Photo: The Aware saga revealed how certain religious groups perceived homosexuality and the notion of whether change is possible. By Damien Chng.
Terence Lee / Deputy Editor
In this four-part series, the writer explores the idea of conversion therapy and the notion that Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered (LGBT) people can change, if they choose to do so.
Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Clarification |
The Online Citizen attempted to reach Choices to find out more details about their programme.
In an email interview with a spokesman (who declined to be named) for COOS, he reveals that they use what is called “Emotion Focus Therapy”. However, no literature is available about what this therapy is, or whether it is recognised as effective or safe.
According to him, the therapy is essentially “spiritual” in nature, without giving any more explanation.
However, a check with Shawn Tay, a church staff who runs Choices, reveals that the therapy involves “dealing with emotions, cognition, and memory work.” He also emphasised the “spiritual” aspect as critical to recovery.
Also corresponding with The Online Citizen through email, Mr Tay went on to explain three areas of change which Choices focuses on: Behaviour, attraction and desires, and identity.
Behavioural change would involve abstaining from indulging in homosexual acts, while changes in attraction and desires would involve curbing the craving for same-sex intimacy and an eventual steering towards heterosexual attraction. Lastly, identity change would involve the rejection of the gay identity.
He does concede, however, that “less than 50% [of Choices' clients] make significant progress” in these three areas.
Life after Choices
Despite his disappointment with Choices, Mr Ow’s perspective on his sexuality did not change at first. In fact, he still saw it as a sin he must get rid of, a struggle he will have to go through for the rest of his life.
“To me it was similar to what compulsive drug addicts, sex addicts, gamblers and alcoholics are experiencing. It is a test for me, and I looked forward to God calling me a ‘good and faithful servant’ at the end of my life.”
He even went into a dating relationship with a girl for three months, hoping to change.
“But I really cannot tahan lah,” he says.
(Photo: Chien Yeat, an avid traveler, posing at Dinosaur Ridge in Colorado. Courtesy of Ow Chien Yeat.)
And when they eventually broke off, the girl saw it coming. They were just like buddies, rather than romantic lovers. Throughout the three months, he had never made any advances towards her.
Another Choices alumni member, 34-years-old AIDS worker Mr Daniel Tung, tried the same thing. Unlike Mr Ow, however, he was a total believer in the programme when he left Choices after completing it. He was about 24 then.
He dated a girl almost immediately after he left for a total of eight months. While the girl knew of his condition, she was agreeable about giving it a shot. However, while they did hold hands, the idea of kissing her even on the cheeks disgusted him.
That was when he decided that enough is enough.
“I don’t want to live a lie,” he says passionately over the phone, as he is now based in Hong Kong, “why should I wait until I’ve gotten married and have kids before making the decision to come out? By then it will be too late, and I would be affecting an entire family. It will be very selfish of me.”
Both Mr Ow and Mr Tung have felt happier ever since they accepted their sexuality and came out.
“I was quick to anger, quite intense and quite serious. I’m less so now, although it’s still there” says Mr Tung, joking that guys must still learn to take his “nonsense” when they go out.
But the process of accepting themselves and finally opening up to others was a long, sometimes difficult process.
While Mr Tung has told his siblings and they have accepted him, he is afraid that his parents will freak out. That is why they are still kept in the dark.
Changed by a spreadsheet
For Mr Ow, it took him awhile to accept his own sexuality. But he has his Excel spreadsheet to thank for that change in mindset, he says.
Working at a private bank right after graduating, he found his job to be extremely mundane. With his work life already difficult, he thought about the sexual struggles he went through, and the depression he felt as a result.
“I stared into the spreadsheet, and I stared into space, and I wondered if all this was worth it,” he says.
That was when he decided to visit Safe Haven, a support group for Christians who “happen to be gay”. Safe Haven is a ministry of Free Community Church (FCC), a gay-affirmative church in Singapore that denies homosexuality is a sin.
Eventually, after encouragements from the leaders at Safe Haven, he decided to come out. By then, he was also working at Credit Suisse, which has set up networks for their gay employees. This ability to contact gay employees from other countries through internal chat has also helped him in making that decision.
Indeed, Mr Ow has noticed significant improvements to his mental health ever since he came out.
“I’ve started going to the gym and taking care of my body more. My friends say I’m more fun to hang around with, and I’ve even become more opinionated,” he gushes. He adds that even his blood pressure is back to normal.
Mr Ow still keeps in touch with many of the friends who went through the Choices programme with him.
He recalls that in the group of twelve that he was in, four dropped out early on. Out of the remaining people, five are still “suppressing” their desires, while three, including himself, have since gone over to FCC.
None has truly become heterosexual or gotten married, he claims.
End of Part Three.
In Part Four, The Online Citizen speaks to a Catholic homosexual who doesn’t want to change and a church worker who doesn’t believe in change. Part Four also concludes this brief exploration of conversion therapy.
Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Clarification |
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Our sexual orientation is not defined by who we sleep with, who we marry, who we hold hands with, or who we kiss.
It is defined by what really turns us on, what makes us go weak at the knees, skip a heart beat, bring on a blush, get an erection (if applicable), arising spontaneously from deep down inside.
True “conversion” to the heterosexual orientation requires previous same-sex attraction to be permanently eradicated and replaced by a sustained pattern of opposite-sex attraction.
Does this scenario describe the actual experience of an “ex-gay”?
Remember:
- Mere suppression/denial of homosexual impulses is not “change”.
- Abstinence from sex is not “change”.
- Entering into a heterosexual marriage is not “change”.
- Dating an opposite-sex partner is not “change”.
All the above scenarios represent self-denial, self-negation and self-deception – sometimes, even deception of others, such as in the case of a gay man who marries a woman without revealing his true orientation. None represent any real “change”.
If conversion therapy can be trusted to reliably delete “unwanted” sexual attractions and re-create new patterns of sexual arousals and romantic responses, just imagine the exciting possibilities it holds for mankind.
We can make ourselves sexually attracted to anything we choose – to tables, trees, mountains and elephants.
A young man may marry an 80-year-old grandmother for her wealth and still obtain real sexual satisfaction with a course of conversion therapy, since any spontaneous revulsion may readily be transformed into sheer erotic excitement.
No longer will anyone have to feel guilty over his or her failure to “feel anything” for a sincere admirer. Just go for conversion therapy and unrequited love will become a thing of the past.
How wishfully convenient.
i salute TOC for braving the storms and doing something like this! rly moves the debate much, much forward
im a great fan! and keep writing the lovely artciles you guys do!
If Choices is indeed a programme that is successful at changing homosexuals to heterosexuals, just imagine the tonnes of monies that it will bring for its sponsors for getting rid of homosexuality in this world . I believe many governments (especially homophobic Singapore) would be prepared to spend millions to get homosexuals converted to normal baby producing humans.. Many institutions, churches included, will also not miss such a chance to make more money for themselves.
However, if there is no such cure, it will only serves to give false hope especially when everything in the programme is so spiritual and pretentious. Incidentally, it will really be no different from those offered by roadside medicine men.
To gay-bashers, I hope you are not trying or hoping that gays become extinct.
While these may say that gays are having wrong thinking,
that gays need not be gay if converted back.
Likewise, it can be seen that sexual orientation can be transient state of mind or sexual preference. Thus, interchangeable in orientation.
By the above token, does this not mean, a human has the right to sexually orientate themselves given this capability inherent in humans (not all has this gift, however) ?
Why dictate human’s sexual preferance given both male and females can sexually orientate to like same sex or remain heterosexual? Why intolerant of something that exists in nautre? Did I hear Discrimination??
The debate shall go on. Till it finish, or comes to a meaningful conclusion, no fanatics should have the power to dictate how one lives his/her life. You do no own them.
Tolerance is what we need more in this world, brothers and sisters. Nature intended for man to be heterosexual, so that the human race will be propagated. Nature is not perfect — and so produced humans with homosexual feelings too. Who are we to quarrel with Nature – especially since all of us are products of Nature, and may I add, creatures created by God.
The beautiful thing about human relationships, those that develop into lasting unions, is that they are imbued with a sense of care, commitment and even love (although I feel love is a Hollywood invention. Nature intended that it will be lust at first sight, a chemical reaction that leads to strangers — both heterosexual and homosexual — wanting to get to know each better, to want to be together, to share the joy of a lasting relationship.
That is what makes human beings different from other animals, which copulate just for the sake of procreation, without forming any lasting relationships, except perhaps in the case of certain species like swans and penguins, which stay faithful for life. Vive la difference.
#1 Morris
Good fresh argument! And quite funny too! :)
By all means, go to any de-gaying programmes if you want to. At the end of the day you got to be honest to yourself, don’t do it for the sake of your family, your future generation your work or your religion.
I have been to the Choices programmes and it has certainly been an eyeopener. The denial and suppression did not make me a better person. I had to struggle for a very long time to find my direction. What wasted time thinking it’s the right thing to do since I was a christian.
It was only five years later that I stopped the gay denial and accepted myself as who I am, I became and much better person, much happier and need not to live to people’s expectation and I can perform at work and other things much better.
THERE IS NO POINT IN TRYING TO BE WHAT YOU ARE NOT MEANT TO BE.
People from COOS should stop all the gay harassment outside of their church compound . I hate it each time they (including Joise Lau) say that gay are not born that way and can be “cured”. They say it on the premise that a “gay-gene” etc cannot be proven. Some even suggest government funding for de-gaying therapy, anti-gay messages at gay websites and even public bashing is good.
Your ideology and perception has certainly done much damage to the gay people and their families and should be reproached and stopped immediately.
Well, too many people like me have been to COOS de-gaying therapy and came out worst off.
Looks like the Choice program in COOS is seriously not doing well.
Is their recent actions a means to revive the dwelling figures and failures they experience in Choices program?
Why are they suddenly so zealous to reach out to the mainstream or ‘public’ for more convert and make its program more national when they cannot even produce a credible convert to heterosexual.
The only guy in their website that stated that he is now a ‘ex-gay’ has not even touched a man before? How convincing is that, using a super abstience poster boy?
Fact is not all gay men will be satisfied sexually (depending on ur face and body). That is a fact. And hvg no children, GBT ppl may not enjoy the happiness that children can bring. And the society at large are still homophobia. Therefore, discrimination is still there.
Having said that, “I am who I am”. GBT ppl will be happier person in general than to decieve him/herself just to please others. Life is too short to live for a book or others. Earlier you realise better it is. Furthermore, Not all heterosexual has fulfilling, happy and meaning life or relationship. THere are many single heterosexual who are sexually dissatified, unhappy and no family. Life is not perfect. But what is worst is for one to deny having a life of their own.
Hmm… the stereotyped notion of a “balanced” article is that the author ought to put up an example for either case: one who rejects the “conversion” and one who finds it a success. And to be honest, I think it will be quite possible to find someone who gives favourable feedback to the conversion programme (I mean, I suppose Choices would be more than willing to supply candidates).
But of course, this gives a misleading notion that the success rate is about 50:50, which is far from the truth. I remember an article on Yawning Bread that cites a survey showing that people who have proclaimed that they are “cured”, still in fact have subconscious homosexual responses.
Another comment on an entirely separate issue is the structure of such multi-part articles. Of course, the rationale of breaking down an article into several parts is because the whole article is way too long. However, I tend to find such multi-part hard to read… because I often forget quite a lot of what was written previously.
Perhaps the articles can be published at a more regular interval (say, one day), and maybe a brief, one-paragraph summary of the previous part can be appended to the new one.
choices has just failed in one aspect — sending gays for a complete lobotomy, coz technically that’s what they are trying to do but executing it the wrong way.
scaple please.
Reading up about this, I found out that conversion therapy is denounced by all the mainstream professional medical and educational organisations in the US (American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, National Association of School Psychologists, American Academy of Physician Assistants, National Education Association) and by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK.
According to all these respected organisations, conversion therapy not only does not work, it is actually HARMFUL to the people going through them.
In light of this, should Choices Ministry be allowed to continue running their program without a warning label (like the ones they put on cigarette packs)? People should be warned of the risks they are exposing themselves to when they enter these programs.
@Casual Observer 11)
No all those organisations are either politically motivated or infiltrated by gays to mislead the public. The only scientific body that speaks the truth about homosexuality and conversion therapy is NARTH. The scientists at NARTH will never lie because they are all good Christians.
I am so sorry for you Lop.
You have been misguided, ….”The scientists at NARTH will never lie because they are all good Christians.” You are plain naive.
Take a look at this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080812190626AA0LnWD
In light of this, should Choices Ministry be allowed to continue running their program without a warning label (like the ones they put on cigarette packs)? People should be warned of the risks they are exposing themselves to when they enter these programs.
————————————————————————————————–
It is unethical for trained mental health professionals to refer patients/clients to ineffective or potentially harmful “therapies”.
The medical principle of “first, do no harm” always applies. As much as we respect every patient’s right to self-determination, it remains our responsibility to equip patients with accurate information to make informed decisions.
I believe that the vast majority of mental health professionals in Singapore do not recommend conversion therapy and will warn patients of the potential risks and complications if they insist to go ahead.
Falsely attributing a gay person’s problems to his or her sexual orientation, and promising heterosexuality as the “solution” to those problems – that’s one of the greatest fallacies of reparative therapy.
We will never think of blaming a straight person’s “messed up” life on heterosexuality. Yet, conversion therapy is often touted by proponents as the path to ultimate fulfilment and happiness for gays and lesbians.
Conversion therapy distracts a gay person from the real issues and prevents him from seeking out effective solutions.
Just like a person who is duped into taking “snake-oil” from a quack doctor instead of seeking proper medical treatment.
By the time he realizes that the snake-oil isn’t working, his illness may have progressed to the point of being incurable. Or he could have suffered poisoning from the snake oil itself.
To JC
to them (COOS) it is “success” because remember, they love the sinner, not the sin…which of course sounds like baloney to the some of us…hahah
to me, what they are trying to do is “conditioning”…just like trying to fool a duck into thinking it’s a chicken when it’s not…
and interestingly, if these “conditioning” measures don’t really work, then why are these fundies harping on the alleged “gay agenda” of subverting the young into becoming gay…
won’t their experience (experiment) in trying to “de-gay” someone be reflective of how hard it would be to try to “en-gay” someone as well? sheesh
so to claim that by saying that homosexual is a “neutral” word or a 3-min mention in the CSE would lead to more gays = ??