Toying With Theoretical Models - Part V: Beauty and The Beast

This is part V of a series of essays:

Part I Motivations

Part II Obvious Problems

Part III What Evidence Must Be Addressed

Part IV Towards A Layered View

Part V Beauty and the Beast

Part VI The Critical Thoughts


Of course, as both Freud and Jung's work shows, the real ugly problem arises when you start trying to apply the real data to the theoretical model. Freud's conceptual model of Id, Ego, Super Ego etc. became gradually more and more twisted as he clung to an extremely male-physiology-centered interpretation of things. (hardly surprising, Freud was a man, in an era where feminine behaviours were seen as nearly otherworldly by most men)

So let me step back to some of the evidence issues I raised here, and explore how they fit into the proposed model:

1. Mutability of Sexual Orientation

Where strongly "polar" heterosexual and homosexual individuals are concerned, their expressed sense of core orientation is reportedly constant. For these individuals, the "elastic" that ties their behaviour back to their core identity is fairly short and does not permit a great deal of variation in behaviour.

But, we have ex-gay groups claiming that they have clear evidence of members that have changed their orientation. Criticisms of Spitzer's study raise the prospect that many of the "successful ex-gays" were either bisexual to begin with, and had simply adjusted their behaviour, or had become celibate homosexuals.

So...how to reconcile two seemingly incompatible sets of evidence? The first observation is that people's sexuality is highly variable, and in many different degrees. So, an individual may well be "extremely" heterosexual, or "extremely" homosexual, but similarly, there are all sorts of shadings in between which individuals may or may not have acknowledged in themselves. It is quite conceivable that the successful ex-gays have been bisexual in the first place, and simply hadn't understood that aspect of themselves fully as adults.

If we then apply the "veneer" of public behaviour (which is often shaped by societal pressures and other factors), and allow it to drift somewhat relative to the underlying core attributes, it is quite reasonable to find that there will be those who believe that their orientation has in fact changed. Whether the core identity has changed is open to some debate - and is much more difficult to prove, but we have a model which describes the experiences of both camps relatively well. It also happens to conveniently bring into the discussion the bisexual population that is often ignored in these discussions.

Similarly, the "ex-ex-Gays" (ex-Gays who have returned to their gay identity) may well be individuals who "overstretched" their public behaviour relative to where there core identity is, and eventually the core identity asserted itself strongly enough to cause the individual to step away from the public construct of being 'straight'.

I do not claim that this is absolutely the case, but it does provide what I believe is a reasoned view of the experiences described by all parties, without telling any individual that their life experience is invalid. (In my view, any model which tries to tell someone that their life experience is somehow less than valid is not only flawed, but dangerously incorrect)

2. Fluidity of Behaviour

Human beings are capable of a vast range of behaviours, and some people seem to change almost day by day.

The ability of individuals to morph their behaviour varies considerably (there are reasons I can't act to save my life), and again, this model provides a means to rationally understand the differences between someone's core personality attributes and the behaviours they exhibit publicly. Some people will possess a greater degree of elasticity in their behaviours than others (explaining, for example, the difference between a great actor who can vanish in their characters and most of the world whose acting ability ends at playing nice with wierd aunt Martha that we see once a year)

3. Persistence of Behaviour

Just as humanity is able to express a huge range of behaviours, it is striking how persistent behaviours can be, even in the face of proscription both in law and socially.

Again, this model seems to work in a wide variety of situations. If one takes the case of an alcoholic, who is physically addicted to the alcohol, it is essential for them to develop specific coping and avoidance behaviours to keep them away from liquor.

Similar approaches are being tried in situations involving certain types of criminal behaviour (e.g. pedophilia - see Karl Toft's release conditions - where he agrees to a large number of avoidance strategies manage his condition.) The success of such tactics is limited by the willingness and motivation of the patient, as evidenced by the high rate of recidivism among such offenders.

(* NB: Please note that I am not equating or linking homosexuality with pedophilia - by far the majority of pedophiles present as heterosexual - the only similarity is with respect to the notion of persistence of behaviour)

In both cases, the model I have proposed actually seems to hold together - there is behaviour that is engaged in by the individual, but that behaviour does not imply that the person has changed their underlying core attributes. At best, they have developed management strategies that allow them to function more or less normally.

In relative terms, the behaviour has changed, but core attributes remain much more constant - evolving at a very slow rate - if at all - in adulthood. Individuals will find a "comfort zone" of behaviour that isn't too far removed from their core attributes. This provides reasonable explanation of the claim that something has changed on the part of the ex-gays, as well as the strong persistence of behaviour experienced by "ex-ex-gays", and most heterosexual individuals.

4. Validity of Personal Experience

I have been very troubled by the dismissiveness with which the right wing treats human diversity:

In this article, we find the following paragraph at the end:

Landolt said, “The same thing happened in Ontario with the so-called ‘transgendered.’ They were refused OHIP coverage for their surgeries and they went to the Human Rights Tribunals.

The use of quotes around the term transgendered is a clue to a general dismissiveness of someone, you can almost hear the sneer in the speaker's voice (no doubt the intention on the writer's part). Similar writing permeates the "reporting" that you find on sites like LifeSite and other "religious news sites".

Looking at the picture more realistically, we need to recognize that individual experience is very important. To dismiss someone's experience because we do not fully understand it is simply flawed logic and exceedingly disrespectful of the people claiming those experiences. It also is the first step in marginalizing someone.

The model that I have proposed allows for a rational understanding of the experiences reported persistently by many members of minority groups who barely register as statistical blips in the overall population (but who exist, nontheless).