Having struggled with homosexual thoughts for many years, I noticed a review of this book on the NARTH Web site last year. After internalizing the contents of this book and finding a psychologist (recommended by NARTH) with whom I explored this subject matter, my ulcers dissappeared, my depression dissipated, and I am more satisfied with my life than ever before.
So why did I change my mind? Back then, I just started therapy. I was depressed, afraid of aids, fed up with my endless relationships (the sex was good, but the rest quite unfulfilling) , and just looking for an exit out of my gay lifestyle without really believing that any exit existed. Not much happened till I found by chance the books of Van Den Aardweg. And believe me: even though, lukewarmingly, I wanted to change, I didn't like at all what I read: who likes to be called a neurotic little boy, filled with self-pity, and still complaining about the fact that he felt so lonely in adolescence and such a failure as a boy? I felt offended, rejected, and for months my mind just ground around to find counterarguments: no, it it is not selfpity, my loneliness was real, etc. But at the same time I was fascinated because about everything was recognizable: yeah, my mother had been dominating me in a suffocating way, and my father hadn't been much of a father to me, so that indeed I didn't get very well equipped to succeed as a boy among boys. Puberty had indeed been hell. Lonely, more or less friendless, feeling quite a failure, and taking refuge into the one thing I seemed good at, being intelligent. And I remembered how I had longed in endless daydreams for the friends I didn't have, how I had admired guys who were, in my perception, "real boys", and yeah, it were those basically sad feelings that somehow got sexualized and made me say by 18 "I am gay". In the months after reading Aardweg's book, I decided that it basically came down to this question: I either had been "different" since adolescence because I had been gay all the time, though without explictly knowing that (that was the solution that my "gay side" wanted to prove), or I had been "different", in the sense of lonely, feeling inferior in comparison to "real boys", and that had caused my gayness (Aardweg's position). I went up and down for a long time, but finally I guess the most objective part of my mind just admitted that Aardweg's position was right. That admission enabled me to break thru the shame and pain of having felt a "failure" and hiding it behind an overcompensation screen of intelligence. Subsequently I began to make big and remarkable emotional leaps, which would, over a period of some years, result in the fading away of most of my homosexual feelings (jump on it, gay refuters: I admit, there is still something left) and the emergence of more and more heterosexual feelings (please note: I never suppressed my homosexual feelings, I rather solved the emotional problems underneath them: suppressing would have been fully impossible). I agree by the way with the reviewer from Holland: in hindsight, what happened to me was not primarily a change from gay to heterosexual, but from immature and frustrated to (much more) mature, and emotionally balanced.
Some words to other reviewers. What is the talk about Aardweg saying that homosexuality is a "choice"? He rather states the opposite and considers it an emotional disorder, in many regards comparable to the emotional and neurotic problems many people, gay and straight, have, but clearly with some quite specific elements (as every neurosis has its specifics). Emotional disorders are, obviously, no choice but the result of psyco-social factors during one's education. This choice stuff reminds me by the way of Larry King, who always does as if there are only two possibilities: being gay is a choice (only some silly right wingers go for that, apparently thinking that if they say it is not a choice, they have to accept it as normal) or genetic (which somehow becomes then the equivalent of normal). Talking about choice: only in one sense, I guess, one can talk of choice, and that is with regard to the decision to look for an exit.
To potential gay readers of the book I just would like to say: this is a tough book, and your first reaction will probably be like mine: get angry, feel rejected again, and try to prove that this is just nonsense or right wing homophobia. Maybe the reviewer from Holland has by the way a point where he remarks that the tone of the book is slightly too tough (for me it worked out fine ultimately, others might need some more empathy). But remember, it is "tough" like in "tough love": don't focus too much on the tough side, see the love side. Try to be as objective-minded as possible: this is not about being offended or being rejected, it is about finding the best explanation for (your) homosexuality. And realize: in the end, it is not in the first place about becoming straight, but about becoming more mature, more whole and happier.
A last word to the gentleman from Holland whose review puzzled me a little bit. I don't get how he can say that he still agrees with the positions of the gay movement. Personally, I still feel lots of sympathy for gays: it was a messy and difficult period in my life, but I met some good guys who really were struggling, and, gosh, I had some fun as well. But I am really annoyed by the gay lobby. If I just tell my story, they label me a homophobe. Well, let them, I am a "big boy" by now. What really bothers me however, is the sheer intolerance, and its consequences: thanks to Aardweg's theory, it is by now - I really believe it - possible to help especially young people quite easily over their homosexual feelings before fully succumbing to the gay "lifestyle", and all the painful problems it entails. It is about time for a decent, tolerant discussion with more than one politically correct view dominating the discourse.
Maybe he needs to broaden his sample beyond those seeking help. He puts homosexuality down to a form of neurosis ONLY, with symptoms of weaknesses, effeminacy, neediness, childishness etc.And oh yes, homos are seeking maleness in their partners to repair their deficits.
What about the large numbers of homos who expressly seek out (not settle for) feminized guys ? Because they can't deal with manly guys ? C'mon ! What about straight identified men who enjoy gay sex ? In moments of weaknesses when their masculinity is under siege ?
I know homosexual men and bisexuals who are as secure with their masculinity as any guys out there.
All these people are conveniently ignored.
I bought the book hoping for some guidance, mentally prepared for areas that I don't agree with.
It would not have mattered if the author made clear at the outset that his theory only applies to a sub-group of gay men. I don't even mind his strident tone. I think a lot of guys (not just gays) need a good kick to their behinds.
What bothers me is that he seems ignorant to the diversity among men with same sex attraction, and that these attractions have different causes. By insisting that there is a one-size fits-all solution to a one-size-fits-all condition, he is destroying his credibility.
Which is a pity for everybody out there who is trying to work through their issues, and needs some tough-minded but sensible advice not coloured by obvious personal disdain. Perhaps the author needs to deal with his inner child here.