FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
How Many Ex-Homosexuals Are There?			Vol. 17 No. 3 May-Jun 2002

Summary: How many individuals are ‘ex-homosexuals?’ In 1984, FRI interviewed a random sample of Dallas adults and found that 2.7% of 294 currently heterosexual men and 1.0% of 393 currently heterosexual women said that they were once homosexuals. If these results are representative more generally, perhaps 1-2% of heterosexuals are ex-homosexuals. However, no large scale studies of this question have been conducted to date. In the FRI study, “making the switch” from homosexuality to heterosexuality was something that occurred more often when a person was an adult than when they were a teenager. Also, proportionately more men than women claimed to be ex-homosexuals. Further, two-thirds of those who changed claimed that they moved into heterosexuality, while only a third claimed that they ‘became’ bisexual.

Being a man or white are inborn attributes. You cannot change them without a visit to the surgeon or chemist. Unlike these immutable characteristics, many adult attributes such as ‘being’ a Republican, a smoker, or a ‘homosexual,’ may be adopted, abandoned, or re-adopted at any time. Certainly, many people have become [or stopped being] smokers, Republicans, or homosexuals at a variety of ages and in a multitude of circumstances. Changeable attributes often carry behavioral expectations -- a homosexual is expected to engage in homosexuality, a Republican to vote for the G.O.P., and a smoker to smoke. Further, unlike things such as sex or skin color -- which are obvious to both the possessor and others -- whether you “are” or “have” one of these changeable characteristics is unknown to anyone else unless you declare it or someone sees you “doing it.”

One of the current controversies is whether individuals can “be” homosexual and then (later) “become” heterosexual. On one side are various clinical organizations (e.g., National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality [NARTH]) and religious ministries to homosexuals (e.g., Exodus International) who claim that they can ‘treat’ or ‘convert’ homosexuals to ‘become’ heterosexual. On the other side are gay activists with the motto ‘once homosexual, always homosexual.’ These activists have been backed up by major mental health associations (e.g., the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association) which have questioned ‘conversion’ treatments for homosexuals as being either unethical or wrong and have also implied that such change is not possible.

Despite his homosexual leanings, sex researcher Alfred Kinsey1 claimed to demonstrate that involvement in homosexual activity could vary widely, with individuals going from no to some to no involvement in homosexuality, or exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and many combinations in between. To him, those who engaged in homosexuality were a ‘moving target,’ at times doing things that would categorize them as ‘homosexual’ and other times doing things that would categorize them as ‘heterosexual.’ He also concluded in 19482 that it is a “fact that some individuals change from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual patterns in the course of their lives, or vice versa” (p. 663).

Categorizing human sexual behavior is a difficult task. Some who infrequently have homosexual sex because they can ‘take it or leave it’ may never consider themselves “homosexuals.” And, if they decide never to have homosexual sex again, may not consider themselves “ex-homosexuals.” Some who consider themselves homosexual have not engaged in homosexuality for some time, while others who have had recent homosexual experience do not consider themselves to be homosexual. In addition, some who once considered themselves “homosexuals” have quit and become “ex-homosexuals.” But some of these later go back to participating in homosexuality.

These problems have led many investigators to stop asking whether respondents “are” homosexual, and instead concentrate on behaviors -- indexing whether and when respondents have participated in an activity (e.g., ‘did you have same-sex sex in the past year?’). At a broader level, however, most of the public debate over whether homosexuals can change revolves around one’s sexual ‘identity.’ That is, how a person characterizes themselves sexually.

In 1984, FRI performed a mostly random, area cluster-sample survey in Dallas, which was purposely tilted toward homosexual respondents by including many reputedly ‘gay’ areas.3 The overall response rate was a bit under 60%. On the questionnaire, adults were asked, “Have you ever considered yourself a homosexual? no, never// yes, but only before the age of 12// yes, but only while I was a teenager// yes, for a while when I was an adult, but not now// yes, and still do.” Later in the questionnaire, respondents were also asked to answer: “I am a: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual.” Altogether, 337 men and 398 women responded.

What We Found

2.7% of 294 currently heterosexual men said that they were ex-homosexuals (3 considered themselves homosexuals as teenagers and 5 as adults). Five of 15 currently bisexual men also once considered themselves homosexual (2 as teenagers and 3 as adults). 1.0% of 393 currently-heterosexual women -- 2 as teenagers and 2 as adults -- and one of 4 currently-bisexual women (as an adult), said that they also were once homosexual. Thus, 1.7% of the 687 currently heterosexual individuals and 31.6% of the 19 currently bisexual individuals said that they were ex-homosexuals.

Most of those who said they were homosexual as teenagers (5 of 7) or as adults (7 of 11) reported that they had changed from self-identifying as homosexual to self-identifying as heterosexual (as opposed to adopting a “bisexual” label). Two-thirds overall of those who ‘switched’ claimed they had changed ‘all the way’ to heterosexuality instead of simply ‘becoming’ bisexual.

The results we found most fit the traditional view that participation in homosexuality is voluntary -- like smoking. Unlike the contention of many psychiatrists, homosexuality does not appear to be the result of a psychological or biological ‘condition’ which ‘impels’ people to be homosexual. Both smoking and homosexual activity are associated with elements of ‘addiction,’ so participation in both can become extremely regular and habit-forming. Nevertheless, the exercise of will can influence whether one commences, continues in, or stops participating in either homosexuality or smoking.

Our sample was all drawn from Dallas in 1984, so we don’t know how well the findings generalize to the American adult population. Still, it is instructive to note that nearly a quarter of all the men and almost half of all the women who ever labeled or thought of themselves as homosexual (including when they were interviewed), now labeled themselves differently. Of the 55 men ‘ever’ homosexual men, 15% were currently heterosexual, 9% were currently bisexual, and 76% were currently homosexual. Of the 11 ‘ever’ homosexual women, 36% were currently heterosexual, 9% were currently bisexual, and 55% were currently homosexual.

If what we found in our Dallas sample is similar to urban America, then: 1) perhaps 1-2% of heterosexuals are ex-homosexuals; 2) although adolescence is often considered the more turbulent time of life, more adults than teenagers may move from homosexuality to heterosexuality; 3) proportionately more males than females ‘switch’ from homosexuality to heterosexuality; and 4) perhaps two-thirds of those who abandon the label “homosexual” self-identify as heterosexual and a third self-identify as “bisexual.”

Problems With the Term ‘Homosexual’

Webster’s dictionary4 defines ‘homosexual’ by “sexual attraction toward [or relations with] a person of the same sex” (p. 464). Yet as both the FRI and the Kinsey studies demonstrate, sexual flexibility rather than a fixed interest in or exclusive performance with members of the same sex is characteristic of ‘homosexuals.’ Almost all ‘homosexuals,’ in fact, manage to have sex with the opposite sex.

For example, Laumann, et al.5, reported that, of men with male sex partners since puberty, a mere 10% reported only having had sex with other males, and of women with female sex partners since puberty, only 5% reported only having had sex with other females. For those who reported same-sex partners since age 18, about 20% of such men and 10% of such women only had sex with others of their sex. Put in population terms, Laumann, et al. estimated that only 0.6% of “all men” and 0.2% of “all women” have, since puberty, only had sex with their own sex (p. 312).

That “homosexual” is a confusing term is underscored by a random sample of over 3,000 boys in Massachusetts6. Aged 12 to 18, they were asked to label themselves as “heterosexual// straight// gay or lesbian// bisexual.” More “than two thirds of males with only same-sex experience and more than one quarter” of boys who reported sex with both sexes said they were “heterosexual.” On the other hand, 96% of the 3,044 boys who reported sex only with females said they were “heterosexual,” but 1.5% of these same boys -- even though they only had sex with girls -- said they were ‘gay or bisexual.’ Further, 48.5% of 202 boys who reported sex with males said they were “heterosexual.”

Are these results confusing or what? Why would so many boys call themselves “heterosexual” when they claimed to have sex with boys? Had they gotten ‘tired’ of homosexuality by the time they answered the questionnaire? Did they not want anyone to know their ‘true’ sexual orientation, yet were willing to admit their homosexual activities? Or were they just being as sloppy on the questionnaire as they typically are in their schoolwork?

The writings of Charles Socarides -- a traditional Freudian psychiatrist and founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) -- also illustrate the questionable nature of ‘explaining’ same-sex sexual activity using the label ‘homosexual.’ Socarides has claimed7 that there are two kinds of ‘homosexuals,’ ‘optional homosexuals’ for whom same-sex sex is “a kind of habit” (p. 19) and “obligatory homosexuals [who] are caught up in intense needs, entirely unconscious,... and have sex with other men, repeatedly and out of some inner compulsion. It is not a matter of preference at all. They have no choice in the matter. They can’t help themselves. Some of them may need sex as much as the average human needs air or water -- to breathe and survive” (p. 19).

Socarides’ theory requires two kinds of ‘homosexuals’ -- one so that he can account for those who persist in homosexual activity in spite of various pressures and opportunities, and the other for those who abandon homosexual activity, either permanently or temporarily. But do some ‘homosexuals’ really have “no choice in the matter”? Can they really not “help themselves?” Does anyone “need” a particular kind of sex as much as “the average human needs air or water”? Will they die without sex? Metaphor-driven thinking sure looks silly at times. Yet, most in the mental health field believe in the primacy of “unconscious forces,” forces which trump ‘free will’ just about all the time.

Given the apparent changeability of human sexual behavior, the term ‘homosexual’ -- rather than describing ‘a condition’ or ‘state of being’ that ‘causes’ sexual desire to fixate on one’s same sex -- seems an inappropriate label for most of those who have same-sex sex. The term certainly does not seem to fit ex-homosexuals, many of whom express no further interest in sex with their sex. Further, the sexual flexibility that the great majority of ‘homosexuals’ exhibit over their lifetimes does not fit the ‘compulsive’ nuances associated with the term ‘homosexual’ either.

An Alternative Term: Omnisexual

As an alternative to ‘homosexual,’ if we were to consider individuals with a history of sexual relations with both sexes, or who could have sex with both sexes, or who desired to have sex with both sexes, as “omnisexual,” very few, if any, ‘homosexuals,’ would fail to qualify. By shedding the relatively recent, largely psychiatric, and political term ‘homosexual’ for ‘omnisexual’ we might get rid of the implication that ‘homosexuals’ have an unchangeable ‘orientation’ -- a notion clearly at odds with the empirical reality.

In fact, the Kinsey Institute’s use of “sexual preference” far better matches the sexual choices that omnisexuals make. And when an omnisexual decided to quit homosexual activity for heterosexual activity, or changed his mind again, it would not appear linguistically odd, but would instead describe the situation neatly. Better still, there would not be the same ‘mystery’ about the choice, involving often untestable theories about ‘unconscious needs,’ parental miscues, or hormonal or genetic differences. Rather, sexual flexibility would be seen as something that omnisexuals often exhibit.

Conclusion

If perhaps only 3–4% of adults have at some time in their lives either engaged in homosexuality or would currently declare themselves interested in doing so by saying they were ‘homosexual’ or ‘bisexual,’ and maybe an additional 1–2% or so of the remaining adults are ‘ex-homosexuals,’ then perhaps 4–6% of adults have been ‘homosexuals’ or homosexually involved at some point in their lives.

Additionally, about 1–2% of current heterosexuals say that they have some homosexual desire -- i.e., are homosexually ‘tempted.’ It therefore seems possible that the total pool of adults who are, and who always have been, exclusively heterosexual may be on the order of 92–94%. But perhaps 6–8% of the population is omnisexual -- these individuals can be and often are involved in homosexual relationships at some time.

References:
1. Kinsey, A. Homosexuality: criteria for a hormonal explanation of the homosexual. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology, 1941, 1:424-428.
2. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1948.
3. Cameron, P., Cameron, K., & Proctor, K. Homosexuals in the armed forces. Psychological Reports, 1988, 62:211-219.
4. New illustrated Webster’s dictionary of the English language. New York: Pamco, 1992.
5. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T. & Micheals, S. The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
6. Goodenow C, Netherland J, Szalacha L. AIDS-related risk among adolescent males who have sex with males, female, or both: evidence from a statewide survey. American Journal of Public Health, 2002, 92, 203-210.
7. Socarides, C. W. Homosexuality: a freedom too far. Phoenix, AZ: Adam Margrave, 1995.

In 1998, Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA), published an article1 that the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), Dr. Laura, and a host of the groups making up the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ flagged as ‘opening the way to normalization of pedophilia.’ Testifying to their political power, over time the controversy grew and eventually resulted in the APA being condemned by both the U.S. House and Senate -- the first time any professional association has been so censured.

Unfortunately, most of our conservative friends did not do their homework carefully. In FRI’s analysis, the scholarship underlying the attack upon the APA for the publication of this article by Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman was less than fair or accurate (FRR April/June 1999).

The fallout continues. Now the flagship publication of the APA -- the American Psychologist -- has devoted its March 2002 issue entirely to the controversy.

The Public Policy Office of the APA alleged2 that: 1) the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) misreported the Rind, et al. article to advance its goals late in 1998; then 2) NARTH “began advancing the false claim that the APA had a political agenda to normalize pedophilia because the APA was the publisher of the Psychological Bulletin in which the Rind, et al. article had appeared.”

Many academics were repelled by the APA’s failure to defend the peer-review process -- some resigned from the APA, many threatened to do so. Lilienfeld3 pointed out that the APA “has a history of adopting political stands on social issues that are underdetermined by scientific data.... abortion, boxing, Zionism, the nuclear freeze, the Equal Rights Amendment, the content of television programming, and, fairly recently, adolescents’ rights to render informed decisions concerning abortion.... [the APA] neglected the principle that research findings can inform but can rarely, if ever, dictate social policy decisions” (p. 225).

A more scholarly critique of the Rind, et al. article recently appeared in Psychological Bulletin.4 Rind, et al.’s main point was that the media and those involved in treating child sexual abuse (CSA) had promoted the idea that it “produces intensely negative effects for all its victims” and that many professionals assume that sex between adults and children invariably causes “intense” and “pervasive” harm in both sexes.

Interestingly, Dallam, et al. begin by stating that “the purpose of our article is not to argue that all types of sexual abuse do in fact cause pervasive and intense harm in all victims. Indeed, it is well recognized in the empirical literature that the aftereffects of CSA are extremely varied and that a significant percentage of abused children remain asymptomatic” (p. 716).

Note their phrase “remain asymptomatic” -- this suggests that the authors believe great harm may always be done by CSA, but we (i.e., mental health professionals) just cannot detect it (yet). A similar sentiment is suggested on NARTH’s website, where Linda Ames Nicolosi opines that “In fact, the molested child who has been hurt the most, in a moral and characterological sense, may actually be the one who grows up as an adult who truly believes -- and who reports to researchers (as many of those found by the Rind study did, in fact, state) that they ‘remember the relationship positively.’” (www.narth.com, updated June 6, 2002)

As to the Rind, et al. article itself, Dallam, et al. present good evidence that Rind and company overstated their case and made a number of important numeric and sampling errors. From their other writings, it appears likely to FRI that Rind, et al. are supportive of sex between men and the underage. Along these lines, one of Rind, et al.’s conclusions in 1998 was that “men reacted much less negatively than women” to CSA (p. 22). Dallam, et al. show that the Rind team ‘stretched’ the data to make this point, and, that there was likely little evidence of a significant difference in reaction by men and women to CSA. In fact, Dallam, et al. claim the existing evidence suggests that men are just as frequently negatively affected as women by CSA.

The long and short of it? Dallam, et al. agree with the Rind authors “that CSA does not inevitably lead to intense and pervasive harm in all individuals” (p. 728) but that the overall small effect was a negative one nonetheless. Dallam, et al. also dispute Rind, et al.’s claim that those kids who were the most willing participants in CSA exhibited the most normal adjustment years later.

Rather, Dallam, et al. suggest that CSA exhibits a correlation of approximately 0.13 to anxiety, depression, paranoia, and psychotic symptoms. Such a correlation would be similar to the relationship between smoking and lung cancer -- which has a correlation of about 0.17.

Obviously, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, but it clearly can (and does) lead to cancer for a minority of those who smoke. In fact, a correlation of 0.17 suggests that about 3% of lung cancer cases might be directly attributable to smoking. While smoking appears to have a few ‘up’ sides for some persons in other aspects of their health (e.g., a decreased incidence of Parkinson’s disease), we can’t currently predict which of those smokers will definitely get cancer. Furthermore, smoking exhibits a dose-response relationship to lung cancer, meaning the longer one smokes and the greater the number of cigarettes, the higher the risk. All in all, there is plenty of reason to declare smoking a public health hazard, even with what to the untrained eye might seem like a small correlation.

Child sexual abuse has no ‘up’ sides, and often leads to further problems for the person molested. While some -- even perhaps most -- who are molested will eventually recover with no detectible residue, a smaller number will be devastated by molestation and many more will be harmed in obvious and not so obvious ways.

Dallam, et al. in fact point out that various studies have also shown a “dose-response” relationship between CSA and other psychological or emotional problems, meaning in this case that the more severe forms of abuse are the ones most highly correlated with detectable harm. Overall, a correlation of 0.13 is a fairly impressive statistic when it comes to the social sciences -- most effects in other studies are substantially smaller.

Activists on both sides of this debate need to be watched carefully. The crowd espousing the motto ‘if a child is sexually abused his life is certainly ruined, the perpetrator must be destroyed, and the child must have therapy until he drops’ is known for excessive claims about harm, excessive pursuit of ‘malefactors’ who turn out not to have done anything wrong, and grand claims about the ‘healing effects’ of ‘therapy’ that just don’t pan out. This side is often guilty of ‘child sexual abuse hysteria.’ That hysteria has been used to disrupt, even destroy, a fair number of innocent families because some ‘unknown person’ made a report about supposed ‘child abuse’ to the authorities.

On the other side are those activists who promote adult-child sex as ‘just a trifle, maybe even a good thing.’ Children, and adults, often need to be protected from both sides -- with especial care that NAMBLA and its allies not be given access to the public square, and that their ‘theories’ not be given anything like ‘equal time’ in the courts or in the media.

References:
1. Rind B, Tromovitch P, & Bauserman R. A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin, 1998; 124:22-53.
2. Garrison, EG, Kobor PC Weathering a political storm. American Psychologist, 2002, 57:165-175.
3. Lilienfeld, S. O. A funny thing happened on the way to my American Psychologist publication. American Psychologist, 2002; 57:225-227.
4. Dallam SJ, Gleaves DH, Cepeda-Benito A, Silberg JL, Kraemer HC, Spiegel D. The effects of child sexual abuse: comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998). Psychological Bulletin, 2001; 127:715-733.

Corner

Change Happens

In May I received a call from an unexpected source -- a once-radical gay who has decided to ‘become celibate.’ I had met this fellow a few years ago during a speaking tour in Wisconsin. He was the typical ‘loud mouth’ gay -- disruptive, disorderly, and hostile. He made sure the audience knew that I was a bad guy, that I didn’t know what I was talking about, etc.

Yet he changed. Did he go get ‘therapy?’

No. One day about three years ago he was sitting in a restaurant when a Catholic priest sat down. A small voice within him said ‘you can be like him if you stop engaging in homosexuality.’ He was, in that situation he said, ‘born again.’ He went and talked to the priest and credits his prayers to Jesus and Mary for delivering him from homosexual activity. Now, three years later, he has remained celibate and is hoping to eventually enter the priesthood.

People change. This chap was a committed leader of the gay movement. He lived with a lover, and did all the things gays do. But now he doesn’t.

Will he continue to refrain from homosexual activity? I don’t know -- but he has made a promising, and long-lasting start.

He is a reminder that no matter how ‘hopeless’ people might appear (to me or anyone else), no matter how sold to their addiction they might appear -- as long as they are breathing, things can change.

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)

©2002

Family Research Institute
P.O. Box 62640
Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640
(303) 681-3113

Return to top

Return to the FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Web site