Sexual Fluidity and the Wesleyan Doctrine of Entire Sanctification (Part 1): The Evidence

Photo by Javier Allegue Barros on Unsplash

What does the data state about fluidity in sexual attractions, identity, and behaviors, and how does that relate to the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification? For those of us with unwanted temptations for the same sex, this doctrine is intimidating, to say the least. Yet this data reveals that our hope and trust in the transformational power of Christ are well-founded.

In the first part of this series, we will explore how rare exclusive attractions to the same sex are and the tangled history of the research done on the effectiveness of counseling those with these attractions. We will draw parallels between “gay affirmation therapy” and “gender affirmation therapy,” pulling back the rainbow-colored curtain on the lack of rigorous evidence behind popular assumptions that have a direct impact on ministry.

We’ll begin with a review of the research done by Lisa Diamond, who looked at those who identified as gay or lesbian over a period of 5 to 10+ years. She found among men and women, their attractions, behaviors, and identities were not consistent. In her Oct. 17, 2013, presentation at Cornell University ( “Lisa Diamond on sexual fluidity of men and women”), she explained why this was new information, noting it is hard to find people who “fall between the categories” when you recruit based on gay/lesbian identity labels. And much research has been “assuming that fluidity doesn't exist or that people’s identities are relatively stable, so you don't tend to ask the kinds of questions that would allow” this data to come to light. In other words, common research methodologies have affected the outcomes.  

Diamond, who has identified as a lesbian, looked at studies that included tens of thousands of individuals in the US and other parts of the world. In her book Confronting Christianity, Rebecca McLaughlin provides this overview of Diamond’s work:

She has found that when asked just about the last year of their lives, 42% of self-identified lesbians report having fantasized about sex with a man, 25% report having desired sex with a man, and 9% have engaged in heterosexual sex. Likewise, 31% of gay men report having fantasized about a woman in the past year, 20% confess to wanting sex with a woman, and 12% have slept with a woman in the past year. Furthermore, 15% of self-identified lesbians reported having had romantic feelings for a man in the previous year, and 31% of self-identified gay men reported having had romantic feelings for a woman. Meanwhile, 50% of self-identified heterosexual women and 25% of heterosexual men reported having experienced a same-sex attraction in the past year, while 35% of women and 24% of men reported a same-sex sexual fantasy (168-169).

In an article titled “Scrutinizing Immutability” in the March 2016 edition of The Journal of Sex Research, Diamond concluded that “arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific, given that scientific research does not indicate…that patterns of same-sex and other-sex attractions remain fixed over the life course.” 

In November 2023, speaking in Copenhagen, she updated her findings, stating that of all those who experience attractions to the same sex, 20% of men and 5% of women do so exclusively across their lifetime. She added:

So, the pattern that we have been using as the basis for all of the samples of research on sexual orientation, all of those samples were based on exclusively gay and lesbian individuals. We based an entire science of sexual orientation on the smallest and least representative slice of that population, which is not very scientific. …So plural attractions are the norm and not the exception. The vast majority of same-gender attracted individuals have some capacity for attractions to the other gender as well.

While our race, ethnicity, and sex are unchanging and unable to be changed, sexual attractions, behaviors, and identity are a different story. “Once gay, always gay” applies to only a small fraction, a minority of the minority, of people who experience attractions to the same sex. And there is no way of predicting who those rare exceptions will be. 

With fluidity being so common, why has there been such a movement to prevent counseling of those wishing to explore and take a deeper look into this part of their lives? Much of this reluctance is based on the dreadful history of the efforts of psychologists and psychiatrists to “treat” homosexuality in the past.

A systematic review was conducted by the American Psychological Association (APA) and published in 2009.  The APA report examined fifty-five papers in total, with six categorized as “experimental” (meeting the standard of scientifically valid research), three as “quasi-experimental,” and the rest as “nonexperimental” studies (case studies, etc.). The majority of studies (thirty-four) included some type of negative reinforcement, such as electric shocks or medication to induce nausea. One used some type of “olfactory aversion therapy,” while two others involved denying food or “hydration deprivation.” An additional twelve studies used some type of pornography/masturbation. Two studies used secular talk therapy/psychology, and only seven looked at some type of spiritual counseling. 

None of the spiritual counseling involved negative reinforcement methodology, and none of these met the standard of rigorous science. The description of the methods in this group ranged from Bible study support groups to “ex-gay ministry and/or support groups,” to “varied counseling and conversion therapies.” No details are provided for the content of the Bible study, support group curriculum, or ministry approach, beyond the mention of one study conducted by the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). At the time, NARTH, founded by Dr. Nicolosi, focused on “reparative therapy,” believing that same-sex attraction was due to a poor relationship with one’s father, if you were a man, or mother, if you were a woman. Repairing this relationship with the same-sex parent was believed to be key in experiencing attractions to the opposite sex. In this study, this seemed to be the case for some, but not everyone.

In the summary analysis of the 2009 APA report, the lack of rigorous evidence was highlighted. The only scientifically valid studies were done between 1969 and 1976. These involved shock therapy, medication to induce nausea, or other aversive conditioning. Based on these studies alone, “we concluded the following about SOCE [Sexual Orientation Change Efforts]: The results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-sex sexual attractions or increase other-sex attractions through SOCE.” [Emphasis theirs.]

However, in the next paragraph we read: “There are no scientifically rigorous studies of recent SOCE that would enable us to make a definitive statement about whether recent SOCE is safe or harmful and for whom.” So, other than the six studies done before 1976 noted above, there isn’t enough evidence to determine the safety of counseling those who wish to explore the possibility of fluidity in their sexual attractions. In the years since the 2009 APA report, all therapeutic counseling in this area has been grouped under the label of “conversion therapy,” and bans on this type of counseling for minors exist in twenty-three states.

In April of this year, the evolutionary biologist Colin Wright wrote “The final authority is always evidence. If medical organizations reach a consensus opinion in the absence of evidence, that consensus is entirely meaningless.” This was in response to the Cass Report, a four-year comprehensive review of gender affirmation therapy in England, which revealed the lack of evidence underlying the practice of encouraging young people to take puberty blockers, take cross-sex hormones, and/or attempt to transition, either socially or surgically, to appear as the opposite sex. 

This affirmation of one’s inner sense of gender has been mandated as the only way to work with someone raising questions or concerns about his or her biological sex. Gender affirmation therapy was preceded by gay affirmation therapy, mandating psychologists work toward comfort with and self-acceptance of a gay or lesbian identity. Clinicians have argued that neither of these approaches is actually a therapeutic intervention. In a 2022 interview, Dr. Jordan Peterson remarked, “Now this idea is, you come to me with an axiomatic claim, whatever it is about your identity, and my job is to rubber stamp it. It's like, that's not, I’m not a therapist then.”

In summary, then, we have evidence that most people who experience attractions to the same sex have experienced attractions to the complimentary sex, or will have such attractions in the future. Additionally, there is lack of definitive evidence to conclude that talk therapy is harmful. What should be banned are negative reinforcement modalities, which are obviously not Christian practices, along with false assumptions underlying some of the interventions of the past. Godly counsel seeking reconciliation with His design for our sexuality is a life-giving investment which deserves further exploration.

Debra Baty is the author of Resources4Redemption, a newsletter equipping followers of Jesus to speak the gospel fluently, truthfully, and kindly on issues related to sexuality and gender.