Gays and Mormons and Electroshock Aversion Therapy at BYU

thatmormonboy recently uploaded a video to YouTube and asserted 12 points about the LDS Church in order to build bridges between gays and Mormons (see the Church’s website www.mormonsandgays.org for more detailed info on what the LDS Church teaches). I want to comment on many of the points thatmormonboy made, starting with the last point. And the reason I want to comment is because the points he makes are more nuanced than he presents, and much of the miscommunication relates to the nuanced points he doesn’t address: Church doctrine assumes one position and members of the Church can assume other positions.

The purpose of my commentary on the subject is to add my unique perspective as a former member of the LDS Church, gay man, and behavior analyst. My comments shouldn’t be considered exhaustive, but I want to put info out there. Specifically, I want to provide a few additional references on the topic that are often overlooked, discuss clinical limitations that are often misunderstood, and offer a few questions we should be asking to help guide our current understanding and communication on the topic.

thatmormonboy on gays and Mormons and the use of electroshock aversion therapy

So, let’s take a look at the last point thatmormonboy made about gays and Mormons. Here we go.

#12 “…the Mormon Church used to torture gay people like Nazi experimenters by electrocuting them and trying to reorient them as heterosexuals. (This a completely wild exaggeration of what happened).”

As thatmormonboy said, this is a completely wild exaggeration of what happened. I’m not sure why he started with the wildest of exaggerations, but it makes for a decent transition to the history of ethical conduct in research:

• Horrifying research was conducted in the 40s by the Nazi German regime
• Horrifying research was also conducted here in the US, e.g., the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, between 1932 and 1972
• Research like this led to the Doctor’s Trial post WWII
• In response, the National Research Act was enacted and signed into law on July 12, 1974
• The National Research Act gave rise to institutional review boards (IRB) “to assure, both in advance and by periodic review, that appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of humans participating as subjects in a research study”
• The APA published its first code of ethics in 1953

So, much of the research on aversion therapies was happening around the time ethical treatment of human subjects was a major concern worldwide and a developing area, which leads to the next point thatmormonboy made:

“The medical community believed homosexuality was a mental disorder. BYU allowed the practice [of aversion therapy] for a short time and abandoned the practice decades before the APA did.”

Some clarification is in order. The APA came out with an official statement in 2006 that aversion therapy is not to be used to treat homosexuality. This is not the time the practice of aversion therapy slowed. Using Google Scholar, I searched “aversion therapy electroshock homosexuality” by year from 1974 to 1980. Around 1978, publications shifted from implementation of electroshock aversion therapy to discussing ethical implications of the therapy, and by 1980 there are no publications on the use of the therapy to treat homosexuality and only a few publications about the use of the therapy to treat pedophilia. So, I think it’s safe to assume the use of electroshock aversion therapy to treat homosexuality was generally considered unethical by 1980. Like thatmormonboy mentioned, aversion therapy was practiced on gay individuals because homosexuality was considered a disorder in the DSM. It was reclassified as “sexual orientation disturbance” in 1974 and completely removed from the DSM in 1987.

So, what did BYU do regarding aversion therapy and homosexuality? Max Ford McBride, under the direction of Dr. Eugene Thorne, completed his dissertation at BYU in 1976 and studied the effect of electroshock aversion therapy on male arousal to different stimuli (e.g., nude images of men women). A copy of his dissertation is available here. This is the only “publication” I’m aware of. Additional information about the procedures are discussed here in an interview with Dr. Thorne.

a link to Max Ford McBride’s dissertation at BYU on electric or electroshock aversion therapy back in 1976

The major points I’d like to drive home about this research are:

• The research was conducted at a time when ethical considerations were important
• McBride cited other, less aversive methods investigated to examine the same variables
• Rather than use less aversive methods, he decided to use shock

Less aversive methods McBride cited included:

• Systematic desensitization
  • “to diminish fear or anxiety associated with heterosexual behavior”
• Pairing
  • “The patient was asked…to masturbate using homosexual fantasies, as orgasm approached he was presented with heterosexual stimuli”
• Social retraining
  • “These procedures teach new social skills…to those individuals who are unable to function effectively in heterosexual situations… Their emphasis was to teach assertive behavior.”
• Shaping
  • “…the subject was deprived of liquids for 18 hours, sodium chloride and an oral diuretic was also given. When the subject exhibited appropriate heterosexual responses he was reinforced with a lime drink. Intake of liquid was contingent on heterosexual fantasies and/or progressively greater increases in penile circumference.”
• Fading
  • “…a female slide was superimposed on a sexually attractive male slide with a fraction of the light intensity of the male picture… If a satisfactory erectile response occurred the light intensity of each slide was altered, the female slide becoming increasingly brighter until the female slide alone was projected.”

To summarize, these studies, including McBride’s, were extremely limited, and the limitations can be summarized with the following:

(1) increases in penile circumference were limited to stimuli presented in the studies,

(2) no follow ups were conducted to determine the extent to which penile responses generalized to novel stimuli (e.g., actual female genitalia),

(3) maintenance of the effect over extended periods of time was not demonstrated,

(4) penile circumference is not a measure of sexual preference or sexual orientation,

(5) and no subjects reported a change in sexual orientation.

And one important thing to point out about McBride’s study that is almost always overlooked: the primary question he examined was whether the type of stimuli — slides depicting nude/clothed men or women — resulted in different therapeutic outcomes. And guess what he found out?

 “Our data did not support the popular notion that the male homosexual is more positively attracted to nude stimuli as opposed to clothed. The present study’s results indicate that homosexual attraction to members of the same sex is more general and not restricted to male nudity.” (And then he went on to mention that they did get better therapeutic results when nude stimuli were used).

So… All this research and effort later, he made an important discovery: gay men aren’t just attracted to naked men, they’re also attracted to clothed men. It seems like a silly discovery now, but I guess it was revolutionary in 1976.

But let’s get back to the parenthetic statement above: part of the reason he conducted his research was to back up the use of nude stimuli. Think about the context. BYU clinicians showing… porn… to BYU students…? And that’s what the study was really about. Finding data to support the use of nude images in aversion therapy:

“Because the therapist will have a scientific rational for utilizing nude stimuli it will help solve the moral and ethical question regrind the use of potentially ‘offensive’ material. Such considerations should be particularly important at religious and privately endowed institutions where the use of nude VCS has been challenged on the grounds that it is offensive and not therapeutically warranted.”

So, a few questions I’d like to raise:

• Given less aversive procedures like fading were cited (and used and found to have similar results as shock) and given the experimental question, why even use shock? (And this question is really only important to those who assert BYU owes an apology for the use of shock). Why was using nude v. clothed images a moral and ethical issue but the use of shock v. fading wasn’t?
• Given the experimental question and results obtained, why do we focus the discussion on efforts to change sexual orientation and whether orientation can change?
• When it comes to current research (on any topic), are we justified to expose people to pain or discomfort in an effort to justify the actions (e.g., using nude male images) of an institution?
• If the study was conducted to justify the use of nude images in aversion therapy, is it possible that aversion therapy was being used outside of this one study? Was Dr. Thorne the only one doing this type of work at BYU?

BYU Honor Code restricts religious freedom according to The Student Review

An author at The Student Review, “an independent paper revival,” claims the BYU Honor Code restricts religious freedom.  He makes a compelling case, quoting Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Joseph Smith, the LDS Church’s founder.  I think I might agree but I would describe the Honor Code more as means BYU uses to control behavior rather than restrict freedom.  Interesting points were brought up recently in discussions on Facebook.  BYU students sign a contract to follow the Honor Code while pursuing their education at BYU, and the Honor Code (per The Student Review) says you have to be in “good standing” to graduate from the university.  Education at BYU is, in some sense, subsidized by LDS church tithes and donations; is it fair that someone enters as a Mormon, uses money donors think is going to the Mormon cause, and graduates as something other than a Mormon?  I’m not really sure, but I think the author of the article brings up valid points worth discussing and considering.

The author concludes with a quote from Joseph Smith:

“…the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves”

Regardless of whether I agree, I guess I’ll stand by BYU’s (a private institution) right to enforce rules it sees necessary so I can maintain my freedom to worship how, where, or what I may–or not.  Is it too much to ask that BYU/the Church, in their efforts to squelch religious freedom at BYU, not over step their bounds to restrict my freedoms?

If same-sex marriage becomes legal then straight people will stop having babies and going to church

Years ago I participated in an online discussion forum for members of the LDS Church who “struggle” with “same-sex” or “same-gender attraction”.  A member of the discussion forum shared an epiphany with the group that went something like this (not an exact quote):

I finally understand.  The reason God has asked his prophets [leaders of the LDS Church] to speak out against same-sex marriage is because if same-sex marriage is allowed then God’s children will have fewer families to be born into.

To set the stage a little, not all faithful members of the LDS Church agree with the movement to stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal, and this is particularly true among faithful members of the Church who identify as gay, lesbian, and same-sex or same-gender attracted.  I was met with some hostility when I pointed out the epiphany wasn’t logical.  I think I was accused of being apostate because I didn’t agree with the logic.

I understand the author was likely speaking of the possibility that if gay marriage becomes legal, then quite possibly some men (gay) and women (lesbian) who would otherwise pursue opposite-sex marriages might pursue same-sex marriages instead.  But the argument isn’t really logical because whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, straight couples (at least the ones who can and choose to along with the few accidentals) will continue to have children.  In other words, the number of existing straight relationships will probably not increase of decrease when already existing gay relationships are legally recognized.  Maybe there’s something I’m not understanding, so please comment if you would like to add to the discussion.

While discussing this on Facebook, someone pointed out the same argument (quoted above).  I really like the response a friend made to this argument (minus Katy Perry being spoken of in bad light):

[Kim Kardashian, Sinead O’Connor, and Katy Perry] each publicly married and then publicly divorced in really short time (72 days, 18ish days, and a year or something like that). Those people threaten and destroy the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of families. I’m not sure how you and Dan’s committed relationship affect my relationship with my spouse or theoretical children or the sanctity of my marriage.

Why is this discussion relevant?  Dan talked about this in a beautiful post about my family and how relationships are often challenged because of the teaching of principle of tough love.  Perhaps “tough love” is destroying families more than my relationship to Dan is destroying families.  An anonymous blogger shared his fear that as the Church continues to argue that gay relationships are destroying families, families with a gay member will continue to be destroyed.  Perhaps lobbying against certain kinds of families is destroying families.  Years ago I participated in a discussion with a family who lost a family member to suicide.  The note the family member left suggested he committed suicide due to the Church’s participation in the political process and ensuing discussions that took place within the walls LDS chapels.  They were brought to tears when they talked about what it was like when they learned the Church was advocating for Prop. 8 and encouraging members of the Church to get involved.  They worried that more gay Mormons would commit suicide.  They were also deeply conflicted: they support the leaders of the LDS Church as their spiritual leaders but they also lost a child because of the Church’s involvement.

This discussion is also relevant because Republican presidential candidates are making similar arguments.  Freedom to Marry asserted that Perry, Romney, and Gingrich (respectively) “declared that committed couples wanting to marry are part of a war against religion”, adoption agencies would be shut down if they don’t adopt out to same-sex couples, and that it is not possible to comprehend gay families as families so “we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends”.  Rick Santorum is the poster child for the Republican party claiming he will forcibly divorce gay married couples.

Maybe the real threats to religious freedom, family, and child birth are not gay couples, but the people fighting against gay couples.  In other words, maybe fighting against my freedoms decreases your freedoms: you can still have babies and go to church while Dan and I go to school, pay our bills, and file our (separate-but-equal) tax returns.

Finally, this discussion is relevant because, let’s be honest, the arguments against same-sex marriage aren’t really about adoption rights, the first amendment, or even tradition, as Cary Crall posited in BYU’s Daily Universe (which, of course, was later pulled from the paper).  Crall asked what it’s all about and asserted:

The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. We must accept this explanation, along with all its consequences for good or ill on our own relationship with God and his children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting reasons that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.

An argument for traditional biblical marriage?

If it is your belief that God doesn’t want same-sex marriage, come out of the closet and say so.  I’m okay with that.  You must also realize that even if that is your belief, we live in a pluralistic society; not everyone shares your beliefs and it is not okay to require that everyone uphold your beliefs.  If same-sex marriage becomes legal, you can still have babies and go to church.

BYU too liberal on gay issues according to Standard of Liberty founders Stephen and Janice Graham

According to Stephen and Janice Graham of the Standard of Liberty, and authors of Chased by an Elephant: The Gospel Truth About Today’s Stampeding Sexuality, BYU appears to be too liberal (especially when it comes to gay issues) for the following reasons:

• “Department heads, professors, [etc], [preach]…socialism, radical feminism, anti-Americanism, [etc]…and popular homosexualism”
• “…BYU has made concessions, step by step, for homosexuality as an alternative sexual identity to be accepted and respected”  Examples include:
• changes to the BYU Honor Code in 2007
• “accepting of openly gay instructors and students”
• “advocating of homosexuality”
• BYU allowed Soulforce onto their campus
• the “vocal home-grown student advocacy group…called USGA“
• BYU is too “concerned about ‘bad publicity'” regarding the firing of a gay man for reasons other than being gay
• removal of a letter from The Daily Universe that compares gays and lesbians to serial killers and prostitutes

I didn’t think it was possible to accuse BYU of being too liberal in regards to their stance on social issues like homosexuality.  I was wrong.  Surprisingly, it seems their efforts to fight “the gay movement” were inspired by their experiences with their son when they learned he is gay.  But don’t worry, he found the box that’s gay and crushed it (so now he isn’t gay any more).

If you’re interested in reading more about the founders of the Standard of Liberty, I thought this was a thoughtful (albeit subjective) analysis of their work.

Anyway, I wonder how many out there agree with Stephen and Janice Graham of the Standard of Liberty that BYU is too liberal on gay issues (I think I know how many disagree)…

How common are gay slurs at USU basketball games (or other sporting events)?

Gay bulling is receiving more and more attention in the media and schools and students are doing more to fight bullying.  As discussions take place, some have gone as far as sayingbullying gay youth is healthy.  In fact, the Elementary and Secondary Education Re-authorization Act (ESEA) made it out of committee without protections from bullying for sexual orientation.  This is surprising in part because LGBTQ youth are more likely to commit or attempt suicide and report such high rates of bullying.  Here are some statistics:

• 50% of elementary and middle school bullying incidents are based on gender or orientation slurs
• 80% of high school youth harassed as gay identify as heterosexual
• These youth are 5 times more likely to attempt suicide than their non-harassed peers
• Among those who identify as transgender, 60% are attacked in violent assaults
• Gay slurs have been part of all school shootings

I haven’t cared any more or any less than typical concerned citizens.  I make sure I don’t take part in hate speech, and I make sure to comment when gay is used as a derogatory term.  I was a typical concerned citizen until I attended a USU basketball game.  USU basketball fans are known for being loud, energetic, and passionate.  It’s an awesome experience.

But there’s another side to the coin.  USU fans can also say things that leave students, spectators, and potential future USU students feeling uncomfortable, especially LGBTQ students.  As an example, a group of guys sitting a few rows behind Dan and me shouted gay slurs every chance they got.  Don’t agree with the call a ref made?  Shout “you’re a faggot!”  A member of the opposing travels?  Shout “you’re a queer!”

Moreover, we were sitting next to the student section in the section USU reserves for recruits, visitors, scholars, and future (potential) students.  What image are USU fans giving off to these people?  That USU is potentially not a safe place for LGBTQ persons.  This gives off the impression to people outside of Utah that this behavior is acceptable to Utahns.  This needs to change.

Tell USU administrators they need to be more concerned about their public image.

These epithets weren’t directed at me or Dan per se, but they caused us to squirm in our seats.  The exhilaration of the cheering became less exhilarating.  You worry for your safety.  What if they notice our wedding bands?  Will we become the subject of their taunts?  What happens when we leave the Spectrum — will we be safe?  Or will we be another hate-crime statistic in Utah?

The only recourse we have is to remain silent and tune out the epithets.  Moreover, hate speech laws in Utah don’t include sexual orientation.  We could address it with school officials, but what more can they say other than “I’m sorry you experienced this” or “That’s upsetting, and I don’t agree with them.”

Questions I pose to readers are:

• How common are gay slurs at USU basketball games (or other sporting events)?
• What can be done to stop this type of behavior?