 2009). Finally, recent research on “ex-ex-gays” (e.g., Bradshaw, Dehlin, Crowell, & Bradshaw, 2015; Flentje, Heck, & Cochran, 2013) tells us no more about SAFE-T than research focused on divorced consumers of
marital therapy would tell us about its safety and efficacy. While it
is reasonable to conclude that more research is needed to better comprehend the extent of therapy-assisted sexual attraction
fluidity, denying the potential for such a therapeutic process
would seem to be much more a matter of ideological compulsion than it is one of theoretical or scientific implausibility.
Due to all of these important considerations, the ATSCI Board encourages Alliance members and supporters to join them in employing the terminology of SAFE-T in their professional work. One might say, for example, “I practice a cognitive form of SAFE-T” or “I practice SAFE-T from an interpersonal perspective” or “There is no scientific basis for banning any form of SAFE-T” or even “I don’t do SOCE, I only practice SAFE-T.” Because this term
represents what Alliance clinicians actually do in a scientifically accurate and defensible manner, the Board anticipates that the professional interests of these therapists and the public policy
interests of supporters will be much better served by SAFE-T.

References
Bradshaw, K., Dehlin, J. P., Crowell, K. A., & Bradshaw, W. S. (2014).
Sexual orientation change efforts through psychotherapy for LGBQ individuals affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.
Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/0092623X.2014.915907
Diamond, L. M., & Rosky, C. (2016). Scrutinizing immutability: Research on sexual orientation and its role in U. S. legal advocacy for the rights of sexual minorities.
The Journal of Sex Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10:1080/00224499.2016.1139665
Flentje, A., Heck, N. C., Cochran, B. N. (2013). Sexual reorientation therapy interventions: Perspectives of ex-ex-gay individuals.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 17, 256-277. doi: 10.1080/19359705.2013.773268.
Katz-Wise, S. L. (2015). Sexual fluidity in young adult women and men: Associations with sexual orientation and sexual identity development.
Psychology & Sexuality, 6, 189-208.
doi: 10.1080/19419899.2013.876445
Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2015). Sexual fluidity and related attitudes and beliefs among young adults with a same-gender orientation.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1459-1470. doi: 10.1007/s10508-
014-0420-1
Manley, M. H., Diamond, L. M., & van Anders, S. M. (2015). Polyamory, monoamory, and sexual fluidity: A longitudinal study of identity and sexual trajectories.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 168-180.
doi: 10.1037/sgd0000107
Pela, C., & Nicolosi, J. (2016, March).
Clinical outcomes for same-sex attraction distress: Well-being and change.
Paper presented at the Christian Association for Psychological
Studies conference, Pasadena, CA.
Phelan, J. E., Whitehead, N., & Sutton, P. M. (2009). What the research shows: NARTH’s response to the APA claims on homosexuality.
Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 5-118.
Retrieved from , http://www.scribd.com/doc/115507777/Journal-of-
Human-Sexuality-Vol-1
Santero, P. L., Whitehead, N. E., & Ballesteros, D. (2016).
Effects of Therapy on U.S. Men who have Unwanted Same Sex Attraction. Manuscript submitted for publication.


Alle Unterstützung für aktive Schwule, aber keine für die, die erst gar nicht dorthin wollen?

Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen haben in der Regel ein breites Angebot an Beratungs- und sonstigen Dienstleistungen zur Verfügung – wenn sie diese ausleben. Staatlicherseits dick subventioniert bleibt hier kaum ein Wunsch oder Bedürfnis unbefriedigt.
Will man/frau aber – aus welchen Gründen auch immer – dieses Leben verlassen oder erst gar nicht dorthin kommen, sieht es rabenschwarz aus.

Therapien

Ansprechpartner für psychotherapeutische Unterstützung: Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde (DGPPN). Auf eine Anfrage hin, ob es denn für Menschen mit ungewollten gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen Unterstützung gibt – wohlgemerkt nicht (!) automatisch für Menschen, die „heterosexuell“ werden wollen, kam eine sehr standardisierte Antwort: Zunächst wird man darüber belehrt, dass 1973 die amerikanische Psychiatervereinigung APA Homosexualität vom DSM (Liste der psychischen Krankheiten) gestrichen hatte. Als Folge davon wurde das 1991 auch bei uns (hier: der ICD) so gehandhabt. Homosexualität sei keine Krankheit, sondern eine häufige Form menschlichen Zusammenlebens. Sie bedürfe deshalb keiner Therapie.

Abgesehen davon, dass dies keine Antwort auf die ursprüngliche Frage war (es ging nicht um eine „Therapie“ von Homosexualität, sondern um therapeutische Begleitung bei der Suche nach einem alternativen Leben!), wird hier – bewusst oder unbewusst – ein wesentliches Detail verschwiegen.

Die Tatsache, dass Homosexualität aus dem DSM bzw. ICD genommen wurde, beruhte keineswegs auf neuen medizinischen Erkenntnissen. Die lagen damals schlichtweg nicht vor – und tun dies auch heute nicht. Der Grund hierfür war allein politischer Art – ein erheblicher Druck der Schwulenbewegung. Selbst heute also lässt sich die DGPPN instrumentalisieren und verschließt politisch nicht korrekten Forschungen den Weg.

Weiterhin heißt es in der Antwort, die DGPPN lehne „reparative Therapien“ oder „Konversionstherapien“ entschieden ab. Auch hier: dies war nicht Gegenstand der Frage. Außerdem konnte ich keine Organisation und keinen Therapeuten hier in Deutschland ausfindig machen, der eine „Konversationstherapie“ anbietet. Auch hier geht die DGPPN der Schwulenbewegung auf dem Leim. Reparative Therapie und Konversionstherapie werden hier fälschlicherweise in einem Atemzug genannt, beschreiben aber etwas ganz anderes. Während eine Konversionstherapie die sexuelle Orientierung verändern will (es gibt mittlerweile tatsächlich Anzeichen für eine „Fluidität“ menschlicher Sexualität – sie ist also keineswegs in Stein gemeiselt!), konzentriert sich die Reparative Therapie auf einige der Faktoren, die zur Entwicklung gleichgeschlechtlicher Neigungen beitragen, etwa eine Störung der Geschlechts-Identität, unerfüllte legitime Bedürfnisse, ein gestörtes Verhältnis zum gleichgeschlechtlichen Elternteil etc. Dies ist offenbar der DGPPN noch nicht einmal bekannt – sie bedient sich ungeprüft der Meinung von wissenschaftlichen Laien, die ihre eigene Agenda verfolgen. Selbst das Argument, Homosexualität sei eine „häufige“ Form menschlichen Zusammenlebens, ist wissenschaftlich irrelevant. Eine psychische Störung, die häufig auftritt, wird alleine dadurch ja auch noch nicht zum weniger pathologisch. Die Tatsache, dass es viele tun, macht etwas weder in moralischer noch in medizinischer Form „besser“ oder „schlechter“.

Als medizinischen „Beleg“ für die eigene Sichtweise führt die DGPPN an, es gebe keine empirische Evidenz (Nachweis) für günstige Effekte von Konversionsverfahren, wohl könne Patienten dadurch aber Schaden zugefügt werden. Erneut wird hier auf eine Verfahren polarisiert, dass weder bei uns allgemein angewandt noch gefragt wurde. Derart pauschalisierte Aussagen sind nicht wissenschaftlich und schon gar nicht ethisch vertretbar. Jeder Therapeut und jede Therapeutin kann dem Hilfesuchenden potentiell Schaden zufügen. Die Frage ist, ob dann die Therapieform als ganze oder der Therapeut Schuld hierfür trägt. Da die DGPPN sich offensichtlich noch nicht einmal mit den wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten hierzu befasst hat und alternative Therapiemodelle auch im Studium nicht Gegenstand der Lehre sind, kann sie hierzu auch keine gültige Aussage treffen. Würde man die von ihr getroffenen Aussagen auf alle Formen sexuellen Empfindens übertragen und damit alles mehr oder weniger als „normale“ Formen menschlichen Zusammenlebens hinstellen, würde dies zu absurden und unverantwortlichen Ergebnissen führen.

Die Mitarbeiterin der DGPPN (der ich noch nicht einmal böse Absicht unterstellen will!) weist weiterhin darauf hin, dass psychische Erkrankungen unabhängig von der sexuellen Orientierung „anhand der klinisch relevanten Symptome gemäß ICD-10 Kriterien klassifiziert“ werden und dementsprechend von Fachleuten therapiert werden sollen. Dies ist schon aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht ein unsinniges Vorgehen. Hier werden bewusst Faktoren und Ursachen ausgeklammert bzw. voneinander getrennt gesehen, die durchaus etwas miteinander zu tun haben können. Mit anderen Worten: Der Patient bekommt nicht die beste Hilfe, die verfügbar ist, da dies politisch nicht korrekt ist.

Womit wir beim Abschluss-Statement der DGPPN-Kollegin sind: "Direkt oder indirekt erfahrene Diskriminierung kann zur Entstehung psychischer Erkrankungen bei homosexuellen Menschen beitragen." Hier trägt die schwule Propaganda reiche Früchte: alles, was nicht politisch korrekt ist, ist „Diskriminierung“. Hier wird in unglaublicher Art und Weise unterstellt, dass Therapeuten, die oben genannten Ratsuchenden Hilfe anbieten, nicht wissenschaftlich arbeiten, sondern „diskriminieren“. So macht man es sich selbst sehr einfach – man muss sich erst gar nicht mit dem Thema in einer objektiven, wissenschaftlichen Herangehensweise befassen, sondern stellt Andersdenkende als Menschen zweifelhaften moralischen Charakters dar. Das ist nichts anderes als unselige Propaganda.

Die angestrebte Therapie, so die DGPPN, ziele nicht auf die Homosexualität ab, sondern auf die Konflikte, die in Verbindung mit religiösen, gesellschaftlichen und internalisierten Normen entstehen. Mit anderen Worten: der gute alte Leitsatz „Nicht der Homosexuelle hat ein Problem, sondern die Gesellschaft“. Ziel des Therapeuten sei es, dass sich der/die Homosexuelle wieder gut bei dem fühle, was er/sie tut und gegebenenfalls alle Einstellungen überwindet, die dem entgegen stehen. Das ist keine wissenschaftliche Therapie, das ist ideologisch motivierte politische Korrektheit par excellence. Hier fügt die DGPPN ihrerseits möglicherweise denen Schaden zu, die aus persönlichen, religiösen oder anderweitigen Gründen ein Ausleben ihrer Neigungen nicht für gut heißen können. Anstelle ihnen beizustehen und ihre Ansichten zu respektieren, sorgt die DGPPN noch für Schuld- und Schamgefühle und will ihnen Ansichten aufschwatzen, die nicht die ihren sind. Mit welchem Recht?


Die Krankenkassen

Hier hält man sich mit einer klaren Antwort auf die Anfrage bedeckt. Die AOK etwa geht erst gar nicht auf dieses Thema ein, sondern verweist allgemein auf Informationen zur Psychotherapie. Auch hier wird einem Ratsuchenden offenbar nicht weiter geholfen. Soll man vielleicht erst alle Therapeuten in der Gegend abklappern, um einen zu finden, der bereit ist, einem beizustehen?



Die Kirchen

Bei einem Pastor, einem Priester etc. Hilfe zu suchen, ist beinahe ein Glücksspiel. Manch einer wird hier das finden, was er/sie sucht, allerdings ist die Bandbreite der Haltungen, Meinungen, Ansichten und Herangehensweisen hier – selbst innerhalb einer Kirche – enorm. Wenige halten sich an das, was ihre eigene Lehrautorität verkündet. Viele handeln nach eigenem Gutdünken. Wirklich empfehlenswert ist dies für Betroffene nicht. Zu groß ist das Risiko hierbei, an „den Falschen“ zu geraten – mit unkalkulierbaren Konsequenzen.


Angebote im Bereich Lebensberatung und Seelsorge

Hier sieht die Lage etwas besser aus. Im Gegensatz zur landläufigen Meinung sind von anerkannten Lehreinrichtungen zertifizierte Lebensberater und Seelsorger in der Regel theoretisch und praktisch sehr gut ausgebildet und erfahren. Natürlich führen diese Einrichtungen keine Therapien durch, eine seelsorgerische Begleitung oder eine Teilnahme an einer Selbsthilfegruppe kann hier sehr hilfreich sein. Zu nennen sind hier etwa christliche Einrichtungen wie Wüstenstrom (www.wuestenstrom.de), das Weisse Kreuz (www.weisses-kreuz.de) oder Organisationen wie Jason International (https://jason-online.webs.com), der Partnerorganisation der internationalen, wohl ältesten Organisation auf diesem Gebiet: Homosexuals Anonymous (www.homosexuals-anonymous.com).


Fazit

Der Standpunkt der DGPPN soll hier auf keinen Fall verteufelt werden. Selbstverständlich sind psychische Krankheitsbilder von entsprechenden Psychotherapeuten oder Psychiatern zu behandeln. Betroffene sollten hier keinesfalls zögern, Hilfe zu suchen. Nötigenfalls klärt ein Eingangsgespräch, ob der Therapeut/Arzt bereit ist, die Einstellung des Patienten zu akzeptieren und nicht dagegen zu arbeiten. Gleichwohl werden die meisten Betroffenen alleine dadurch nicht die Hilfe finden, die sie brauchen. Abgesehen davon hat nicht jeder von ihnen eine psychische Erkrankung. Deshalb ist ein TNetzwerk von Freunden, Seelsorgern, Lebensberatern, Therapeuten, Ärzten usw. nicht nur sinnvoll, sondern notwendig. Der DGPPN kann man nur wünschen, dass sie nicht das nachplappert, was andere ihr vorplappern, sondern sich als Teil eines Netzwerkes siieht und dieses – wie auch die Ratsuchenden und deren Überzeugungen selbst – respektiert.


Vergessen Sie, was Sie bisher über Gene wussten. Im Zeitalter der Epigenetik entscheiden Sie über Ihren Gencode mit!

Obwohl jede Zelle 20 000 Gene hat, verwendet sie nur einen kleinen Teil davon – und schaltet den Rest einfach ab. Warum und wie sie das tut und welche Konsequenzen das hat, erklärt die Epigenetik.

Hielt man bisher die DNA für einen unveränderlichen Code, so weiß man inzwischen, dass laufend kleine Moleküle oberhalb („epi“) der Nukleotid-Sequenz der DNA hinzugefügt oder wieder entfernt werden. Veränderte Markierungs-Muster werden dann von Speizial-Enzymen gelesen, die Schritte zum An- oder Abschalten von Genen einleiten.

Die durch die Markierung entstandene Information bildet das Epigenom – die chemisch veränderte Erbgut-Information DNA. Das Epigenom wiederum entscheidet über die Protein-Produktion der Zellen.

Diese Erkenntnisse sind revolutionär. Vorbei die Zeiten, in denen man dachte, ein Gen würde zwangsweise ein Verhalten hervorrufen. Tatsächlich hängt es von der Umwelt wie vom eigenen Verhalten ab, ob dieses Gen überhaupt „angeschaltet“ - oder gar verändert – wird.

Trotz gleicher Erbinformationen können also unterschiedliche Zellen oder auch unterschiedliche Lebewesen entstehen. So kann eine menschliche Stammzelle über 200 verschiedene Gewebe produzieren. Ob aus einer Bienenlarve eine Arbeiterin oder eine Königin wird, entscheidet das Epigenom, das Gene an- und abschaltet.

Verwendet wird letztendlich, was gebraucht wird. Zwar werden alle 20 000 menschlichen Gene laufend benötigt, aber nie gleichzeitig in einer einzigen Zelle.

Das Epigenom entscheidet aber nicht nur über die Verwendung, es speichert auch die Information – durch anfangs erwähntes Anhängen kleiner Moleküle an die DNA. Durch dieses Anhängen werden die Gene markiert und gegebenenfalls auch abgeschaltet. Diese Markierung ist in der Regel auch stabil. Es bedarf schon des Eingreifens durch Enzyme, um sie wieder zu lösen. Diese Flexibilität, die sich im An- und Abschalten von Genen zeigt, ist für unser Leben auch sehr wichtig: Das Epigenom kann somit auf Veränderungen reagieren – und diese sogar an die nächste Generation weiter geben. Es muss ja nicht immer das Rad von Neuem erfunden werden. Der veränderte Bauplan wird an die Nachkommen übertragen, sodass diese besser an ihre Umwelt angepasst sind.

Molekulare Mechanismen führen also zu einem stärkeren oder schwächeren Ablesen von Genen. Die auf ihnen befindliche Information wird aber nicht verändert. Dies wurde lange Zeit von der Fachwelt übersehen und revolutioniert die heutige Sichtweise.

Wissenschaftler haben durch die Epigenetik eine völlig neue Vorstellung davon bekommen, wie sich Lebewesen entwickeln und wie sie in einem komplexen Organismus zusammen arbeiten. Es reicht bei weitem nicht mehr, ein Gen zu präsentieren und damit schlüssige Entwicklungen folgern zu wollen.

Die Epigenetik kann und wird eine wichtige Rolle bei der Bekämpfung und Verhinderung von Krankheiten spielen – etwa beim Krebs.

Sie wird allerdings auch gesellschaftliche und politische Diskussionen nachhaltig beeinflussen: Nun kann eben nicht mehr behauptet werden, man werde zwangsweise homosexuell, weil man ein dementsprechendes (bisher allerdings noch nicht gefundenes) Gen habe. Diese Art von Steinzeit-Wissenschaft ist längst überholt und qualifiziert den Verwender derartiger Argumente als nicht informiert und nicht up-to-date. Das mag nun nicht mehr politisch korrekt, dafür aber umso wissenschaftlicher sein.

Was die klassische Genetik bisher nicht erklären konnte, scheint sich mittlerweile abzuzeichnen: offenbar können einzelne Merkmale vererbt werden, ohne dabei das Erbgut an sich zu verändern.

So fand man etwa heraus, dass die Einwohner eines Dorfes in Nordschweden länger lebten, weil ihre Großväter Hunger leiden mussten und die Gesundheit der Enkel genetisch beeinflussten. Das klassische Gen-Modell kann dies nicht erklären, da Gene nur sehr langsam und schrittweise durch die Evolution verändert werden, keinesfalls aber in einer oder zwei Generationen. Die DNA oder Proteine auf ihr wurden chemisch durch epigenetische Marker verändert – die Abfolge der DNA-Bausteine bleibt jedoch dieselbe. Allerdings ändert sich die Aktivität dieser Gene – bis hin zum völligen An- oder Abschalten. Die Zellen erhalten durch die Marker eine Art Handbuch dafür, wie sie mit den DNA-Bausteinen umgehen sollen. Diese Marker können dann auch vererbt werden, was aber nicht zwangsweise der Fall ist. So hat sich etwa der Stress von Rattenmüttern auf deren Nachkommen übertragen, die „automatisch“ ängstlicher waren.

Wichtig ist hierbei der Unterschied zwischen der epigenetischen Vererbung, also der Übertragung von der Mutter auf das Kind, und den generations-übergreifenden epigenetischen Effekten, der Prägung des Fetus im Mutterleib. Die Prägung etwa kann in der nächsten Generation wieder verschwinden.

Ob eine epigenetische Vererbung auch beim Menschen möglich ist, ist allerdings weiterhin umstritten. Epigenetische Prägung ist sehr wohl auch beim Menschen möglich, die epigenetische Vererbung nach bisherigem Wissensstand eher unwahrscheinlich.

In anderen Worten: Es hängt also von vielen verschiedenen Faktoren (etwa der Umwelt) ab, ob und in welcher Stärke Gene zum Tragen kommen oder ob sich ein Verhalten oder eine Veränderung von den Eltern auf die Kinder überträgt und diese prägt. Ein gegebener Gencode allein besagt noch wenig. Offenbar wird dieses „Handbuch“ des Umgangs mit der DNA aber nicht über mehrere Generationen vererbt. Letzteres wird wissenschaftlich allerdings noch diskutiert.

Bisher war man der Ansicht, dass nur spontane Gen-Mutationen – und nicht etwa die Umwelt - das Erbgut verändern. Dies wird in dieser Form von der Wissenschaft nicht mehr aufrecht erhalten. Die Markierungen auf den DNA-Basen haben das letzte Wort darüber, welches Gen verwendet wird und welches nicht – und in welcher Form. Dies geschieht sehr wohl in Anpassung an die Umwelt.

Augenblicklich ist man der Ansicht, dass die Epigenetik das Zusammenspiel zwischen den Zellen beeinflusst, nicht jedoch die Ausprägung neuer Funktionen oder Organe. Epigenetische Marker werden zwar vererbt, aber nur wenige davon. Bei Pflanzen werden epigenetische Veränderungen dauerhaft vererbt, bei Säugetieren ist das Epigenom spätestens in der dritten Generation wieder in seinem Ursprungs-Zustand.

Klar ist jedoch eines: Das bisherige wissenschaftliche Dogma, dass die Eigenschaften eines Organismus durch das Erbgut, dass ihm bei Geburt mitgegeben wird, unveränderlich und für alle Zeiten feststehen, ist gekippt. Das ist schlichtweg falsch.

Diese Erkenntnis kann in ihrer Tragweite gar nicht bedeutend genug eingeschätzt werden. Die Thesen von so manchen Hobby-Wissenschaftlern können somit schnell entkräftet werden.
Selbst geringfügige Umweltveränderungen können einen Einfluss auf unser Erbgut haben.

Diese Erkenntnis wird viele Wissenschaftsgebiete betreffen – unter anderem auch die Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie. Was bisher als unveränderlich galt und somit hingenommen und als moralisch akzeptabel gesehen werden musste (etwa Formen und Ausprägungen menschlicher Sexualität wie eben die Homosexualität), stellen sich nun in einem völlig anderen Licht dar. Dies bedeutet aber auch ein Ende der Verteufelung politisch nicht korrekter therapeutischer Ansätze. Wissenschaft muss sich vom Zeitgeist lösen und hiervon unabhängig forschen – und diese Forschungen auch veröffentlichen und auf ihrer Basis arbeiten dürfen.

Alles andere ist Gehirnwäsche mittels politischer Propaganda. Das allerdings hatten wir in der deutschen Geschichte schon einmal.




(Quellen: http://www.wissensschau.de/genom/epigenetik_und_epigenom.php, http://www.spektrum.de/thema/epigenetik/1191602, abgerufen am 15.06.2017)


Was sind Charakteristika von "ungewollten" gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen?

Typische Ausdrucksformen wären etwa ein subjektiver und/oder objektiver Kontrollverlust (etwa hinsichtlich der Sexualkontakte oder von Pornographie) oder auch das subjektive Empfinden von Leid. Dies sitzt in der Regel so tief, dass ich den Betroffenen nicht einfach zu einer Therapie raten kann und darf, die ihnen dieses Leid "ausredet" (ein solches Vorgehen ohne Einverständnis des Betroffenen halten wir auch für zutiefst unethisch).
Oft wollen Menschen mit ungewollten gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen auch nicht unbedingt die Neigungen an sich "los werden", sondern die Kontrolle darüber wieder erlangen (also nicht mehr ein Sklave der Lust zu sein und seine Identität auch nicht mehr allein über das "Schwul-sein" zu bestimmen) und möglicherweise die Intensität und Häufigkeit dieser Neigungen herunterzuschrauben. In der Regel wollen sie - trotz oder auch gerade wegen dieser Neigungen - ein erfülltes Leben führen, so wie sie sich das für sich vorstellen. Jenseits von schwuler Szene und Partnerschaft.

Es steht uns nicht zu, darüber zu urteilen. Noch weniger steht es uns zu, ihnen psychische Störungen deswegen einreden zu wollen (vielleicht wegen des eigenen schlechten Gewissens?), die sie nicht haben.


How Do I Start To Walk Away From Homosexuality ?
Written By David, An Israeli JONAH Struggler (posted Nov. 2007)

"That's the key here: healing SSA is a progress from compulsion and a sense of weakness, to a mature sense of competence and self-mastery as a man."


Here's a brief attempt at an Intro for Beginners:

1. "I think I'm gay and..."

You are not gay. There is no such thing. Decades of scientific research have not come up with ANY evidence tosupport the idea that gays are "born that way", or that homosexual attractions are inborn.

You have been lied to.

Those of you who follow the news from Israel - and maybe have a personal connection here - already are familiar with the gross, ideologically motivated distortions of the truth about Israel by the media and other liberal strongholds such as universities.

The same thing has been done to promote the pro-gay agenda.

For many, a first step in the process is cutting through the media stardust and getting at the truth: there is no genetic basis for homosexuality, you do not have to live with this forever, it is not an immutable part of your makeup.

If you don't take the time to really work this out - the lies of the pro-gay propaganda machine will close around you like a shackle, preventing you from growing, healing, and living the life YOU choose to lead.

2. What is this term "SSA"? Doesn't it just mean I'm gay?

We use the term SSA - Same-Sex Attraction - to describe our drives and behaviors.

It's not an identity. It's a behavior that we wish to change.

More accurately: it's a symptom.

In most cases, sexual attraction to one's own sex is a maladapted, unhealthy response to trauma, or to events that block or sidetrack normal development. Studies (ironically, some of them conducted by gay organizations!) have shown clearly that the majority of men who feel same-sex attractions share certain traumatic experiences or dysfunctional family situations. The most common are:

- Dysfunctional parental relationships - missed bond with father, abusive or distant father, smothering or emotionally enmeshed mother, narcissistic/manipulative father or mother... Often dysfunctional parents come in pairs!

- Childhood or teenage sexual abuse

- Peer wounds, especially during puberty: exclusion (particularly from one's gender group), ridicule, abuse

- Other experiences that lead to a mindset of inferiority or inadequacy compared to others - especially to other men.

To cope with these traumas/challenges, our minds have "hijacked" sex and pressed it into service to fill another emotional need, or cover a wound.

Another way of saying it is: we have sexualized that which we feel is lacking in us (yearning for love, approval, and acceptance from men), or created a comforting sexualized escape from the perceived threat of heterosexuality (smothering mother, being a "good little boy").

This isn't an identity.
And it's not just a normal variation on human sexuality.

It's a compulsive behavior, with many points in common with other compulsive behaviors.

For example, bulimics and anorexics have done something similar - they have taken the normal urge to eat, and the normal pleasure of eating, and invested them with additional meanings in an unhealthy way - turning these normal drives into self-damaging behaviors.

If you have spent any time around the gay "community" you may have seen this - the vast majority of "out and proud" homosexuals drift through short-term relationships and anonymous sex, constantly pursuing the "dream lover" that will fill their unmet needs. This pattern is clearly compulsive, and can lead to self-destructive behavior.

3. Can you just quickly show me how to control my urges so I can get married?

Nope.
It is not possible to simply control the surface behavior. This is like "sticking your finger in the dyke" - the pressure just builds until it blows up.

We said that SSA is similar to other compulsive/addictive behaviors. Well, the healing path is similar, too: it is necessary to uncover the underlying, unmet needs - the meaning that you have invested in your SSA feelings - and to resolve them.

This can mean grieving past abuse, or missed opportunities to bond with one's father.

It also has a positive element - after identifying where your path of growth was blocked, it is possible to build other, more healthy ways to meet your emotional needs. It is possible to learn healthy, appropriate ways to interact and feel intimate with both men and women.

By this process - introspection and healing past wounds, and building a healthier self-image and way of being - we heal the underlying causes of our SSA.

In most instances, people who do this feel the force of the same-sex attractions diminish, and feel heterosexual attractions grow.

The pace of your healing depends on your own personal story. A young person dealing with minor doubts about his masculinity will handle things differently than someone seriously traumatized by a dysfunctional background.

4. So I can get rid of these feelings?


Well... let's go back to that bulimic, or look at recovered alcoholics and drug users.

They have built a balanced view of life - and a healthier view of themselves and others.

But at times of stress in life - the old, broken "solutions" often suggest themselves. The classic example is the guy who hasn't had a
cigarette in years, but asks for one during a stressful time.

Similarly, healing for us means being free to choose - and live - the lives that we want, and that we feel are right and holy.But in some
cases and situations these feelings may crop up.

If the wounds are deep, healing means being able to live your life - despite occasional pains from the past.

Healing means that when the broken non-solution of SSA suggests itself, you will have other, healthier behaviors - and reasons for living - with
which to answer that momentary impulse.

And the truth is that adults must do this all the time - countering many unproductive impulses, attaining self-mastery.

That's the key here: healing SSA is a progress from compulsion and a sense of weakness, to a mature sense of competence and self-mastery as a
man.


So, You Want To CHANGE?
Author / Contributor :: Anonymous JONAH Man


I was thinking about a statement I recently read from a mental health professional. It was a warning against the whole "change movement" and how guys who try to change, and "fail", are prone to pain, grief and even suicide.

I realize that I am part of this "change movement". I talk with a lot of guys, participate in seminars and experiential weekends, and am frequently quoted. I have become aware that this involvement is not trivial. We're talking about people's lives. I often say that I would never encourage people to take on this "journey". I would never tell a gay person that he is wrong or bad or shouldn't be that way. This journey ain't no picnic either.

But give me a guy who "wants" change. Someone who has it in his heart to find a new life . . . to connect with G-d and his true self and not be lead around by the hole in his chest (and then his penis) . . and I'm off and running. I'll jump in with both feet and all 2000 minutes of my cell phone.

But what of men who hit the "wall"? Those whose ego, willfulness, humanness, whatever, just revolts. The ones who get stuck right smack dab in the middle of the pain. They can't go back to the lie fully and they see no future for themselves. I know them, because I have been one of them . . . and some days, I am one of them. If we tell the truth, we all feel like this at times yet if we don't let our transitory feelings define us, then we can start journeying again once the crisis has passed.

Two years ago I wanted to put a gun to my head. But I couldn't. I decided that a sick, messed-up father, who was fighting for his life, was better than a dad who killed himself. I can be selfish, but not that selfish . . . nobody is better off if someone kills himself. But still, I was willing to give up, to just say f*** it! They are better off without me. I hear that from lots of men.

What am I getting at? I guess it's the responsibility of taking a stand, of speaking my truth that change is possible. That for me, it is, and was, worth every second of the pain, confusion and failures. It scares me when the reality of people's lives comes crashing through. At that moment I am all too aware that after someone calls me, they are then alone at night with their thoughts, fears and pain.

I am often harsh, flip and irreverent when I speak on this issue . . . I guess sometimes that's needed. But again, these are real people with real lives and what I have to say actually influences people. That scares me. I am fearful when I hear statements like the one I heard from the psychologist about the damage this "change" thing can cause. And I believe there are lots of people who mean well but do cause damage.

There are people in AA who kill themselves, they just can't seem to get sober . . . the pain and humiliation gets too great and they end it. AA is still a great and awesome spiritual entity.

How do I end this rant? I guess with speaking what's on my mind. I have a mixture of deep love for the men and women who take this journey . . . and I have a fear of taking a stand. But I'm willing to push through that fear and take a stand, with reality staring me in the face. MY truth is my truth and if it makes waves, so be it. Seems I can't shut up when G-d wants me to talk.

And to those who are in the thick of it, in what I call "no man's land" . . . that place of confusion where the past doesn't work, the future is unclear, and the pain of the present is almost too great to bear, I say hang on, pray with all your heart and soul, yell, scream, talk, and stay connected. The miracle may be closer than you think. Please don't give up on life.

And to Ben, Arthur, Elaine, David M and Richard C . . . I honor you for taking a stand and speaking your truth. I believe in you and your missions . . . and am awed by your courage. Thanks for saving my life and countless others.


Posted December 2004



Education sector damaged by 'conversion therapy' research

This year, the Government Equalities Office launched new research into “the effects of conversion therapy in the UK”, asking LGBT activist Adam Jowett from Coventry University to recruit people to interview. Following criticism over how he was conducting the research, Carys Moseley now comments on how this government study presents an “ethical, moral and legal dilemma.”

In May 2019, the Government Equalities Office (GEO) announced that as part of the government’s commitment to ending ‘conversion therapy’ in the UK, psychologist and gay activist Adam Jowett from Coventry University was recruiting people to interview on their experiences of attempting to change sexual orientation and gender identity. This kind of research was clearly envisaged and planned for in the second version of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the United Kingdom, published in October 2017.

“Within the next five years, if funded, signatory organisations will seek to ensure appropriate research into the prevalence and effects of conversion therapy in the UK, and into how best to work with gender and sexually diverse clients.”

However, it will be impossible for this research to discover the prevalence of efforts to change sexual orientation; doing so would require a random representative sample of the UK population, and this research does not set out to do this. Whether or not this research will succeed in discovering “the effects of conversion therapy” is a question I will address later.

Gay activist psychologist heads pro-government ‘conversion therapy’ research

Adam Jowett has spent most of his career writing and teaching about LGBT issues. He is chair-elect of the Psychology of Sexualities section of the British Psychological Society – one of the most influential mental health professional bodies that has signed up to the Memorandum. He is therefore hardly an independent, let alone an impartial and disinterested observer, of the issues involved.

The Memorandum also makes clear that this study will link into research on how clients with same-sex attraction and gender confusion should be treated by counsellors and psychotherapists who are members of the signatory organisations. This means that academic research based on interviews with former clients will be used to dictate how all clients will be dealt with, regardless of future clients’ desires and values.

‘Conversion therapy’ research design inherently flawed

This week, Adam Jowett finally received responses to his tweet linking to the GEO call for participants, mostly from lesbian radical feminist activists asking him to look at gender reassignment for females as a form of ‘conversion therapy’. What this means is that they think that offering teenage girls and young women who suffer from gender confusion the choice of gender reassignment to live as ‘trans men’ is really a disguised way of attempting to ‘convert’ lesbians to be ‘men’. This is because many (but by no means all) such girls and women have same-sex attraction. One person also wondered about gay activists aiming to turn straight people gay. This was probably not quite the kind of response hoped for.

The lesbian feminist argument is, of course, largely mistaken. But their point that the category of ‘biological sex’ is being eroded by those who support a therapy ban is still valid. In this case there is clear evidence for it.

The initial questionnaire for would-be participants is available on the website of Coventry University. It asks people for their ‘gender identity’ and their ‘assigned sex’ at birth. It does not ask what their biological sex is. All this is entirely deliberate, as it exemplifies the core LGBT untruths that ‘gender is a spectrum’ and ‘sex is a spectrum’. (This is very much what we found with the Mermaids training session for staff and governors at a Church of England primary school recently.) The problem the researcher will face, however, is that lesbian and bisexual women especially will probably refuse to answer, saying their ‘gender identity’ is ‘woman’. Also, there is no guarantee that transgender people will tick the boxes marked ‘transman’ and ‘transwoman’. Many are likely to say ‘man’ or ‘woman’ because they are treated legally and socially in most cases as that. This fundamental erasure of biological sex means that the initial data is likely to be fundamentally flawed at the outset. Such elementary untruths should have disqualified this research in the eyes of the relevant ethics committees at Coventry University.

Researcher’s main targets are Christianity and ‘heterosexism’

In an article Jowett published in 2014 in The Conversation, we can glean that he opposes Christian support for leaving homosexuality behind, and opposes ‘heterosexism’. He discusses the reaction of many gay people to radical feminist campaigner Julie Bindel saying she is unconvinced by the ‘born that way’ argument on sexual orientation, and that she chose to be a lesbian. Likewise, actress Cynthia Nixon from ‘Sex and the City’ was attacked for making the same kind of observation in 2012.

Jowett then quotes Bindel’s discussion with gay activist journalist Patrick Strudwick, who initiated the current attack on counselling and therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction. Strudwick got angry with the claim that sexual orientation is a choice because, in Jowett’s words:

“anti-gay religious rhetoric is based on the assertion that we can ‘choose not to be gay’, and such claims can be used as a justification for those seeking to ‘cure’ homosexuality.”

In the comments section, Jowett responds to a reader with the following words:

“Nobody has the right to define someone else's sexual identity for them and tell them that they're not really a lesbian, they're bisexual. And the 'born this way' argument really throws those who do identify as bisexuals under the bus. Of course they can argue that they're born bisexual but heterosexist religious rhetoric will say that they can and should choose to be with a member of the opposite sex.”

So here we have a clear case of opposition to Christian sexual morality and by implication also to permitting sexual behaviour only within the context of marriage between one man and one woman.

In response to a reader’s criticism of Julie Bindel, he then wrote this:

“I find it highly problematic when women's views are dismissed on the basis that they are feminist (radical or otherwise) nor do I believe that we should exclude those with whom we disagree from academic discourse. I could quote academics who have been making very similar arguments for a long time but they weren't the ones who were recently very publicly criticised.”

‘We should not “choose” to be straight’

In response to a third reader’s comment, he then said this:

“Homosexuality shouldn't be treated because it is not a mental disorder, we should not 'choose' to be straight because there is nothing immoral about loving someone of the same gender and the basis of sexual orientation is irrelevant because we are human and deserve human rights.

“And yet almost all of the comments on a republished version of this article on Pink News seem to have misread my article as suggesting that being gay is a choice.”

Here we have clear evidence of Jowett’s opposition to people with same-sex attraction having the freedom to choose to leave homosexuality behind and develop their natural heterosexual potential. We should be calling this out for what it is – making homosexuality compulsory for people who are morally opposed to it. This is profoundly abusive towards people with unwanted same-sex attraction. Coventry University and the Government Equalities Office should be roundly taken to task for supporting research on attempts at changing sexual orientation by someone with such an attitude.

British Psychological Society implicated in eroding parental rights

It is highly relevant that Adam Jowett has recently tweeted with approval a petition for Hall Green Constituency Labour Party to de-select Roger Godsiff MP for supporting the parents protesting LGBT indoctrination at a primary school in Birmingham. By virtue of his prominence within it, this is the second time that the British Psychological Society has been linked to erosion of parental rights regarding resisting LGBT indoctrination in primary schools.

Kate Godfrey-Faussett, a British convert to the Shi’i movement within Islam, was a member of the British Psychological Society, but had her membership suspended after social media evidence emerged of her protesting against this in Birmingham, partly in her capacity as a mother of three children. Godfrey-Faussett said she would contest this suspension and attended a healthcare professionals’ tribunal hearing on 9 May this year. The outcome has been adjourned.

How should universities handle research on sexuality and gender?

The fact that Coventry University has seen fit to permit Jowett’s research, which appears to toe the government line on ‘conversion therapy’, is in marked contrast with the fate of James Caspian’s research on transgender people. Bath Spa University did not allow James Caspian to conduct research interviewing detransitioners – people who regret having undergone gender reassignment. The government did not step in to defend his academic freedom, nor the freedom of expression of his interviewees, many of whom may have not had a listening ear until approached for this project.

The Memorandum of Understanding says that the kind of research currently conducted by Jowett will be used to influence future work with clients. This is not just LGBT clients. This is all clients with same-sex attraction and gender confusion, including the many who want professional help to be rid of these things. This means that this research could be used to affect the work of gender identity clinics funded by the NHS, including the Gender Identity Development Service for Children and Adolescents. It could be used in training courses up and down the country and the publications based on it will be quoted in textbooks and by lecturers. It isn’t a coincidence how the Government Equalities Office has never supported clinical research by psychiatrists on gender dysphoria, or on detransitioners and young people who desist from the path of gender reassignment.

Toeing the government line endangers future research

It is a matter of grave concern that there is a university funding government research which is effectively shutting down free speech. To be precise, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with producing research that turns out to agree broadly with a particular government policy. However, there is a very clear difference between producing research that turns out at the end to validate a particular policy and one which ignores and effectively censors and entire sub-population of people relevant to the research in order to agree with a policy that is already founded.

Moreover, the research is intended to support the government commitment to ‘end conversion therapy in the UK.’ This means it will lead to shutting down future research on the subject. This is because a total therapy ban will exacerbate the current situation I have described. ‘Conversion therapy’ will be a forbidden practice, likely deemed ‘extremist’, which will be impossible to discuss openly.

Should this research have been given ethical clearance?

Given all these concerns, there is a serious question as to whether Coventry University should ever have given ethical clearance to this research. A critic could argue that this is unfair. The online form does tell prospective research participants that “there is no right or wrong answer.” Surely this means that people who have benefited from counselling or therapy could also take part if they wanted to.

Coventry University, like all universities, has policies on research ethics, and its academics are required to abide by them. The university needs to provide ethical approval for any academic project involving “survey work, questionnaires, interviews, focus groups or case studies.” This is because this involves human subjects and is subject to data protection laws. The guidelines go on to state that, “this is especially true of the activity requires or could involve: (1) Active or unintentional participation by human participants,”and “(4) An ethical, safety, moral or legal dilemma for the researcher and/or participants in allowing the activity to proceed.”

Given that this research supports the government’s plans to ‘end conversion therapy’, an ethical, moral and legal dilemma is presented for prospective participants if they have benefited from counselling or therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion. For in participating in a study wedded to the idea that such counselling or therapy should cease to exist, they would be acting as useful idiots for the government, giving the study an appearance of even-handedness and impartiality that it may well not have.

In addition, if a person responds saying they did experience change in sexual orientation or gender identity as a result or by-product of counselling or psychotherapy, and were happier as a result, this would surely undermine the entire purpose of the research, which is to support the government’s plan to ban all such counselling or therapy. Would this not present an ethical or moral dilemma for the researcher? This shows the illogic of stating that there is ‘no right or wrong answer’ to the questions.

Government should end its ‘conversion therapy ban’ obsession

The Government Equalities Office – a taxpayer-funded government department – has, at the heart of the research, created an erosion of academic integrity and coherence. It has not had any regard for the protected characteristics of sex, religion or even sexual orientation in asking for such research. This is because people have the right to determine their own sexual orientation, and thus must surely include the right to move from homosexuality to bisexuality or heterosexuality.

Instead, the GEO has proven itself to be a vehicle for LGBT domination of the rest of society, often via the education system, and erosion of fundamental freedoms. Given this, perhaps it is time politicians started to call for the government to ditch its crazy plans to end all counselling and therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction and gender confusion. If it refuses to do that, there is a good case for the GEO to be subjected to an official investigation, if not shut down altogether.

(Source: https://www.christianconcern.com/our-issues/education/education-sector-damaged-by-conversion-therapy-research?fbclid=IwAR1SfrivVsD_wibSgG3Tnr8uvMEEnkotyJF8_FVBLwU4G_ZJAZhREM-McNk abgerufen am 20.06.2019. Used with permission)


An Epiphany About My SSA: The Relationship Between My Acting Out and My Need For a Best Friend.
Written By: Nathan
(Posted Jan 2011)

First, let me introduce myself: My name is Nathan, I am married with 3 children. In my life, I have constantly “needed” or at least sought out a best friend. One good friend. That's all I needed, that's all I wanted. Of course, after a while, my need became obsessive. During the time I actually had such a friendship, my same-sex attraction (SSA) was virtually nil. When I didn’t have these intimate connections, I was more prone to acting out with other men.
I always focused on and looked for this best friend rather than choosing a larger circle of men with whom to have relationship. My effort was to have a few deep friendships that provided an emotional connection. Ultimately such friendships did not last. This then left me feeling emotionally drained and craving to replenish this feeling of closeness I lost. I would then look elsewhere to fill the void and start all over again. For several years, I have been trying to figure out why I had this repetitive need to find this one best friend.
When I first joined JONAH (www.jonahweb.org) several years ago, I kept telling myself that I didn't seem to fit the mold of those with SSA. I chose to not engage in therapy. After all, the classic risk factors or causes didn’t seem to apply to me. The story I told myself was that I never had issues with my peers; and, that I was close with my father, even though emotionally he wasn't demonstrative. Deep down, I told myself that I “knew” how he felt about me: I believed that he loved me and was proud of me.
So the only issue that seemed to fit the risk factors or causes concerning my early childhood was sexual involvement with an older male that I never accepted as (and to a large degree still don't) characterize as sexual abuse. I was a willing and eager participant in the activity and I never felt bad about it. (Please don't try to convince me that it was “abuse” –even though I was young-- because at this point it would be counter productive.)
This past weekend I attended a Call of the Shofar mens experiential weekend in Israel (www.calloftheshofar.org). While working on some of my issues there, I developed a theory about why I constantly looked for a best friend. While working on my issues, I was able to get in touch with my feelings and realized that although I had a close relationship with my father, a major part of that relationship was him teaching me and my siblings how to do work around the house that involved fixing things. I wasn't very good at it, and when I would mess up my father would yell at me. Eventually he stopped trying to teach me how to do the "men’s work" and I was in turn relegated to cleaning up after my siblings and preparing lunch. What came to me during the weekend work was a recognition of the deep pain of this childhood experience and such understanding brought about some major clarity: My SSA was caused by my father giving up on me, relegating me to “woman’s work,” and not teaching and mentoring me with the patience and understanding that I felt I needed.
I realize now that I felt like a failure because my father gave up on trying to teach me how to do the "men's work" around the house. This in turn has led to a lifetime of low self-confidence. As my self-confidence waned in childhood, I developed a sexual relationship with an older boy. Like I said earlier, I never considered the situation abusive. However, what came to me during the weekend processes was the interconnection between the early sexual activity and my perceptions about my father’s put down. I began to realize that my sexual activity was my psyche’s way of compensating for this perceived inadequacy. I attempted to satisfy another man, to make him happy and proud of me. Indeed, whenever I felt down, I would seek out a man to please so I could feel that I WAS A SOMEBODY. In some cases, I sexualized it; in other cases, I simply sought out a best friend. Either way, I engaged in what some psychologists call a “repetition compulsion"—a continual recreating of a past traumatic event. In other words, continue to attempt in the here and now to recreate the traumatic failure of my father relegating me to “woman’s work” by seeking out masculine approval in the hope of a better outcome.
Of course it didn't work because I quickly went back to being me with all of my insecurities and perceived inadequacies. I also recognized during the weekend that whenever I had this best friend (non-sexual) or sexualized relationship, I was substituting that person as an idealized version for the attention, affection, and approval (three A’s) that I was seeking and needed from my father. These needs, call them core needs or developmental needs, went unmet. And, my unfilled yearning for fulfillment of these needs, coupled with my detachment from my sense of masculinity through these childhood incidents with my father, expressed itself as unhealthy attachments to another male—whether it be sexualized or simply by clinging to someone as a best friend.
This led me to a further epiphany. When I have an emotional relationship with this one friend that I so desperately need, I am using him as a father figure. I realized that I became obsessive in my need to be in touch with him, to know what is going on with him, and having him know about me. I needed to please him and required his affirmation and love. I currently have such a friend, but I find that if something changes, like I don't speak to him as often as I did, or I don't think he gave me the affirmation I was seeking, I begin to panic that I did something wrong and fear that he isn't going to be there for me anymore. So while I know that this type of relationship isn't healthy, at least I have come to an understanding of where it all stems from.
Regardless of the symptom I utilize to decrease my anxiety and father wounds, and whether I work to continually reduce my acting out and simultaneously make efforts to reduce my compulsion to find a best friend, I understand it can take time. However, the major step is the first one I have taken---which is to understand the common story behind my SSA and my obsessive compulsion to always find a best friend. This insight represents a huge awakening! I then need to accept this pattern for what it is: a pattern I built up a long time ago which enabled me to move forward in my life. The insight also allows me to see this pattern for what it is not: the thinking that I was born this way as many elements of society continually preach or a belief that my SSA is so ingrained that it can never be overcome. Baruch Hashem [Blessed be G-d], I understand the impact all this has had upon my life and what I need to do to continually diminish these symptoms until they are practically gone. Rather than continually recreate the traumatic failure of the non-acceptance of my masculinity by my father, I now realize I have the ability to develop healing relationships which offer me the chance to do in adulthood what I could not do as a child, that is, to acknowledge and grieve the loss I felt from my father's actions while stopping my attempts to “import” happiness and fulfillment from another human being.
I still have major work to do, but I am on my way.


Four Principles of Growth

Presented by David A. Matheson, LPC


(This article is a reprint from a paper presented by David Matheson at the 2003 NARTH Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.)

INTRODUCTION

I am a therapist in private practice and am co-creator of Journey into Manhood (JiM), an experiential weekend for men seeking to change unwanted homosexuality. The JiM weekend is sponsored by People Can Change (PCC), a web based support organization that offers information, list-serves, and is beginning to coordinate face-to-face “JiM Groups” in a few major metropolitan areas. JiM and PCC are based to a large degree on the concepts I will be presenting.

Many men seeking to overcome homosexuality become frustrated and discouraged when they find that their feelings and attractions don't change as quickly or substantially as they had hoped. I believe that the reason these men become frustrated is because their efforts at change are not broad enough. By this I mean that their work, however intense and sincere, has not covered enough areas of life to bring about real change. For instance, a man might focus on overcoming sexual addiction but spend no time building healthy relationships with other men. Or, he may work on spiritual healing but give little attention to healing his emotional wounds.

Diminishing homosexual feelings and opening the way for heterosexuality to emerge seems to require efforts in four broad, overlapping areas. These are:


Masculinity (i.e., men changing have to feel manly and relate to other men)
Authenticity (e.g., getting out of the false self, facing real feelings in open relationships)
Need fulfillment (having those relationships, experiences, and opportunities that strengthen, nurture, and lead to joy and personal satisfaction)
Surrender (letting go of everything that prevents change from happening and letting in the things that restore growth processes)

These Four Principles are interdependent and synergistic. They are interdependent in that, in many instances, one principle cannot be lived without another being lived at the same time. They are synergistic in that they effect and are affected by each other and it is the interactivity of all the principles that causes substantial and lasting growth to occur.

Splitting these principles out is somewhat like putting a prism in white light, with white light representing the overall growth process. The prism shows us the different wavelengths that exist simultaneously in a whole beam of light.

My hope in splitting the change process out into these four “wavelengths” is to empower us to create whole growth processes, rather than to allow men to languish in incompletion.

THE PROBLEMS

To give context to the Four Principles, let me first characterize my view of the problems men with same-sex attraction (SSA) face. They have problems in four main areas:

1. Insufficient Masculinity. This refers to their feeling inadequate as men and having an insufficient connection with other men and to the masculine world. Men with SSA tend to be disconnected from the male world and from other men. And they are disconnected from their masculinity—from their own genderedness.
2. Inauthenticity. They are not just disconnected from their genderedness, but also from their most genuine feelings and impulses. As a brace against shame and deep fears of abandonment, they tend to interact with the world through a false self that has been carefully constructed so as to not arouse disapproval. They are not authentic.
3. Unmet Needs. With only limited access to their feelings, they tend to have difficulty perceiving their needs. They may also have beliefs about themselves and feelings of guilt that steer them directly away from meeting their needs. This means that their needs cannot be met, further weakening them emotionally and causing them to seek false means of self-nurture.
4. Emotional Rigidity. They tend to have difficulty making emotional shifts and being emotionally vulnerable. Their emotional and relational patterns tend to be rather rigid. Also, they often have deeply engrained thought and behavioral patterns.
I see all of these issues as reverberations and elaborations of painful childhood relationships where the boy was shamed and placed in double binds by his parents and peers. Most damagingly, he was placed in what I call a “gender double bind,” by the overall situation of his boyhood.

GENDER DOUBLE BIND

A double bind is a situation where there is no good way out—where there is pain or trouble no matter what you do. You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. To quote the rock group The Cure: “If I go there will be trouble; If I stay it will be double.”

The men dealing with same-sex attraction that I and my colleagues have known over many years typically describe a particular family dynamic marked by double binds. This dynamic may be played out in a variety of ways, but the essence of it is that the boy is punished or hurt for being himself with his authentic personality, feelings, and needs.

The hurt and the punishment may be simply that his parents ignore his feelings and needs. Or it may be that he is disciplined or offended by a parent and then prevented from, or punished for, expressing his feelings about it. Or, more extremely, he may be abused and then beaten for crying. Parents, siblings, peers, teachers, and others can create double binds.

One of the worst double binds these boys experience involves their gender. They come to believe that it is bad to be a boy, or that they are unacceptable as a male. If they assert their masculinity, they are punished or shamed. On the other hand, they cannot abandon their maleness because it is integral to who they are. And to make matters worse, there is no one they can safely articulate their dilemma to. So they remain stuck in this Catch 22 for years, feeling despair and hopelessness. Gender Double Binds (GDBs) are created from a profound rejection—by parents or the environment—of a boy’s gendered self, whether by blunt force or by exquisite unconscious targeting.

It is important to note that the GDB experienced by any particular boy is created within the mind and emotions of the boy himself. Typically, there are real factors in the environment that contribute to his beliefs and feelings. And in some cases, these factors are more a matter of the boy’s perception than of external forces working on him.

When boys routinely experience double binds, they become afraid of self-expression and even afraid of their own feelings. They develop defenses against feeling and create an inauthentic “false self” that doesn’t arouse the disapproval of those around them. They become often passive and stuck in life. GDBs add to this a defensiveness against their own genderedness—against their own boyish masculinity.

ILLUSTRATION: Vic – “I think I knew from the womb: ‘You’d better not come out male.’” But his mother didn’t just expect him not to be male. He experienced a very strong expectation from her to be female—a fundamental violation of his body, mind, and spirit. To be male meant abandonment and death. To be female meant substantial loss of self.

ILLUSTRATION: Dave – Grew up feeling weak and inadequate—to try to be masculine would bring humiliation. Also, there seemed to be something bad, dirty, or even evil about masculinity. To be masculine meant shame and badness. To shun it brought more inadequacy, shame, taunting, and alienation from self and others.

RESTARTING GROWTH PROCESSES

The Gender Double Bind stops growth into mature masculinity and heterosexuality. The goal of gender affirming psychotherapy, the JiM experiential weekend, and JiM groups is to unblock the developmental processes arrested by problems in childhood so that normal growth can resume. But this growth needs optimal circumstances to proceed— especially when it has become blocked by powerful emotional and
behavioral defenses. This requires a multifaceted approach that addresses all four of the problem areas described above. The Four Principles of Change are a way of guiding that process.


MASCULINITY

The general concept of masculinity includes three more specific areas. These are internal, interpersonal, and societal concepts of masculinity. “Internal” refers essentially to gender identity—the sense of maleness and masculinity that a boy or man has of himself. “Interpersonal is about connections and affiliation with other men. And “societal” has to do with social concepts of masculinity, and with male roles.

What are the problems?

GDBs impact each of these three areas. Internally, the problem is that men with SSA typically feel a sense of inadequacy in their masculinity and may even doubt their maleness on less conscious levels. Despite a conscious knowledge of their given gender, they may feel feminine or weak in their maleness. One man described himself as having been “colonized” by his mother. Other men have mentioned that they can see
their mother reflected in their own bodily movements or hear her voice when they speak.These men tend to view “normal” (i.e., heterosexual) men as having some mysterious masculinizing quality that they lack. They also tend to disconnect from their bodies, which—being irrefutably male—are a key element of the GDB.

Interpersonally, the problem is that men with SSA have become defensively detached from other men. The sense of being fundamentally different from other males, which arises from GDBs, has put a profound wedge between the boy and his male peers, teachers, leaders, and relatives. The pain experienced in early relationships with these other males, which is typically described by men with SSA, deepens the defensiveness by adding an unconscious decision to never again attempt bonding. Defensive detachment leaves SSA men generally isolated from close, personal, non-gay relationships with other males.

Societally, men with SSA tend to feel alienated from, and resentful of, concepts of masculinity and male roles. This is essentially an extension of their internal and interpersonal detachment from masculinity and men. And the societal disconnection then interacts with the internal and interpersonal disconnection in a sort of “feedback loop,” reinforcing and exacerbating the overall sense of being out of step with the whole concept of maleness.

How is the principle of Masculinity lived?

The GDB must be broken in order for a sense of masculine sufficiency (having enough maleness inside you and around you in your life) to develop and grow. And, the GDB is broken by exposing the lies in it and by contradicting them experientially. Ways to expose some of the most common GDB lies are discussed below.

Lie: “If I behave in masculine ways (i.e., according to socially defined male roles) I will be humiliated, rejected, or shamed.” This lie is exposed and contradicted through little-by- little trying on typically masculine behaviors, including anything from sports to spitting. Some will stick and others will be dropped. Gradually, the newly adopted behaviors become integrated into the man’s overall personality and contribute to a deepening of his sense of masculinity. Having mature male role models is important in this process.

Lie: “If I expose my true self to “normal” (i.e., heterosexual) men, they will shame me and push me away.” Creating friendships with so-called “normal” men is the only way to contradict this lie. This must be done consciously, carefully, and with intention. Very often, the first step is to make deep and real friendships with other men in the process of change. The JiM weekend, JiM groups, and the many other SSA ministries and support groups offer opportunities for making such friendships in a safe and accountable environment. The New Warrior Training Adventure, New Warrior Integration Groups,church and synagogue groups and community clubs and associations offer opportunities for making the leap into close friendships with heterosexual men.

Lie: “If I pursue my authentic gender atypical interests (e.g., art, music, style, or nursing) I cannot be masculine and other men will not be able to relate to me.” The truth is that you don’t have to give up your passion in order to prove you’re a man. Rather, the challenge is to integrate that passion into an overall masculine personality and self-image.

Lie: “If I express masculine power, aggression, and anger I will be punished and abandoned.” This lie is core to the GDB and the contradiction of this lie often has a profoundly freeing and masculinizing effect. The root of this lie often goes all the way back to early childhood when the boy’s attempts at individuating and separating from mother went off track. Separation from mother, development of male identity, and
acquisition of personal power are very closely tied together. Failure to separate from mother typically has a cascading effect, derailing the other processes as well.

Contradicting this lie requires careful processes that lead the man into sometimes terrifying emotional places. There, he experiences feelings and conflicts he may have avoided for decades. The core of this work is typically anger, which is often conflicted by feelings of love and guilt. Working through these conflicts restarts the process of individuating and developing personal power, which deeply impacts in a positive way the sense of masculinity. It also provides increased energy and drive to do the other hard work of the change process to be described below.

AUTHENTICITY

To understand the principle of Authenticity, we must break it down into two related subprinciples. The first is Internal Authenticity, which in essence implies being whole within yourself and accepting yourself totally, rather than splitting off, repressing, or hiding parts of yourself. This requires an understanding of who you are on a level deeper than your job description, sexual feelings, or the labels given you by family and friends. It takes the capacity to feel and tolerate the full range of your own feelings, which can sometimes seem conflicting, confusing, and painful. And it depends on an ability to integrate these feelings, along with your beliefs about yourself, others, and the world into a self that can meet the challenges of life and relationships. Internal Authenticity might appropriately be termed “the technology of self.”

Interpersonal Authenticity is the second sub-principle within the overall concept of Authenticity. Simply put, Interpersonal Authenticity is the ability to be fully present and assertive in relationships to the degree appropriate and to respond out of your genuine self in those relationships. This starts with the assumption that each relationship is unique and calls for differing degrees of openness. Openness, or self-disclosure, is not synonymous with Interpersonal Authenticity. Not every relationship warrants disclosure of personal details and only a few relationships are conducive of true intimacy. Nevertheless, Interpersonal Authenticity suggests the ability to be genuine and true to yourself in a majority of relationships whether intimate or more superficial.

What are the problems?

As boys, these men experienced emotional conflicts (e.g., double binds) that outstripped their own internal resources and the resources of their families and peers. As a result, not only were these specific conflicts left unresolved, but the boy’s capacities to resolve internal crises did not develop. This left them unprepared to surmount conflicts over the span of their development. The pain and insecurity of unresolved conflicts caused them to shut down the feelings and split off the aspects of themselves that created the conflicts. They may have given up their anger or split off their assertiveness or needs for male friendship. They often disconnect from their bodies in order to avoid their feelings. They develop a “self” that doesn’t create conflict, but that is also false. They have lost who they truly are.

Lacking the ability to resolve emotional conflicts, existing with important parts of the self split off, and interacting with the world through a false self prevents these men from relating authentically with others. They may be friendly, personable, and “nice,” but they typically struggle with relational essentials including intimacy, attachment, self-assertion, empathy, honesty, and forgiveness.

How is the Principle of Authenticity Lived?

The principle of Authenticity starts with risking being whole. At first, wholeness must be explored in a very safe place (perhaps a therapist’s office) where the shut down feelings and split off aspects of self can be expressed and explored. Integration of contradictory feelings (like love and hate, anger and guilt) creates a greater sense of inner stability and clarifies relationships of the past and the present. Open exploration of split off aspects of self (e.g., assertiveness or sexual desires) reduces the shame that has accumulated around these and allows them also to be integrated into the self as well.

This entire process requires facing fear in a profound and new way. Men must let down their defenses in order to re-enter internal conflicts that they deemed intolerable years ago. And they must venture into their bodies where illogical, uncomfortable, and unpredictable emotions exist. The process also requires looking for self-created double binds (transferred from relationships of the past into relationships in the present).

As the therapeutic process proceeds, men naturally begin to carry their newfound assertiveness, clarity, and wholeness into the real world of relationships. They allow others to see their feelings in the here-and-now. They become able to reveal themselves to others and stay in relationship rather than defensively detaching. And they find themselves in fewer double binds.

It is important to understand that Authenticity is both the catalyst and the linchpin of change. Without it there is not going to be any real change. It must be the primary focus from the very beginning of the change process.


NEED FULFILLMENT

First, let me define the word “need.” I define “need” as that which is required in order to maintain joy. I consider joy to be the central purpose of human existence. By joy, I mean the experience of satisfaction, well being, and completion; the sense that life is good, that it has purpose and meaning. I am speaking of joy in its mature, bigger-than-self form— not mere excitement, stimulation, or even bliss, although each of these may be part of joy. But joy encompasses much more than those, including pain, disappointment, and grief.

A reverse description of “need” may add context: It is a need if not having it causes deterioration of the personality, for example depression, defenses, intense yearnings, loneliness, alienation, shutting down of feelings, or loss of interest or creativity. These are the opposite of joy and thus indicate unmet needs. Absent from this list of negative experiences indicating unmet needs are the core emotions of anger, sadness, and fear. Though many may view those feelings as running counter to joy and need fulfillment, experiencing them when warranted is actually a need in itself and part of the process of maintaining joy.

Need Fulfillment depends on two masculine drives: to preside and to provide. Presiding implies self- governance—creating order and balance in your life, which must be maintained if needs are to be adequately met. Providing implies the actual work done to meet a need, whether that is bringing home the paycheck or spending time bonding with a male friend.

What are the problems?

The problems described earlier that block men with SSA from experiencing Authenticity are the also the root problems that block Need Fulfillment. Meeting needs requires first knowing self. Of particular importance is the shutting down of feelings, splitting of self, and disconnection from the body caused by childhood double binds.

Men with SSA often do well at meeting some of their needs, but do poorly meeting others. Typically, shame or an emotional conflict surrounds the needs they do not meet. For example, meeting the need to feel at ease in the body—to feel confident and secure in your own skin—might require exercise and dieting. But intense body shame can make it very difficult to even acknowledge the body’s needs, much less care for the body or expose it by going to the gym for a workout. Or, meeting the need to individuate from mother might require creating boundaries in the relationship. But conflicting feelings of love, anger, and guilt can undermine the setting of boundaries with her.

Childhoods characterized by double binds can also diminish a man’s ability to meet his needs by engendering a passive personality. Essentially a learned helplessness, passivity results from life situations that left the boy with no power in his own life—he was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. To make matters worse, he likely created a false self to interface with his hostile or unpredictable double-binding world. The purpose of the false self is to perceive the needs or wants of other people and to satisfy them. Awareness of self—along with the needs of the self—is lost.

The further in life these men go without knowledge of their needs, the further off track they can become. In some cases, a fundamental incompatibility develops between their lifestyle and the meeting of their authentic needs. Getting back on track can then require substantial effort and sacrifice.

Grief is what naturally happens when we are thwarted in meeting our needs. If grief is too painful or pervasive, grief might defended against through various inaccurate methods, including masturbation, pornography, and homosexual fantasies or behavior.

How is the principle of Need Fulfillment lived?

Authenticity opens the way for Need Fulfillment by increasing awareness of both cognitive and physiological aspects of emotion. This means that a man can feel his feelings and understand what they mean. He is thus capable of understanding his emotions when they tell him what his needs are and when they tell him that his needs are either met or unmet.

When men first begin the change process, they often don’t understand their needs. One way to help them find out what their unmet needs are is to follow their grieving emotions (i.e., anger and sadness) to their source. This process is used in therapy to resolve feelings from painful relationships. But it can also point out needs that were left unmet in those relationships as well as needs that are being left unmet in the present. This process also makes viscerally clear to the man the painful consequences of not meeting his needs.Feeling these consequences can be extremely motivating.

But psychotherapeutic work alone may not be sufficient to help a man understand and meet his needs. Some men benefit from personality profiles, interest inventories, and aptitude tests to broaden their self-awareness, which can shed light on their individual needs profile. Also, accessing their own memory to review interests and life experiences can help shed additional light on their needs.

It may be helpful for men to consider various categories and types of needs. This can help them become aware of areas they might not have considered previously. While each person’s specific needs are unique, most men working to change SSA seem to have needs in each of the following areas:


Relational: love, affiliation, community, affection, trust, understanding, and intimacy from people in general
Male friendship: attention, affection, and approval from men specifically
Physical: touch, pleasure, rest, work, exercise, nourishment, and grooming.
Spiritual: connection to God, the universe, or something bigger than self; inspiration,
Work/Vocation: to produce, feel effective and useful; to enjoy daily activities; to have variety.
Empowerment: safety, freedom, self-direction, autonomy, and opportunity
Rest: relaxation, sleep, diversion, and entertainment
Self-expression: the opportunity to articulate to myself and the world who I am.
As difficult as the foregoing processes of learning about needs may sound, the more difficult work of Need Fulfillment is the daily devotion of time, energy, and resources that is required in order to actually the needs. For some men, this can require substantial adjustments in their lifestyle as they begin committing their time and money to meeting their needs. This often requires a high level of commitment the people close to the man as well, especially if he is married and has a family.


SURRENDER

Put most simply, Surrender is letting change happen. Surrender is releasing from your life everything that inhibits growth and receiving into your life those things that foster it. As the previous sentence suggests, Surrender is bi-directional—it involves both letting go (releasing) and letting in (receiving).

Imagine a fortress that has been defending against an invading force for some time. The occupants of the fort are out of provisions and ammunition. They are beginning to starve and die. They are ready to surrender. Doing so requires that they first put down their weapons. This represents the “letting go” aspect of surrender. Once they have relinquished their arms, they must accept the new command of the opposing force. This represents the “letting in” aspect of surrender. When the surrendering occupant of the fortress is a man with SSA, he soon discovers that the “opposing force” is benevolent and brings replenishment and healing.

What are the problems?

Men with SSA tend to have a difficult time letting change happen. This is not a trait unique to them—many if not most people experience at least a little discomfort with change and many will avoid it if at all possible. Anyone who responds to change in this way foils his own growth and development—his own transcendence to something greater. Men with SSA tend to have problems with surrendering cognitively, emotionally, behaviorally, and spiritually. The problems in each of these areas results from unmet needs and unresolved painful feelings.

Cognitively, many men with SSA develop beliefs about themselves and the world, and about their places in the world, that are inaccurate and self-defeating. Most significantly, they have the belief that they are homosexual or “gay.” Their perspectives are often full of distortions (inaccurate negative beliefs) and illusions (inaccurate positive beliefs) that prevent them from seeing things as they truly are. Relationship interactions are often misinterpreted. Personal traits (of self and others) are often misperceived. And future possibilities are frequently misunderstood. Additionally, some men with SSA have obsessive or ruminative thought processes that they cannot let go of. Whether or not these are directly linked to homosexuality, they tend slow the change process down. And they often lead to compulsive behaviors, (to be discussed below) further slowing the process of growth.

Emotionally, men with SSA tend to be rigid and narrow in their emotional and relational patterns. They have difficulty shifting from one emotion to another. They may get stuck in anger and be unable to shift from anger into forgiveness or sadness. Or, they may get stuck in depression and be unable to descend below the depression into the anger or grief that lies beneath it. Or they may lock themselves into a defensive posture that prevents them from feeling certain or all feelings. Anxiety, numbing out, superficiality and the subterfuge of the false self are all common defenses.Behaviorally, SSA men tend toward addictions and compulsions. Most commonly, men with SSA are involved in sexual addictions, which may include fantasies, pornography, masturbation, and sex with another person whether live or by electronic means. These behaviors are repeated again and again for the pleasure or relief from pain that they bring. In homosexual relationships, engaging in very specific sexual patterns with specific types of men is often the rule.

Compulsions grow out of obsessive thought patterns and tend to be an attempt to “get it right.” Although only a percentage of SSA men also have full-blown obsessive-compulsive disorder, many SSA men experience obsessions (discussed above) and show tendencies toward compulsive behavior. Repetition compulsions are common, and some would argue ubiquitous, among homosexual men. In a repetition compulsion, the man sets up a situation that repeats a painful dynamic from childhood in an attempt to “get it right.” But the situation merely creates more painful—though familiar—feelings and ends up working as more of a punishment and distraction from moving on with life. He never really allows himself to “get it right.”

Gender-atypical behavior, although seemingly less serious than addictions and compulsions, can nonetheless slow a man’s change process.This is particularly true when the behavior reinforces to the man, or to those around him, that he is unmasculine, effeminate, or gay. Another behavioral problem worthy of mention might be termed “distractive lifestyle.” This refers to a way of living that keeps a man so busy doing unimportant things that he has no time to fall into his underlying pain or grief, or to pursue healing and change. Frequent partying, overworking, and excessive television watching are signs of a “distractive lifestyle.”

Spiritually, the problems tend to involve difficulty trusting something bigger than self and fears about being controlled and being out of control. The man’s deep shame often results in a narcissistic reaction of putting his own ego at the center of his universe. He may be wary of organizations, religion, authority, and power in any form. He may also believe that God has let him down and develop deep resentment toward the Supreme Being. From this position, the man is not open to mentoring, guidance, or inspiration. And he cannot transcend himself for fear of losing control of himself.

How is the principle of Surrender lived?

Cognitively, new mental constructs about self and the world must be acquired; illusions (inaccurate positive beliefs) and distortions (inaccurate negative beliefs) have to be exposed and relinquished. Perhaps the most significant belief about self that must be given away is the man’s belief that he is homosexual or “gay.” I believe that homosexuality cannot be changed without a conscious choice to do so. Often, the most significant belief about others that must be released is the stereotyped perspective of heterosexual men. Deep relationships with other men can help greatly in these processes, especially once trust begins to develop. Trust itself is a surrender of defensiveness and it opens the man to seeing other views of life that will challenge and correct his own. Sometimes, cognitive therapeutic processes must be employed to stop or reduce the obsessive or ruminative thought processes. These generally include an aspect of releasing or relinquishing (letting go) the obsessive thought.

Emotionally, the principle of Surrender begins with letting go of defenses and fully receiving and feeling your emotions. Emotions bring physical sensations and impulses in the body (e.g., anger might bring a pounding heart and an impulse to hit) and understanding to the mind (e.g., anger might bring recognition of the extent of abuse). Men must learn to release the physical sensations and impulses (often called a “charge”) in ways that don’t hurt themselves or others. And they must integrate the new understanding, which creates growth and expansion of emotional capacities. Men in the change process must also surrender emotionally in relationships with trustworthy people by releasing information about themselves, exposing their feelings, and receiving love and affirmation.

Surrendering unhealthful behaviors depends on surrender in the other three areas since addictions and compulsions tend to be based on cognitive, emotional, and spiritual issues. For example, sexual addictions are often held in place by a deep sense of alienation or self-hatred while repetition compulsions are often based in unresolved traumatic parent-child interactions. Working through and surrendering these underlying issues can have a dramatic impact on the addiction or compulsion. Even so, additional behaviorally based or 12 Step work is often required to fully overcome the addiction or compulsion.

Similarly, gender-atypical behavior is essentially a reflection of underlying issues involving the man’s self-perception. Emotional and cognitive surrender (as described above) is the pathway to deep changes in self-perception. At the same time, consciously surrendering non-masculine behaviors and adopting gender-typical behaviors can be quite helpful in the overall process. Finally, surrendering a “distractive lifestyle” necessitates emotional surrender but also usually requires a purely behavioral intervention to help the man change his pattern.

Spiritual surrender may be done as one powerful act of faith—willingly letting go the control of your life, trusting that something bigger than you will benevolently step in. Some men can do this. Other men can only spiritually surrender a bit at a time as they gradually feel greater trust through successful experiences with powers greater than their own, whether that power is seen as the natural change process or as God. For many religious men, the love shared between them and God creates a willingness and desire to surrender. Whether done at once or through many small decisions, spiritual surrender requires a recognition that you are a smaller force in the universe and that there is some force greater than yourself that wants your wellbeing.

Spiritual surrender also involves seeking transcendence. By this I mean, seeking to rise above where you have been, looking within yourself for more mature responses, and going to sources higher than yourself for guidance and inspiration.

CONCLUSION

The Four Principles of Change are useful because they are easily understood and implemented by men in the change process. They also provide a paradigm for therapists that can be applied in very specific ways to a full range of issues facing all men in the process.

To me, “change” means that growth toward mature masculinity and heterosexuality is resumed and completed. Growth needs optimal circumstances to proceed. My hope in splitting out the whole growth process into the four Principles of Growth is to empower us to create whole growth processes and optimal circumstances for change.


Why Change?
Author / Contributor :: People Can Change | (Posted February 2008)

Ben Newman, the founder of People Can Change, summarizes 5 basic responses from men who expressed their desire to change sexual orientation.
Written Originally for www.peoplecanchange.com (Dec. 2003)

Why Change? What could possibly motivate us to go against our seemingly "natural" urges and do all the hard work described on this Web site?


To one extent or another, we were all motivated by at least one of the five things listed below, but usually were motivated by a combination of them: We were often miserable "gay"; we wanted to resolve the inner conflict between our homosexual desires and our deeply held beliefs; we wanted to have a family, or preserve the families we already had; we wanted to grow into mature masculinity, which for us meant heterosexual masculinity; and we felt called by G-d to come out of homosexuality into what for us was a far better life.


We were often miserable "gay."


In so many ways, "gay" just didn't work for us. It was so easy to become sex-obsessed in the pornography- and lust-saturated culture of homosexuality. It was so difficult to feel connected to G-d or some kind of higher purpose in a life where the mantra seemed to be, "If it feels good, nothing else matters." We were living in dissonance with the values, beliefs and goals we'd held for a lifetime. We pined for love and acceptance from men, but it seemed that so many gays so idolized youth and physical perfection that we often felt more rejection from our gay brothers, not less.


Still, we kept searching, partly because we didn't know where else to look and partly because we did find moments of pleasure and moments of real connection with good, decent and kind homosexual men. Those were the moments that kept drawing us back to homosexuality, hoping and believing that maybe the next boyfriend, the next encounter, would finally make us feel whole.


But for most of us, the hole inside of us that yearned for male affirmation and acceptance just got bigger the more that we pursued wholeness by engaging in homosexual behavior. Several of us were plagued by thoughts of suicide. Some of us became sex addicts, no longer able to control our obsessive search for sex. Our lives became filled with darkness.


Paul writes:


"For 12 years, I lived life as an openly gay man. I had a partner of three years who I dearly cared for, a family of wonderful loving friends scattered around the world, a house, a new job, and the prospects of a beautiful life. There was just one question that periodically raised its ugly head: Why was I so insufferably miserable?

"I was amazed. I had everything that I ever wanted. Yet, I also felt an incredible black hole inside that seemed to be sucking the life out of me. How could this be? I kept trying desperately to fill it. I read a lot of philosophy, I thought a lot about existence and life, and tried various ways to reach a peace. Nothing worked, not one damn thing. The pain just continued to increase, steadily and persistently. All I wanted to do was cease to exist, to end the suffering."


Ben writes:


"As soon as I 'accepted' that I was gay, and I could deny it no longer, I felt immediate relief from the turmoil of vacillation, but I also felt all my life's goals, dreams and values tossed to the wayside, with no higher purpose to replace them. I was adrift without a moral anchor or spiritual compass. A boyfriend talked theoretically about moral versus immoral homosexuality, but I couldn't see it (perhaps in part because I had met him at a gay bathhouse!). It seemed my 'life's work' would become about pursuing sex with men and trying to feel good about it. I just couldn't look in the mirror and like that kind of a man."


These experiences are confirmed by a myriad of statistics and our own personal experiences in the gay world. We found promiscuity was rampant; within gay circles, we found it was not only a given, it was celebrated and joked about openly. "Permanent" relationships are fleeting, lasting usually just a few months but occasionally a few years. On average, gay men die as much as 20 years earlier than heterosexual men. It is no wonder we were miserable; what is amazing is that so many seem to find fulfillment in that kind of life.


For many of us, our homosexual longings conflicted with deeply held beliefs, causing painful turmoil and confusion.


We could not simply toss aside everything we had come to believe about right and wrong, good and evil, God, and our life purpose. These things were part of our identity, part of how we made sense of the world. Many of us found we couldn't will them away any more than we could will away our homosexual desires. Nor did we want to.


We longed to have a family of our own one day, or, if we were already married or had children, we wanted to hold our families together and be the husbands our wives deserved and the fathers our children deserved.


We couldn't live with the thought of putting our wives and children through so much turmoil just because we couldn't control our lust. We had made promises to them, and we wanted to find a way to keep those promises and live with ourselves in peace.


We longed to grow into a fully mature masculinity, which for us meant heterosexual masculinity.


In short, we wanted to be men, and we simply defined "real men" as straight men. As much as we tried to convince ourselves that homosexual men were just as masculine as straight men, that there was nothing emasculating about having sex with a man or pursuing the gay interests, we felt inside ourselves that that just wasn't true.


Our masculine souls, no matter how buried below a gay identity, longed to feel as masculine as we perceived straight men to be. And we began to realize we would never feel that way as long as we related to men sexually or romantically. We learned that to grow into full masculinity, we would have to grow into heterosexuality.


We felt called by G-d out of homosexuality into what for us was a far better life.


At different times and in different ways, almost all of us turned to G-d in our turmoil, and felt this simple truth deep in our hearts: Homosexuality was wrong for us, and G-d would lead us out of the pain if we turned to him.


This became a powerful motivator in our lives. Coupled with the fact that for the majority of us, being gay just didn't work, a spiritual hope of eventual peace offered a tiny, flickering light at the end of a tunnel. We walked toward it.


And our journey began.


Is Change Really Possible?
Written By: Ben Newman

Written Originally for www.peoplecanchange.com (Dec. 2003)

Absolutely! We testify from personal experience that change is possible. True, the journey was often difficult and frightening, but the destination has brought us immeasurable peace and joy. It was not only worth it, it saved our lives.

We no longer desire to have sex with other men. We are no longer consumed by the loneliness, lust, fear, anger and rebellion that once entrapped us. We no longer look for the romantic love or sexual interest of another man to make us feel whole. We no longer fear heterosexual men nor reject masculinity.

Today, we are whole. Not perfect. Not even finished with the journey, necessarily, but whole.

Where once there was sexual lust, today there is brotherly love. Where once there was fear and defensive detachment, today there is trust and connection. Where once there was self-hate and a feeling of never being "man enough," today there is self acceptance and a strong and confident masculine identity. Where once there was anger at God, today there is deep love, faith and trust in Him.

Many will scoff at our testimony. "Change is impossible," they will say. "Others have tried and failed, so you must fail too."

Yet history is made up of heroes who did what others said was impossible: Building the first "flying machine." Walking on the moon. Running the four-minute mile. Recovering from alcoholism. It takes only one person to prove the "impossible" is possible and to show others how. What if one single person were to make a full recovery from AIDS? The world would rally to celebrate and learn how he did it. The example of one would be enough.

The fact that many have failed does not mean that no one can succeed. The fact that some efforts don't work, at least not for everyone, does not prove that nothing works for anyone. The fact that, on occasion, a man may stumble or even return to his former "gay" life does not mean that many others have not find permanent joy and peace in their new heterosexual identities and lives.

We don't typically march in pride parades or lobby for political change, so we tend to be an invisible minority. We are not out to change the world. We were only out to change ourselves, from within.

Those who want to believe, whose hearts are open to the whisperings of truth, will know that the experiences we share are true and were right for us.


Wollen wir die sexuelle Orientierung Minderjähriger beeinflussen?


Da wir keinerlei Therapie anbieten, können wir diese Frage klar mit nein beantworten.


Wenn diese Minderjährigen jedoch eine seelsorgerische Begleitung suchen und die Eltern damit einverstanden sind, werden wir diesem Wunsch entsprechen.



Werben wir für "Konversionstherapien"?


Wir sind eine Seelsorge-Organisation, also bieten wir keine Therapien an noch werben wir für solche.

Wir treten jedoch für das Recht eines jeden Menschen ein, Informationen zu erhalten. Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen, deren Angehörige und Freunde sowie allgemein Interessierte sollten alles zu diesem Thema erfahren, was es aktuell gibt. Nur wer eine Angelegenheit aus verschiedenen Perspektiven betrachtet, kann ein vernünftiges Urteil fällen. Vor allem kann er/sie das Urteil dann frei fällen - und bekommt dafür notwendige Informationen nicht vorenthalten.

Wir sind allerdings nicht dafür verantwortlich, was andere denken. Wir können niemanden davon abhalten, dies als "Werbung" für eine "Konversionstherapie" zu betrachten, auch wenn dies nicht unsere Absicht ist.

Abgesehen davon kennen wir nicht mal jemanden im deutschsprachigen Raum, der eine derartige Therapie durchführt...



Man darf also Männern was abschneiden und sie so zu "Frauen" machen, aber wenn man ihnen - auf eigenen Wunsch! - aus ihrem schwulen Leben heraus hilft, ist das "Konversionstherapie" [ist es übrigens nicht!] und man soll dafür auf dem Scheiterhaufen der Politik und Justiz landen? Was ist nur aus dem guten alten gesunden Menschenverstand geworden?


Wenn ihr keine Therapie für Homosexuelle anbietet, warum finden sich dann auch einschließliche Videos und anderes Material darüber auf eurer Homepage?


Wir sind für Freiheit. Gedankenfreiheit, Freiheit der Wissenschaft und vor allem Freiheit eines jeden Individuums, sich die Therapie seiner/ihrer Wahl zu suchen.


Wir lehnen eine diesbezügliche Einschränkung der Wissenschaft, der religiösen Glaubensfreiheit und der Entscheidungsfreiheit jedes Einzelnen ab.


Diese Zeiten hatten wir bereits - und sie haben nicht gut geendet.



Why Therapeutic Choice Matters
The Threat to Freedom Has Never Been Greater!

Current legislation being considered by the California legislature would ban licensed professional therapy for adults who have questions about their unwanted homosexual feelings (or gender identity) or are experiencing unwanted sexual attractions. In 2012 California passed a bill - SB1172 - that eliminated the right of adolescents or children to receive any professional counseling for their confused or unwanted homosexual feelings that was not gay affirming. No matter what their religious values are. No matter what their personal goals or individual needs are. No matter how much they may wish to avoid certain behaviors any attempt to decrease those attractions or explore their heterosexual possibilities is now illegal in ten states. And now these same radical political activists want to eliminate these same opportunities for counseling conversations or any meaningful association with any counselor who would share their religious values in an open, transparent exploration of their sexual attractions.

(https://www.therapeuticchoice.com/why-therapeutic-choice-matters)

"Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down."
- Frederick Douglass


“There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.”
― Ernest Hemingway


Die "Gesprächstherapie nach Rogers" ist bei vielen Seelsorgen und auch Therapeuten ein gern zitiertes Qualitätsmerkmal, das als Beschreibung der eigenen Herangehensweise gelten soll.
Dabei wird jedoch vergessen, dass diese Therapie nur ein (!) Werkzeug aus einem großen Koffer verschiedenster Werkzeuge ist.
Wer nur diese Form der Gesprächsführung wählt, arbeitet nicht im Sinne der Ratsuchenden, da in vielen Situationen eine andere Methoden geeigneter und zielführender ist.
Wer also wirklich im Sinne der Klienten arbeiten will, sollte sich tunlichst auch andere Methoden aneignen!


Es gibt bei vielen die Tendenz, Probleme nur als Herausforderungen sehen zu wollen und dies auch im Sinne der Resilienz anderen zu vermitteln. Dies kann sehr schädliche und gefährliche Konsequenzen haben.

Nicht jedes Problem ist nämlich eine "Herausforderung", die lösbar ist.

Manche Probleme sind nicht lösbar und nicht einmal erklärbar. Es ist auch kein Sinn darin zu sehen. Sie sind möglicherweise einfach "nur" schlimme Zeiten, die es anzunehmen und durchzustehen gilt.

Wer nur mit dem Modell der "Herausforderung" arbeitet, wird in solchen Situationen scheitern: der Ratsuchende bekommt zu seinem/ihrem bestehenden Problem obendrein möglicherweise noch Schuldkomplexe und/oder Empfindungen des Versagens und Scheiterns, was das Problem an sich noch weitaus schlimmer machen kann, als es bereits ist.


Keine einfachen Rezepte also!

Why do so many people with same-sex attractions stumble on the way to freedom? Here some reasons:

- So far, they used the easy fix to deal with their hurts and their legitimate unfulfilled needs. Now they are supposed to do something, which is way harder, even though it leads to a better goal, heals their hurts and really satisfies their needs. The quick fix is just too tempting at times...
- No stress- and frustration-tolerance.
- Lack of ability to set yourself a goal and pursue it - no matter what.
- Everyone around them keeps on telling them to do whatever they feel like doing. It's all about "love", right?
- Lack of a love that is bigger than the lust.


The Great Blondin


In the late 1800's there was a great performer named Jean Francois Gravelot. He was known as "The Great Blondin." He was a "daredevil" of sorts; a tightrope walker specifically.

One of his greatest stunts, involved walking a tightrope high above the world famous Niagara Falls. Blondin performed this death-defying feat more than once, adding elements of difficulty each time. Once he even carried his manager on his back!


Blondin was quite the showman, he had a knack for engaging the crowd, stirring the suspense and excitement. Upon completing one attempt, he asked the crowd if they believed a second attempt would be a successful one. The crowd unanimously agreed it would. Always looking to better his last great feat, Blondin now asked the crowd if they believed he could cross the falls on the tightrope while pushing a wheelbarrow. Having seen his previous stunt, and how seemingly easy it was for him, the crowd had no doubt he could pull off this new, more difficult one. Again, the response was unanimous, the crowd had no doubt "The Great Blondin" could do it! 


Blondin was ready to attempt this amazing feat that only he could do, but before he set out on the rope, he had one last question for the crowd: "Which of you will ride in the wheelbarrow?" The crowd was frozen, still, silent. Not a single man or woman responded to his challenge...


All of those people witnessed Blondin cross the falls on the rope. They gained first-hand knowledge of his abilities. They had a well founded belief that he could perform the more difficult stunt. Yet, when it came time to act on those beliefs, they were silent...still. They did not trust him.


Many of us have seen what God can do, and we believe (faith)... when He calls us to "ride" with him (trust), will we sit silent? Will we stand still?...


(Author unknown)


“Getting to the next level always requires ending something, leaving it behind, and moving on. Growth itself demands that we move on. Without the ability to end things, people stay stuck, never becoming who they are meant to be, never accomplishing all that their talents and abilities should afford them.”
― Henry Cloud, Necessary Endings: The Employees, Businesses, and Relationships That All of Us Have to Give Up in Order to Move Forward



Viele Menschen (insbesondere Männer) mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen holen sich Geschlechtskrankheiten - in weitaus höherem Maß als der Rest der Bevölkerung. Mit anderen Worten: Die gesamte Gesellschaft hat für die Kosten, die durch die Behandlung dieser Krankheiten entstehen, aufzukommen. Für die Lebensentscheidungen einiger weniger müssen alle zahlen (von den laufenden Subventionen für schwul/lesbische Projekte ganz zu schweigen). Ex-Gays jedoch, die dieses Leben verlassen - und mit ihm die Gefahr, solche Krankheiten zu bekommen! - werden laufend angegriffen. Dabei werden sie weder subventioniert noch muss die Gesellschaft für ihre falschen Entscheidungen aufkommen. Wo ist denn hier die Logik?


"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!"

 2 Corinthians 5:17 (NIV)

How Much and What kind of Change can be Experienced?
Written By: Ben Newman

Written Originally for www.peoplecanchange.com (Dec. 2003)


The answers are very individual, depending on where we started, how actively we have worked at change, and how long it has been since we began the process.

When we talk about change, we are talking about change in sexual identity, change in sexual behavior, and change in sexual desire, but also, at a deeper level, change in our spiritual, emotional and social lives.

When people ask, "Are you saying you are no longer attracted to men?" most of us would answer:


"Attracted, yes, but not sexually. We no longer desire to have sex with other men. Our desires have changed. What we find attractive or appealing is masculinity itself, in ourselves and other men. What we desire -- and now have in our lives -- is brotherhood with other men. We don't want to be involved with them sexually or romantically. In fact, that kind of relationship would subvert the good, healthy, fulfilling brotherhood that we now enjoy instead."

When people ask, "So are you sexually attracted to women now?" most of us would answer:


"Yes, much more so than we used to be. It's usually a particular attraction to a particular woman, but we do relate to women now in a much more opposite-sex, man-to-woman, heterosexual way. We find now that this kind of relating affirms our masculinity, where it used to feel like it would engulf us in the feminine."

Paul contrasts his experience with a former male lover to his experience with his fiance now:


"I recognize now, although I couldn't see it when I was living homosexually, that my homosexual relationships always had a huge piece missing. I didn't feel whole or complete with men. I was always lacking, wanting something more from them than they could give me. With my fiance now, the best way to describe how I feel about our relationship is that we 'fit.' Physically, emotionally, spiritually, she fits. She complements the areas why I'm lacking, and I complement her, like a lock and key. And as I grow to love her more, my desire for her physically just keeps increasing. It's easy to see myself as both a companion and lover to her for the rest of my life.

"That's completely different from my former relationship with my boyfriend Jim. As I grew to love him more, I grew to desire him (sexually) less. I now know why: I started to love him normally, as a brother, instead of as a lover. I had a tremendous, growing love for him. I adored him. I still do. He's one of the most loving, caring, humble men I have ever met. But our relationship was changing to one where we were companions, not lovers. And that is absolutely consistent with what I saw in other relationships. After awhile, they would become great friends but stop having sex with each other. They would start to go outside the relationship for sex. In 12 years in the gay world, I never met a gay couple that was entirely monogamous. One in the couple has always gone outside the relationship for sex, if not both. Always."


Most of us found that we began to experience profound change once we took the focus off of our sexual orientation and placed it instead on healing with other men (especially our fathers and peers), within ourselves, and with G-d. As we grew into a more "healed," more mature masculinity, romantic interest in the opposite sex usually began to emerge indirectly, almost as a byproduct of strengthening our identities as men.

David writes:


"When I think carefully about the therapeutic work I did in those years, I see clearly that it wasn't about switching the gender of my sexual preference. It was about escaping the bondage of some deeper problems - anxiety, shame and fear. For most of my life, I had been overwhelmed by anxiety when I was in the presence of strong and intelligent men. I had been oppressed by intense shame because I felt my body was so inadequate. And I had been crippled by a fear of exposing my deepest emotions.

"The work I did in those years was to make choices that gradually freed me from the bondage of these deeper problems. Tremendous rewards followed - fulfilling friendships with other men, better health and greater confidence with my body and emotional freedom and power. Yes, my sexual orientation changed too. But in my life today, heterosexuality is like salt in the cookie dough - it's an important element, but it's not the main ingredient. You see, my struggle hasn't really been about going 'straight.' It has been about getting free."


Here are some of the areas where many of us have experienced the most change:

1. From turmoil to peace, and from darkness into light.

This is perhaps where most of us feel the most significant change in our lives. We are no longer torn apart by conflicting desires and values, sexual obsession and/or unrequited longing for male affirmation and affection. We no longer feel lost in spiritual darkness, plagued by thoughts of self-destruction. We are at peace.

2. From shame and self-hate to self-acceptance and self-nurturing.

Another profound area of change. We have come to love and accept ourselves as we are, free of shame and free of fear that others would reject us if they knew our secrets.

3. From repression to fulfillment. From isolation and secrecy to rich friendships full of honest disclosure and mutual support. From lust to brotherly love.

Instead of repressing our feelings, or indulging them in self-destructive ways, we have learned to fulfill them in healthy, self-nurturing ways that create a brotherly bond with other men. Now, instead of lusting after men as sexual partners, we identify with them as brothers.

All of us report that we have never had so many good friendships, and certainly not with other heterosexual men with whom we feel connected as equals and with whom we can be our true selves in complete honesty. These are the healthiest friendships of our lives.

4. From rebellion against G-d to love for him and joyful submission to his Divine will.

To no longer be fighting against G-d, but to seek him out as a trusted friend and companion who we know wants us to experience real, lasting joy has brought much greater peace into our lives!

5. From fear and rejection of heterosexual men ("heterophobia") to identification with them literally as our fellow men.

Rather than always panicking at being with heterosexual men, we typically now can be in the company of men, with a sense of peace, wholeness and joy, and we look forward to their company. We feel much more bonded, connected and affirmed as men.

6. From a feeling of being genderless or never being "man enough" to a sense of pride, joy and wholeness in our manhood.

7. From distressful sexual behavior or desires, sometimes even obsessively or addictively, to a healthy "sexual sobriety" that brings peace and an enhanced spiritual and emotional life.

We are not "white knuckling" abstinence from homosexual desires. We have withdrawn from the lust and done the underlying personal work so that doing so has brought peace and wholeness.

8. From disconnection from our feelings and escape into fantasy to understanding and embracing our feelings and the competence to deal with them in nurturing ways.

9. From identity as a gay or bisexual man to identity as a son of G-d and a man among men.

Our sexuality no longer defines our identity; rather, for most of us, it is our spirituality, complemented by our strong gender identity as men like other heterosexual men, that most strongly establishes our sense of identity now.

10. From identifying with women as our sisters to recognizing them as sexual beings and the true opposite sex from us, then developing romantic interest in and even sexual fulfillment with particular women.

Admittedly, none of us has become a womanizing playboy. (But neither would we want to. What merit would there be in simply trading one obsession for another?) But the more healed we have become as men, the more we have found romantic interest in women beginning to grow. Usually, each of us experienced this as attraction to just one particular woman, not to women generally. That is just fine with us - even preferable! Our desire for wife and family can be fulfilled perfectly well if our heterosexuality is experienced and expressed with just one woman. (We've also learned that this trait can be very appealing to our wives and girlfriends!)


Does this mean none of us will ever again have a homosexual thought? That we will never feel tempted by past memories? Not necessarily. But that doesn't mean we haven't changed - only that we are still human. When some of us do have moments where we feel the pull of homosexuality, we know it is a symptom of not taking care of our emotional and spiritual lives, of feeling disconnected from our brothers, from G-d and from our own sense of inner strength and manhood. We nurture our bonds with good men, we reach out to G-d, we reconnect with our masculine power, and the lust is quickly replaced by spiritual love.

To quote the author Richard Bach: "Here is a test to see if your [work] in life is finished: If you're alive, it isn't."

And so, the journey continues. The difference is, now it is a journey of peace, light, self-acceptance and self-nurturing, fulfillment, brotherly love, heterosexual family life, and love of G-d.


Why SSA Became a Blessing in Disguise
Written By: "S"
(Posted Dec. 2014 )
For me, SSA (same-sex attraction) is a blessing in one hell of a disguise. Every single day between the ages of 13 and 23, I would think and despair endlessly about the impossible struggle I was in, being attracted to other men. Ten years alone, keeping this heavy, shameful secret from every single person in my life. It hurt a lot, for a very long time, in a very deep place.
In October 2013, I attended the Journey into Manhood (JiM) workshop in Israel and had the most wonderfully powerful experience of my life. I haven’t been the same since. While SSA was definitely the primary motive behind my decision to attend the workshop and begin therapy, I have realized that the underlying issues, as well as the significant changes I have created in my life since the workshop, span a spectrum far broader than sexuality alone.
Over the past year since the workshop, I have worked hard at gaining awareness and authenticity within myself, and pursued activities and relationships that provide a platform for personal empowerment. I am proud to say that my achievements in these areas have brought about significant growth in my life:
* I no longer live with the burden of harboring a secret. I am who I am, where I am, and I’m OK with that, which is an incredible feeling.
* I have learned to process the attraction I feel toward other men, identify my underlying desires and needs, and meet them in ways that are not sexual, thus diminishing the sexual aspect of the attraction.
* I have processed and shattered negative beliefs about myself, such as the belief that I am “less than” certain other men.
* I found the courage to share my SSA with my parents following the JiM workshop, which has enabled me to have a more open, deep and healthy relationship with them.
* After literally a decade of dealing with a harmful pornography addiction, I have been 100% “clean” since the JiM workshop a year ago (and my smartphone doesn’t have a filter).
* I have bonded authentically with other guys, and today I own the feeling of being a good man among men.
* Perhaps most excitingly for me, this past winter I fell head over heels, emotionally and physically, for a fantastic girl. I told her about my feelings for her, and later, about my SSA. I proved to myself that what I had perceived to be impossible is, in fact, possible.
This is not to say that my journey is easy or devoid of setbacks and pitfalls. Far from it. Like all people, I go through horrible days and hard times, when the prospect looks bleak and the journey impossible. Fortunately, these times are few and far between, and I have solid friends, brothers and mentors who help me pull through (as I do for them).
I am not on this journey because of religious, political or social beliefs alone. I would readily swear on a stack of bibles that this therapy has huge, undeniably beneficial effects on many different areas across my life, with the reduction of my attraction to other men and the increase of my attraction to women being very significant among them.​​