Why did Dr. Drew have “ex-gay” political activist Janet Boynes on as a guest? We are talking about a con artist who has yet to bring forward a single case of transformation other than herself. Considering that for years she has had a “pray away the gay” ministry and written an entire book on the topic, she should at least be able to trot out a few successful “ex-gays.”
She can’t.
This would be very much like Dr. Drew featuring a person who had written a book on dieting and owned a weight loss center — where all the clients were still fat. When questioned why no one had lost weight the owner would cynically reply: “Forget the evidence and forget success stories, I’m living proof it works because I’m skinny.”
Unbelievably, Dr. Drew is featuring Boynes to basically lie to the American people. Couldn’t the producers at Dr. Drew do better than Boynes? Apparently not, so they made an entire show that focused on a phony saleswoman and former crackhead (she’s not even a lesbian, she’s bisexual) who is desperately trying to peddle a book and promote herself at the expense of the mental health of her alleged clients.
Read the truth about Janet Boynes that you likely won’t hear on Dr. Drew.
UPDATE: The show was not as bad as I expected it to be, although it is still a mystery why Boynes deserves airtime. I commend Dr. Drew for pointing out all of the hatred the LGBT community has recently endured.
As for Boynes, I’m worried about her. She looked gaunt and unhealthy and seemed a little incoherent. I hope she is okay and I advise her to take care of herself. But, it was obvious that she didn’t look well.
The poor young man, Christian, that Boynes is controlling looked just pathetic. He was gayer that Liberace in pink hot pants and couldn’t hide his true self, even after years of training and indoctrination at the hands of Boynes. He was asked a simple question by a caller, “If gays could choose to be straight, wouldn’t they elect to do so after they suffered from discrimination?”
The poor thing was unable to answer this simple question and had this blank, deer-in-the-headlights gaze until he finally gave up trying and shrugged. It highlighted his malleable and weak personality — the perfect victim for a domineering activist like Boynes to prey on. I wish Christian well and I want to let him know that Truth Wins Out his here to help him when he finally is ready to live an authentic life and escape the grasp of Boynes.
Christian, you are fine just the way you are. You don’t want to spend your life as screwed up as Boynes, who has made a complete mess of her entire life.
As repulsive as this woman is, I’m willing to give Drew the benefit of the doubt. I had the distinct pleasure to work with him for 6 years. He was incredibly supportive when I came out and has always been a reliable friend to gays (and me personally). Im willing to see how this shakes out.
Shameful!
Scott:
If it shakes out in the right way, we will praise Dr. Drew and revise this. However, I hope he asks the very questions raised in our Special Report. He needs to ask her point blank: Where are your success stories. When the one “success” story — Christian — gives his tale, Dr. Drew needs to grill him if his story differs from what he said on Lisa Ling.
I hope it works out.
Exactly, Wayne. Time for journalists to start asking the hard questions of people like Janet Boynes who claim success, yet cannot give ONE solid example of someone who has been made straight as a result of “ex-gay” “therapy”. No more giving them slack. Time for these individuals to put up or shut up.
Actually, this is the second time he’s had her on. The last time she started talking and no could get her to stop. I’m actually pretty peeved about it since I was to be on the show but just a couple of hours ago, they relegated me to just a “call in” segment. They told me they canceled Mr. Pickup as well, and giving more face time to ol’ religious fanatics that don’t even have theology degrees much less clinical degrees, and it doesn’t look like there will be an expert on anything anywhere to be found – really, Dr. Drew? Is this how you deal with reparative therapy, just like all the other shallow media outlets?
Why isn’t Dr. Drew permitting ex-gay survivors on the show to counter Boynes?
Hopefully it will be clear ONCE AGAIN that she is ego-centric.
I asked them if they were going to have any experts or exgay survivors on and you know what they said…. long pause… Sam Harris, the singer, who is an ex-gay survivor, but on the show before, and is not an expert in the field. He did his best, but with Nicolosi and janet, he barely had a chance. Why do they not allow ex-gay survivors a voice?
It is disgraceful that they do not put this issue in its proper perspective by having people on to counter Boynes’ trash who actually know what they are talking about. From what I can tell it is Boynes and her failed “success” story, Christian.
How do they justify no survivors???!!!
I’m going to wait and see how it plays out.
“Ex-gay” activist Boynes wants more money and this is another opportunity for her to sell her books to unsuspecting, naive, hurting people. If “ex-gay” activists would quit spreading the evil rumor that gay people “need” to change, then books such as hers would not be needed.
CNN and HLN are consistently shallow in their news coverage, in my opinion — HLN, especially so. They purposely invite ignorant guests who will foment conflict instead of understanding, because conflict inflates ratings and ad revenues.
I’m with the folks that suggest we watch before judging. Dr. Drew is very likely to skewer her with the truth. We’ll see shortly.
Hi hope you are right, Scott. I’d like to be pleasantly surprised. However, it is rather disconcerting that there are no survivors on the set to highlight the harm done by ex-gay programs. From my experience, this is a recipe for disaster.
I guess we shall see.
Watching right now. He’s exploring why people hate, why they spread hate.
I think this is going to be… different to what you’re expecting.
I can’t watch it for a bit. Keep me updated, we will revise it if we are pleasantly surprised.
Oh, god, she’s talking and all I hear is blah blah blah. And now she’s preaching. And whinging about how she gets “nasty e-mails”. Dissing the President.
OOOH! INTERRUPTED! And now she’s trying (and failing) to talk over Drew.
Next up is an ex-gay former stripper.
HAAA! You called it — it’s Christian. *SMH*
He looks like he’s high on something.
He’s… rambling, a bit.
Drew’s going for the Bible angle, questioning them on the other Levitical laws. (He asked about the adultery one, where both partners are to be put to death, and pointed out that nobody believes that bit, so why does this other bit about a man lying with a man as with a woman still hold?
Oh, oh, of course, Janet says he’s “taking it out of context.” Predictable dodge, she even followed it up with “we’re under a new covenant.”
Aaaand, topic change, a woman drove off with her kid on top of the car.
These people are such a crock!!! I wonder how many “gay” dollars they turn away from the offering plate? It’s quite clear that “mr I was gay and now I’m straight” is running from his true calling. And what reference do we use to “pray the gay away?” I wonder if any of them have a clue that King James–who commissioned the Bible—was a flaming fairy who was buried between his gay lovers? Here’s a suggestion for these hatemongers….how about when they’re building electric fences for all the “lesbians and queers,” that they build an extra large area to throw your idiot backwoods toothless bible thumping snake jumping a*s in as well. What? Is that not very Christian of me?? Oh, I’m sorry, I thought it was ok to hate.
This would be very much like Dr. Drew featuring a person who had written a book on dieting and owned a weight loss center — where all the clients were still fat
Oh Wayne you have such a way with words. LOL! You crack me up.
I agree w/ StraightGrandmother Wayne… your weight loss center analogy w/ nothing but clients who remained fat after completing the program is spot on. You need to use that analogy next time you’re interviewed on TV. It really drives the point home of how ridiculous the ex-gay industry claims of success are.
Weight is profoundly connected to genetics and behavior.
What I can do with my left hand and right hand is profoundly connected to genetics and behavior.
Where I take my sexuality is profoundly connected to my decisions, attitudes, spirituality, relationships, behavior and genetics.
There is plenty of room to support the many processes around spirituality, attitudes, decisions, relationships and behaviors as people give form and life to their sexuality. Right now the competing rigid dogmas are both squeezing out the science, spiritual guidance, therapy etc that could more competently and fully support this universal journey.
Survey Respondent — try doing some research. There is more than enough evidence to show that sexual orientation has genetic or biological origins. To say otherwise is to be an unlettered ignoramus.
http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/the-science-of-gaydar.html?_r=1
http://www.truthwinsout.org/what-the-experts-say/
I’ve never met anyone who claimed with a straight face that “sexuality is profoundly connected to my decisions” that did not have severe sexual hang-ups.
People are who the are — just deal with it. And it must hurt to know that all the prayer in the world will have zero affect on ones sexual orientation.
Survey, you are either left handed or right handed so I don’t know what behavior has to do with that. I’ve read of a composer that tried to get more use out of his left hand thinking it would make him a more skillful piano player and the result was he made his left hand useless. Perhaps there would have been a better result if he had prayed to be left handed.
Nobody here is interested where you “take your sexuality” but I would guess it is tied up in what you can do with your left hand and your right hand.
Boynes was never gay anyways. In her book, she all but spells out that she is bisexual. So in a manner of speaking she actually had a choice. She was able to suppress her sexual attraction to women without giving up all sexual attraction.
He could also have pointed out that her real problems came from her drug use and the abuse relationships she was in.
A baseball player uses a left hand and a right hand whether they are left-handed, right-handed, or ambidextrous. The skills they develop within the boundaries of the ‘hard-wiring’ determine whether that right hand can throw a 98 mph fast ball within 1/16″ inch of its target or whether it can’t throw at all.
We have hard-wiring–and we take that somewhere.
That was my only point. It is silly to ignore the hard-wiring. It is silly to ignore the capacity to take the hard wiring different places–and the boundaries to which it can be taken.
Why can’t you reject views we can change the hard-wiring; while accepting there is software we have influence and choice about. If you were making the point–it would be clear. If someone you disagree with makes the point–you reject it out of hand.
@ Edward–I have no clue what you are talking about with the composer. Obviously every piano player develops their two hands to the maximum they are able.
Why would anyone want to endure what Spitzer endured from both sides? This is what I mean by both sides squeezing out people basically willing to give there lives to contribute to all.
The reason I visit this site is because there are not sites that represent my view AND that I feel answer the challenges, questions, and goals you seek. I am ashamed at much of what you highlight on this site in regards to religious voices/advocates.
As much as I don’t like it. I need to see it and confront it. And where else does this stuff get highlighted??
I believe many devout Christians who seek to do right are ultimately so disillusioned by those who proclaim the same faith that they either find a home in Christianity that has reflects your views or toss it all out.
I don’t like such an impact of your site–but I accept it. If Christians can’t walk out and articulate a faith that is about love–then we deserve to die.
I don’t think, however, you win the case by projecting all the craziness, hypocrisy, lying, abuse, etc. within religious circles. You win the case that there is a lot of that stuff.
So if we get rid of all the hate, lying and vitriol; if we settle on the dignity of every person; on the liberty of every person; on the responsibility of every person; on the centrality of love; on religious liberty; etc. What is there left to disagree about?????
Not much of anything. But if we elevate those “scraps of disagreement” to the level of “Ultimate Good vs. Absolute Evil”–then we all start to look crazy.
In my opinion.
Why does a voice like J Boynes exist?
1. The desire of certain elements of Christianity to appear that they are dealing with this issue without dealing with the issue.
2. The natural self-desire of persons who experience a ‘conversion’ to share it; who go along with what amounts to very hurtful attention (not helpful to them, or anyone, except the media interest).
3. The desire of the media to have a few willing faces to show up whenever called and say a few things that will push buttons and create conflict. If the voice ends up to be a total fraud–all the better. It just makes for one more story.
4. The desire of groups like TWO to have a few “faces of the enemy.”
Survey Respondent, I don’t often comment, but this got to me:
‘The desire of groups like TWO to have a few “faces of the enemy.”’
How backwards can your thinking possibly be? TWO exists because of groups like Boynes’, not the other way around. If no one had ever tried conversion therapy, there would be no reason to debunk it.
You seem pathologically in need of a middle ground when one side is standing on rock and the other on quicksand. That’s not the safest position.
In my opinion.
S. respondent said “Why can’t you reject views we can change the hard-wiring; while accepting there is software we have influence and choice about. If you were making the point–it would be clear. If someone you disagree with makes the point–you reject it out of hand.”.
We do not have influence over who we are attracted to. We cannot choose who we are attracted to period. The trouble with bigots like you is that you keep trying to conflate one’s ability to choose what sex acts they perform with a non-existant ability to choose who we are attracted to.
You are begging the question, assuming that if one can change one’s orientation one should – that’s B.S. No one should attempt to change their orientation, it is not a good idea even if one could and one CAN’T.
S. Respondent said “So if we get rid of all the hate, lying and vitriol; if we settle on the dignity of every person; on the liberty of every person; on the responsibility of every person; on the centrality of love; on religious liberty; etc. What is there left to disagree about?????”.
It’s the anti-gays who lie, not us. The hate and vitriol started with them. Just as you cannot expect the families of a murder victim to treat the murderer with warmth and affection you cannot rationally ask LGBTs to not be angry with those who unjustifiably demonize and oppress them. We’ve done nothing to oppress them, they are the offenders, not us. You get them to stop the hate, vitriol and lying and there will be none and nothing left to disagree about. Stop outrageously claiming there is any kind of equivalence between what they do and what we do – there is NONE.
S. Respondent said “Why does a voice like J Boynes exist?…The desire of groups like TWO to have a few “faces of the enemy.””.
Boynes uses ever soap box she can to spread the evil and fallacious message that gayness is a wrondoing and that gays can and should change. The APA says that those who positively accept their gayness are happier and better adjusted than those who do not. Boynes is attempting to use spiritual violence to coerce people into sacrificing their happiness and mental health all just to make her feel better about the poor choice she’s made to suppress her sexuality. Boynes chose to be an enemy. We didn’t make her an enemy, we don’t want her to be an enemy, but we can’t hide from the fact that she IS an enemy and she must be fought.
Survey…. what a load of claptrap. If there are no sites that represent your view it’s not difficult to start one. But, of course, that would mean actually having some sort of data to back up your claims.
Wayne and the people who run this site–as well as most of the regular posters actually have knowledge, data and even experience to back up their claims. It’s not a matter of opinion–there are actual facts.
It’s also not a matter of having an enemy–it’s a matter of bringing light to fraudulent and actually damaging false “therapies”.
“Stop outrageously claiming there is any kind of equivalence between what they do and what we do – there is NONE.” Priya
My reference to hate, vitriol and lying was in reference to the behavior and views of religious people condemned on this website.
“You get them to stop the hate, vitriol and lying and there will be none and nothing left to disagree about.” Priya
That was exactly my point. However, if you apply it in the sense of “Any point of difference with my point of view amounts to vitriolic evil” then puts us on the course of “battling to the death” over very little. I don’t think that is what you are saying–but I could be wrong.
Just to be clear:
Religious people are not condemned on this site. Some of the writers and many of the commenters are religious.
What we do condemn are lies and duplicity.
We expose the exploitation of conscience, religion, freedom, and family values by those who overtly strive to malign and destroy LGBT people, their family members, their religious communities, and their freedoms. We single out those who lie about their own sexuality and faith while pursuing the destruction of others. We condemn the exploitation of butchered Bible verses by bigots who, despite their religious posturing, obviously don’t read the Bible and practice the faith that they preach. And we expose efforts by bigots to destroy values under the guise of “saving” and “protecting” those values.
We try to be fair. But we don’t feign false balance in situations of extreme imbalance. And we don’t pretend that bigotry and theocracy are less dangerous to faith and society than they really are.
Mike Airhart
Contributing Editor
“Religious people are not condemned on this site. Some of the writers and many of the commenters are religious.” M Airhart
If you were responding to my comment about religious people that are condemned on this site. My reference was to the religious voices that are called out and condemned. It is clear to me that although there are quite varied opinions of ‘religion’ on this site–that in general it is taken to be a mix of ‘good, bad and ugly.’
I think you share ground with Jesus in using the harshest language against religious fraud. I think it totally fair to clarify you don’t ‘feign false balance.’
I take some issue with “…we don’t pretend…theocracy (is) less dangerous to faith and society than(it) really (is).” I feel sometimes you find “the boogey man hiding under every bed” which in my mind makes it harder to identify which beds the monster is really under.
I think there is a difference between identifying a theocratic threat and using it as a labeling device. This is the same as all the other code words used in public discourse (e.g. extremist, communist, fundamentalist, fascist, hate-group,etc). When used repeatedly as essentially a labeling device to dismiss, I think the words lose their meaning; and lose their capacity to truly distinguish evil.
S. respondent, although you deny it you keep trying to suggest there is some sort of equivalence between our side and the wrondoings of the anti-gays. You have failed to give any specific examples because there is no equivalence. Now try to keep a shred of dignity and don’t come back and falsely claim you didn’t say such a thing.
“You have failed to give any specific examples because there is no equivalence” Priya
You are a person. Rush Limbaugh is a person. You and Limbaugh are not equivalent.
I compare things. You conclude that any comparison means I am asserting equivalence. That is a false leap.
But since you conclude I have declared equivalence–you point out there is not equivalence (and I don’t even know to exactly what you are referring). I agree there is not. And therefore I am a liar with no dignity.
“How backwards can your thinking possibly be? TWO exists because of groups like Boynes’, not the other way around. If no one had ever tried conversion therapy, there would be no reason to debunk it.” Mari
OK. “TWO exists because of groups like Boynes.” So does TWO exist because of Boynes–or because she gives a face to something much greater than one Minnesota woman???
W Besen can’t post video of ten million people who think like J Boynes. Posting video of her and opposing her is shorthand for opposing the ten million.
That doesn’t mean J Boynes is a creation of W Besen. I was just making an objective observation about the multiple reasons why she has a microphone (because objectively it makes no sense).
Every social movement struggles with how much attention to give that which they oppose. Rush makes another stupid comment. Is it better to ignore him or to cast light on it–when shining a light is what he thrives on??
” No one should attempt to change their orientation, it is not a good idea even if one could and one CAN’T.” Priya
Agree. That was my meaning when I said it would be foolish to ignore one’s hard wiring.
Is “orientation” strictly the hard wiring? I think it depends on what we mean when we say “orientation.” I think it can refer strictly to one’s hard wiring–or reference many more complex variables and how they interface with the pure hard-wiring.
I was gonna stop reading that before I got to this, but I’m glad I continued…
“The reason I visit this site is because there are not sites that represent my view AND that I feel answer the challenges, questions, and goals you seek.”
Nobody who agrees with you knows what they’re talking about. Maybe, just maybe, there’s a reason for that?
Maybe it’s because knowing what you’re talking about leads you to only one conclusion, because only one conclusion actually makes sense?
If your people need to lie to make their point, doesn’t that prove that even *they* don’t actually believe what they’re saying? And also that there *is* no evidence or logic behind their arguments.
I agree that television shows need to stop giving these people airtime. “Crazy person” is no longer a ratings guarantee, as that’s half of what’s on right now. Might as well interview the maker of those Enzyte “enlargement supplements”, which I believe have a similar “success” rate.