545682

research-article2014
GASXXX10.1177/0891243214545682Gender & SocietyGerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans

Grit, guts, and vanilla beans:

Godly Masculinity in the Ex-Gay Movement

LYNNE GERBER
University of California Berkeley, USA

Ex-gay ministries, like many evangelical groups, advocate traditional gender ideologies.
But their discourses and practices generate masculine ideals that are quite distinct from
hegemonic ones. I argue that rather than simply reproducing hegemonic masculinity, ex-
gay ministries attempt to realize godly masculinity, an ideal that differs significantly from
hegemonic masculinity and is explicitly critical of it. I discuss three aspects of the godly
masculine ideal—de-emphasizing heterosexual conquest, inclusive masculinity, and homo-
intimacy—that work to subvert hegemonic masculinity and allow ministry members to
critique it while still advocating for innate gender distinction and hierarchy. I conclude by
arguing that gender theorists need to be more precise in distinguishing conservative reli-
gious masculinities from hegemonic ones.

Keywords: evangelicalism; hegemonic masculinity; ex-gay movement; Exodus International;

homosexuality

G ender theory often conflates conservative religious masculinity with

hegemonic masculinity (Flores and Hondagneu-Sotelo 2013;
Robinson and Spivey 2007). Because conservative religious groups often
support gender hierarchy with men dominant, the forms of masculinity
they advocate are confused with the masculinity that actually dominates a
social space and legitimizes the existing hierarchy. Conservative religious
masculinities are read as hegemonic and conservatives themselves as
hegemonic masculinity’s supporters and defenders.

Author’s Note: My deep thanks to Kent Brintnall, Sarah Quinn, Susan Stinson, Orit
Avishai, Dawne Moon, and Elise Paradis for conversation, comments, and advice regard-
ing this paper. Thanks, too, to the editors and reviewers at Gender & Society, for such
engaged, useful feedback. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Lynne Gerber, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA; e-mail: l.gerber@berkeley.edu.

GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol 29 No. 1, February 2015 26­–50

DOI: 10.1177/0891243214545682
© 2014 by The Author(s)
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 27

In this article, I argue that such a conflation is often inaccurate and can
obfuscate the specificity of conservative masculinities and the challenges
they can pose to hegemonic masculinity. I use the ex-gay movement as
one example of conservative religious masculinity that problematizes this
fusion. Ex-gay ministries are conservative in their gender ideology and
largely endorse gender hierarchy. They seek to secure male privilege for
their male members by legitimizing their masculinity in the evangelical
world and in the world at large. Yet they find many reigning cultural ideals
of masculinity problematic. Rather than using hegemonic masculinity as
the standard by which their members’ masculinity is measured, they criti-
cize it for falling short of divine intention. Instead, ex-gay leaders and
members aspire to godly masculinity, an idealized maleness drawn from
evangelical discourse that appropriates some aspects of hegemonic mas-
culinity while criticizing others. While most believe that godly masculin-
ity should be hegemonic, they recognize that it is not.
In this article, I show that the discursive structures of godly masculinity
as formulated in the ex-gay movement can challenge the strictures of
hegemonic masculinity from a conservative direction, relieving (ex-)gay
men from the pressures of heterosexual performance, expanding the rep-
ertoire of legitimate gender expressions, and allowing for a considerable
degree of male–male intimacy. I argue that this godly masculinity is a
queerish masculinity, one that allows a considerable degree of gender
experimentation while still maintaining a conservative gender ideology
(Gerber, forthcoming; Gerber 2008).

Hegemonic Masculinity And Godly Masculinity

Hegemonic masculinity, as developed by Connell (2005, 77), is the

form of masculinity that dominates a given social space and provides the
ideological and cultural ground for legitimizing male power and privilege.
It exists within a field of multiple masculinities and dominates them all,
along with all femininities and all women, by soliciting their complicity,
subordinating them, or marginalizing them altogether. It is a structural
position as well as a specific form of masculinity. It is generally presumed
to be white, heterosexual, and upper class, but its content varies based on
cultural context and geographic level of analysis (Connell and
Messerschmidt 2005).
Although hegemonic masculinity has proven to be a generative con-
cept, questions regarding its content and significance abound. One tension
28 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

is between the characteristics of men who actually hold hegemonic power,

but who may or may not personally behave in hegemonic ways, versus
men who are symbols or exemplars of hegemonic masculinity, but may
not themselves be holders of hegemonic power (Connell 2005, 77-78;
Elias and Beasley 2009). A related tension is between the models of ideal-
ized masculinity struggling for hegemonic power and those that actually
have it. Movements focused on maleness and masculinity offer competing
visions of what kind of masculinity is best for men and/or society in gen-
eral. While some are critical of male domination, others maintain that
masculinity should be hegemonic yet have a range of opinions about what
kind of masculinity should reign in that position. These competing ideals
often contrast with the masculinity that actually holds that position, which
is often so secure in its power that it need not thematize masculinity or
gender at all (Connell 2005, 212; Donaldson 1993).
The content of hegemonic masculinity is also a problem. Reading the
literature, it seems that, like pornography, it is hard to define, but we know
it when we see it. Homophobia, the fear of women, and vigorous hetero-
sexuality seem to be central to its construct (Donaldson 1993; Kimmel
1994), as do competition, aggression, and a certain social isolation
between men. Bird (1996) argues that it includes emotional detachment,
competitiveness, and the sexual objectification of women. Demetriou
(2001) argues that the dominating masculinity should be thought of as a
hegemonic bloc that maintains its power, in part, by appropriating aspects
of dominated masculinities as is useful. Connell (2005) argues for “trans-
national business masculinity” as the emergent form of hegemonic mas-
culinity in the era of globalization, one that is marked by its relationship
to the neoliberal economic order and its decreasing allegiance to other
institutions or sources of identity. Yet some are concerned that this is too
vague a concept to pierce the dynamics of how power is generated and
maintained, especially without the assistance of economic analysis
(Donaldson 1993), or that it is conceived in too monolithic a way to
account for the complexity of globalization (Elias and Beasley 2009). In
this article, I do not argue for any specific model of hegemonic masculin-
ity; rather, I demonstrate how one type of conservative, evangelical mas-
culinity can challenge traits that are frequently evoked as emblematic of
hegemonic masculinity by gender scholars.
Evangelical Christianity, a largely conservative form of Protestantism
founded in Western Europe, developed in the United States, and global
in presence, has a complicated relationship to both masculinity and
hegemonic masculinity. Evangelicalism has its origins in eighteenth- and
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 29

nineteenth-century revival movements noted for their blurring of racial

and gendered social divisions (Brekus 1998; Hatch 1989). Although
dominant in American religious life, by the mid–nineteenth century,
American Protestantism had become feminized in participation and rep-
resentation (Douglas 1977), leading to a cultural devaluation of religious
identity in general that continued as secularism gained strength in the
early twentieth century. A variety of cultural projects from both the lib-
eral and conservative sides of the Protestant spectrum attempted to rem-
edy this feminization of Protestantism by reconceiving it in masculine
terms, for example, the YMCA and the Men and Religion Forward move-
ment (Bederman 1989; Putney 2003). These projects can be read as
attempts to claim religious masculinity as legitimately masculine while
also demonstrating its compatibility with hegemonic masculinity, efforts
that would theoretically be unnecessary if evangelical masculinity actu-
ally held a hegemonic position.
In the later half of the twentieth century, evangelicalism was fused in
the popular mind with traditional gender hierarchy and political opposi-
tion to feminism and gay rights. But recent research has suggested that
evangelical thought and practice regarding gender and masculinity is
more complex. Gallagher (2003) characterizes contemporary evangelical
approaches to gender in marriage as a blend of “symbolic traditionalism
and pragmatic egalitarianism.” In his study of the Promise Keepers, a
more recent evangelical gender project focused on cultivating Christian
masculinity and known for its large gatherings of evangelical men in
sports stadiums, Bartkowski (2004) found at least four masculine ideals in
circulation, ranging in their affinity with hegemonic masculine ones.
Whereas some aspects of hegemonic masculinity are abundantly evident
in contemporary evangelical masculinity projects, for example, an empha-
sis on sports, others are challenged, for example, the pursuit of wealth and
status at the expense of family.
“Godly masculinity” has been used by some scholars to designate
masculinity in contemporary evangelicalism (Bartkowski 2004; Gallagher
and Wood 2005). I use the term here to denote idealized forms of mascu-
linity that evangelicals use to articulate subculturally specific gender
ideals, criticize hegemonic forms of masculinity, and vie for their own
hegemonic positioning in the culture at large. Like hegemonic masculin-
ity, godly masculinity is rooted in a binary and hierarchical gender sys-
tem and advocated by people who support the dominance of masculinity.
But it operates by a different set of cultural rules and expectations, gen-
erating traits that can differ from those of hegemonic masculinity. It can
30 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

also generate unintended outcomes that resemble the gender queerness

evangelicals ostensibly reject.
The ex-gay movement is one example of an evangelical cultural project
grappling with gender and arguing for godly masculinity. Made up of
community-based ministries, regional and national organizations, thera-
pists, pastoral counselors, congregations, and evangelical academics, it
aims at changing sexual orientation through a mixture of therapeutic and
devotional techniques. For over three decades, its most visible organiza-
tion was Exodus International. Founded in 1976, Exodus was an umbrella
organization for 150 local ministries. It was predominately white in racial
makeup and there are parallel networking efforts among African American
ministries, such as Witness for the World. In the mid-1990s, Exodus
gained public visibility, building partnerships with powerful evangelical
organizations, such as Focus on the Family, and training media-friendly
spokespersons. It dissolved those partnerships in the mid-2000s, reversed
its position on sexual orientation change in 2012 (Gritz 2012), and closed
its doors in 2013. Some member ministries followed suit while others
regrouped under a new umbrella, The Restored Hope Network. Models of
godly masculinity discernable in the ex-gay movement are closely associ-
ated with those found in the Promise Keepers (Bartkowski 2004; Donovan
1998; Heath 2003) but also reflect the influence of other gendered evan-
gelical projects (Cochran 2005; Ingersoll 2003).
Ex-gay ministries, like other evangelical gender projects, have attracted
the attention of critical gender scholars. In their 2007 article, Robinson
and Spivey emphasize the affinity of ex-gay masculinity with hegemonic
masculinity. They argue that the remedies prescribed by ex-gay reparative
therapy contribute to the power of hegemonic masculinity through its
emphasis on acquiring masculine traits: “Doing masculinity,” they write,
“becomes an ongoing production, a repeated demonstration that scripts
social interaction in ways that reproduce male domination of women and
other men” (2007, 664). Gender, in this context, is performative, but in a
way that bolsters rather than challenges gender norms. The contours of
this gendered performance, they argue, mirror the contours of hegemonic
masculinity, thus reinforcing its legitimacy and power. Masculinity, in the
ex-gay context, is achieved “by mimicking stereotypical masculine behav-
iors and shunning feminine ones, through homosocial interactions, and
through marriage and fatherhood, all of which,” they claim, “correspond
to the elements of hegemonic masculinity” (2007, 659).
A more detailed look at how the ex-gay movement constructs mascu-
linity complicates this perspective. Ex-gay ministries do appeal to a
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 31

normative, idealized model of masculinity to which their charges aspire.

But that ideal, grounded in evangelical models of godly masculinity and
the lived experience of homosexually oriented members, looks quite dif-
ferent from hegemonic masculine ideals in contemporary American cul-
ture. In this article, I identify and analyze three aspects of godly
masculinity that differ from hegemonic masculinity: de-emphasizing
heterosexual conquest, inclusivity, and homo-intimacy. In analyzing
these features of godly masculinity, I demonstrate that they allow expres-
sions of masculinity and relationships between men that run counter to
expectations regarding hegemonic masculinity, the ex-gay project, and
opposition to homosexuality.

Methods

My data include participant observation, interviews, and content analy-

sis of ex-gay materials. This research was conducted as part of a larger
project that used ex-gay ministries as a comparative case (Gerber 2011). I
attended eight public events sponsored by Exodus International, their
member ministries, or allied organizations, including two regional Love
Won Out conferences, an Exodus International national conference, and
local conferences sponsored by Exodus-affiliated ministries. I focused on
Exodus because it was the largest ex-gay network, was recognized and
respected among evangelicals, and actively sought mainstream recogni-
tion. At the time of this research, Exodus was a successful organization
with little outward indication of its coming demise.
I also conducted 35 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with then-
current members of ex-gay ministries (28) and former (ex-)gays (7).
Subjects were recruited mostly through Exodus-affiliated ministries and
located throughout the U.S. Because interview requests were mediated
through ministry leaders, many subjects were highly committed ministry
participants. Focusing on discursive constructs made this bias useful:
These “true believers” were well-schooled in ex-gay rhetoric and deploy-
ing it for persuasive purposes. Respondents ranged in age from early 20s
to mid-70s—22 men and 13 women. Two current ministry members and
two former members were African American, one current member was
Asian American, and the rest of the interview sample was white. Interviews
ranged from one to five hours; two were with prominent national leaders.
Questions focused on personal experience with faith, sexuality, and the
ministries and included questions about their understandings of morality
32 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

and the change they were pursuing in the ministry. Primary material
reviewed included 24 books on homosexuality by Christian authors and
endorsed by Exodus, five DVDs promoted by Exodus, three years of
Exodus’s newsletters, newsletters from Exodus-affiliated ministries gath-
ered at events or online, and websites of ex-gay organizations.
All primary research materials were initially coded using a grounded
theory method: codes were developed that reflected repeated themes, sto-
ries, and rhetorical constructions in order to understand how issues were
being constructed within the ministries’ terms and the stories and themes
articulated across data sources. After initial coding I used analytic memo
writing to analyze the codes, identify larger themes they engaged, and theo-
rize possible connections between them. When masculinity emerged as a
theme that encompassed several seemingly unrelated codes, I supplemented
my research data with recordings of five workshops on masculinity taught
at Exodus conferences over three years (2005-2008), which were purchased
through the company licensed to record the conferences for commercial
purposes. These were coded using a combination of the initial codes and
new codes. The new codes were developed from both the analytic memos
and from engaging theoretical materials on hegemonic masculinity and
identifying key conversation points between theory and case materials.
Terminology in the ex-gay movement is freighted. Many in the move-
ment dislike the term “ex-gay” because they feel it reduces their identity to
sexual struggles. There is no agreed upon substitute. Movement opponents
argue that the term should not be used because it is misleading, suggesting
that changing sexual orientation is possible. When talking about individu-
als, I use “(ex-)gay” to indicate the population I am speaking of, using the
most recognizable term while acknowledging the porous boundaries
between gay and (ex-)gay. I use “ex-gay” to speak of ministries, leaders,
and the movement itself. I use the movement’s term “ever-straights” to refer
to people with life-long heterosexual attraction and identity.

Godly Masculinity In The Ex-Gay Movement

In the ex-gay context, ideals of godly masculinity are developed in

conversation with reparative therapy, the major discursive framework
ministries use to understand homosexuality. In an effort to develop a more
scientific-seeming position on homosexuality, movement leaders part-
nered with old school psychiatrists to develop a strand of psychological
theory abandoned by the mental health mainstream (Bayer 1987). This
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 33

theory claims that homosexuality is a disorder resulting from stunted gen-

der development. In this view, men become gay when a disruption in the
relationship with the father, either through the father’s absence or neglect
or the mother’s overinvolvement, leads to so-called defensive detachment,
alienation from men marked by active dissociation (Moberly 1983;
Nicolosi 2004b). This relational block causes proto-homosexual men to
wrongly identify with women, depriving them of male community within
which “proper” masculine identification develops. “In short,” writes
reparative therapist Elizabeth Moberly, “homosexuality is a phenomenon
of same-sex ambivalence, not just same-sex love; and it is in itself a rela-
tional deficit vis-à-vis the same sex rather than vis-à-vis the opposite sex”
(1983, 17).
This etiology frames homosexuality as a clinical issue, laying the
groundwork for a measure of compassion and possible cure. The remedy
lies in intensive social exposure to men and masculinity so that identifica-
tion develops. Sexual desire, the theory goes, is aimed at that which seems
different from the self; thus, when a homosexually inclined man stops iden-
tifying with women and finds a home among men, desire should “naturally”
turn toward his gender other. “The goal is not change as such,” Moberly
claims, “but fulfillment . . . that would in turn imply change” (1983, 31).
This is effected through practices that appear like overt mimesis of hegem-
onic masculinity: sports activities, information sessions with ever-straights,
and other male-male bonding opportunities. But it also works through a
critique of hegemonic masculinity and the articulation of new norms.
Like hegemonic masculinity, the content of godly masculinity is vague
and somewhat malleable. But its vagueness does not detract from its dis-
cursive usefulness in critiquing reigning ideals. Godly masculinity is
appealed to as a higher standard from which to evaluate the masculinity
that is hegemonic in American culture. For example, in his book on
achieving masculinity, ex-gay leader Alan Medinger writes that he will
teach readers “what a man is, what the meaning of masculine [is], and
what it is that men do—not just in the cultural sense, but what men do that
reflects their universal God-designed manhood” (2000, xiii). In a work-
shop on masculinity, Andrew Comiskey critiques aspects of hegemonic
masculinity, contrasting them to God’s vision for men. He advises,

It doesn’t work. Whether it’s climbing the corporate ladder, or whether it’s
prowling for prostitutes, same difference. We just say God, it doesn’t work,
it doesn’t make me more manly, doesn’t make anyone love me more. If
anything it just brings destruction in its own way. I’m sick of it. So Lord
I’m ready for your way. (n.d.)
34 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

In this account, sexual prowess and economic achievement, arguably two

cornerstones of hegemonic masculinity, are explicitly rejected in favor of
a more godly way. Godly masculinity allows ex-gay leaders to critique
dominant forms of masculinity in American culture without becoming
theologically suspect.
Despite the vagueness of godly masculinity, my research indicates three
ways that its ideals differ from those of hegemonic masculinity: de-empha-
sizing heterosexual conquest, inclusive masculinity, and homo-intimacy.
These both shape and reflect the compromises ex-gay ministries and their
evangelical partners have made with contemporary homosexuality.

De-emphasizing Heterosexual Conquest

One distinction between secular and evangelical culture is in attitudes
toward extramarital sexual activity. Evangelicals, like many conservative
religious people, are deeply suspect of such activity and highly value
sexual restraint. The ideal of limiting sexual activity to marriage puts
evangelical masculinity at odds with hegemonic formulations prioritizing
heterosexual conquest, a tension seen in many evangelical masculinity
projects. In an essay on the Promise Keepers, for example, Stoltenberg
(1999) notes that participants were urged to confess their sexual mistreat-
ment of women and to recognize the instability of sexual conquest as a
foundation for masculinity. E. Glenn Wagner, a Promise Keepers leader,
told Stoltenberg:

What we’re trying to tell them is that masculinity, manhood, is not defined
by how many people you’ve slept with, either male or female. And men are
finally saying “Oh thank God!” Sexual prowess should have nothing to do
with one’s personhood or self-esteem, and yet our culture has made it that
way. (1999, 97)

This rejection of heterosexual display as a standard for legitimized mas-

culinity reflects the historic suspicion with which Christianity has treated
sexuality (Krondorfer 1996). While not an outright rejection of hetero-
sexuality as a standard of legitimate manhood, this provides ex-gay min-
istries discursive and practical opportunities, grounded in mainstream
evangelical thought, for understanding and redeeming (ex-)gay sexuality.
Like the Promise Keepers and other evangelical gender projects
(Bartkowski 2004, 83; Cochran 2005; Ingersoll 2003), Exodus ministries
ground their work on the rejection of same-sex sexuality. In conservative
biblical hermeneutics, same-sex sexual practice is seen not only as a
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 35

violation of biblical command, but a transgression against God’s ideal for

sexuality as presented in Genesis (Comiskey 1989, 37-41). In some evan-
gelical discourses, male homosexual sex is also associated with unbri-
dled male lust untempered by female erotic sensibilities and the
responsibilities of family (Herman 1997). Perhaps the clearest boundary
drawn in the ex-gay movement in relation to homosexuality is the prohi-
bition on homosexual sex—genital activity between men is unequivo-
cally regarded as sin.
This rejection of homosexual sex is unsurprising. What is less expected
is how de-emphasizing heterosexual conquest as a sign of masculinity
reconfigures the terms of the ex-gay project, making its goals more attain-
able while simultaneously funding a critique of hegemonic masculinity.
One of the most tangible effects of this de-emphasis is a reduction in pres-
sure for (ex-)gay men to demonstrate healing through sex with women.
Ex-gay ministries often cite the evangelical prohibition on sexual activity
outside marriage to discourage (ex-)gay men from proving heterosexual-
ity this way. It also relieves them from doing so. Participants are warned
against rushing into heterosexual relationships as symbols of success
(Davies and Rentzel 1993, 145; Nicolosi 2004b, 202-3), and even mar-
riage is treated with reservation (Dallas 2003, 178). Ex-gay manuals issue
cautions on dating and sexuality and try to ease the pressure to perform
heterosexually, including on the wedding night (Davies and Rentzel 1993,
156). Medinger goes as far as suggesting that healing is achieved when
heterosexual sex becomes merely possible, not actually realized:

We are healed when we are ready to do well in assuming all obligations and
privileges generally assigned to a man. Central to these is the ability to be
an adequate husband and father. Note that I am using the word ability. We
do not have to actually be living these roles at the present time, and many
men will never marry. . . . But it is when we are capable of fulfilling these
roles in a satisfactory way that we have reached full manhood and . . .
recovery from homosexuality. (2000, 25-26)

This rejection of heterosexual conquest shifts the stakes of the ex-gay

project. Building on an ethic suspicious of all forms of sexuality, it lowers
the bar of heterosexual expectation.
This aspect of godly masculinity also allows ex-gay discourse to
redeem (ex-)gay heterosexuality, in sometimes exalted ways (Gerber,
forthcoming). Divine release from heterosexual expectation supports a
critique of the notion that healing should be measured by heterosexual
desire. This is most evident in the common statement that the goal of
36 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

ministry involvement is not heterosexuality at all. “The opposite of homo-

sexuality,” writes ex-gay leader Mike Haley, “is not heterosexuality—it’s
holiness” (2004, 134). And holiness, rather than heterosexuality, becomes
the standard to which the (ex-)gay man should hold himself. The pursuit
of holiness explains, and justifies, the absence of heterosexual desire in
the recovering homosexual. (Ex-)gay heterosexuality will never have the
affective charge of homosexual attraction, ministries tell their members,
because “God does not replace one form of lust with another” (Davies and
Rentzel 1993, 27). This contains threats posed by critics who equate heal-
ing with heterosexual desire by rejecting the secular standard of lust and
rising toward the sacred standard of holiness.
(Ex-)gay sexuality is also redeemed by (ex-)gay heterosexuality’s likeness
to godly sexual norms. As heterosexual partners, (ex-)gay lovers can seem
closer to godly ideals because their marital relationships are not contami-
nated by lust. These marriages are said to be based on personal knowledge,
not sheer desire, giving them a more solid foundation. Sexual desires emerge
from friendship rather than immediate visual attraction (Davies and Rentzel
1993, 162). For example, Comiskey writes of his marital relationship:

In spite of glimmers of physical attraction, the catalyst for our relationship in

its early stages was not erotic. That surprised me, as my homosexual experi-
ences were fuelled by “high octane” lust that burned out to reveal an emo-
tional immaturity incapable of sustaining a long-term relationship. Annette
and I took the reverse path. My erotic feelings for her arose out of a trust and
an established emotional and spiritual complementarity. . . . Physical attrac-
tion was birthed out of our relationship; it wasn’t its overblown starting point,
charged with illusion and seductive posturing. (1989, 30-31)

His marriage endures, in this account, precisely because it is not marked

by the heterosexual desire that hegemonic masculinity requires. Highly
charged heterosexual desire becomes a source of “illusion and seductive
posturing” rather than a sign of healing. (Ex-)gay marital relationships can
thus realize divine norms regarding lust and friendship in ways that ever-
straight ones are rarely able.
(Ex-)gay heterosexual marriages are also considered immune to the
threat of other women. Heterosexual desire in an (ex-)gay context is seen as
specific to the individuals involved; even the most healed (ex-)gay men tend
to fall in love with only one woman. Again, this reality can be interpreted
as a sign of healing rather than evidence of its lack. For example, Craig, a
West Coast ex-gay leader, told me, “I desire my wife sexually and I’m very
glad that I don’t have a problem with lust for other women or men. That my
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 37

focus of my sexual expression can be on her. And her for me. I think that’s
a much healthier expression.” The range of sexual sins that plague hetero-
sexual men is also something that (ex-)gay heterosexual marriages are said
to be relieved of:

A high percentage of heterosexual men in good, loving Christian marriages

struggle with attractions to disconnected, impersonal sex: to pornography
or maybe to the body of a neighbor woman whom he doesn’t even know.
This almost never happens to male overcomers with respect to women.
This is the reason why I believe that we are actually in a better place than
most men. We are closer to God’s original intent for our sexuality.
(Medinger 2000, 204-5)

In this account, (ex-)gay men become even godlier than ever-straight men
because they are not vulnerable to the heterosexual temptations that rend
even upstanding Christian marriages. By bracketing the very issue that
brings them to ex-gay ministries—homosexual desire—ex-gay discourse
redeems (ex-)gay sexuality by depicting its heterosexual expression as
exemplary of godly ideals for human relationships.
Thus, (ex-)gay men are transformed from grievous sinner to godly
lover when they pursue healing. The critique that godly masculinity poses
to hegemonic masculinity’s emphasis on heterosexual conquest is espe-
cially pragmatic in this context. Not only does it allow (ex-)gay men to
claim legitimate healing more easily, even in the absence of heterosexual
desire, it also permits claims to godly masculinity even if (ex-)gays are
still disqualified from actual hegemonic masculinity. And while their pre-
ferred form of sexual expression is specifically denied, the compensation
for (ex-)gay men is the elevation of their potentially tainted heterosexual
relationships to the level of godly ideal. The ability to resist heterosexual
temptation, interpersonal foundation of the marital relationship, and culti-
vation of godly, if tepid, desire for one specific person allows the (ex-)gay
heterosexual relationship to realize important godly ideals—if you over-
look the gay part. As Timothy, a former (ex-)gay, told me, “My youth
director when I was in high school was, like, ‘Timothy is a model boy
when it comes to treating girls, you know, wow, what a spiritual guy.’
Yeah, right, real spiritual. He’s just not interested.”

Inclusive Masculinity
The ex-gay approach to gender flows directly from its approach to sexual-
ity. The insistence on heterosexuality generates an ideological commitment
38 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

to a binary system of distinct, opposing, and hierarchically ranked genders.

Prohibiting homosexuality enables ex-gay ministries to maintain these key
aspects of evangelicalism’s conservative gender ideology. In combination
with their therapeutic understanding of homosexuality’s cause and cure, it
also allows a degree of flexibility in terms of gendered tastes, practices, and
self-presentation. While other evangelical masculinity projects also allow a
certain inclusivity, they are more focused on race and multiculturalism
(Bartkowski 2004); in this case, the focus is on inclusivity regarding gender
expression.
As noted, the problem of homosexuality, in the ex-gay view, is ulti-
mately one of gender identity; some people are unable to find a place in
the gender sphere assigned to them by biology. This ambiguity leads to an
inability to identify with one’s assigned gender and to eroticize it instead.
In some versions, this ambiguity is the result of combined forces: The
individual may be pulled out of his gender group by an internal sense of
difference and over-identification with the “wrong” gender, but he is also
pushed out by hegemonic standards of masculinity that refuse to recog-
nize the homosexual as the man that he is (Goeke and Mayo 2008). The
solution is the reincorporation of gender outcasts into a legitimized mas-
culinity that is more inclusive than that which expelled them. Godly mas-
culinity is thus used to critique narrow ideations of masculinity and
expand the range of acceptable masculinities, sometimes in ways that
undermine the meaning of the very category. Like de-emphasizing hetero-
sexual conquest, this trait of godly masculinity has precedents in other
gendered evangelical projects (Bartkowski 2004, 63) but serves particular
purposes in the ex-gay context.
One effect of this approach to homosexuality is the feminization of gay
men. A core assumption of reparative therapy is that (ex-)gay men feel
alienated from their gender and identify with women. There is no recogni-
tion of gay men whose gender identity is masculine; that configuration is
deemed impossible. But, in part because of evangelicalism’s grappling
with feminism, in part because of its feminized history, and in part
because of its theology, feminization is not necessarily a bad thing. Some
evangelical theology sees God as both masculine and feminine, something
that ex-gay ministries emphasize, in part to validate feminized character-
istics in men. For example, Medinger writes,

The problem in the homosexual man is not that he has too much of the
feminine, but too little of the masculine. Can there also be too much of the
feminine? Could we have too great a capacity to nurture, to communicate,
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 39

to understand, too great an ability to respond and help? No, any man who
has a surplus of these things is blessed and is likely to be a blessing to oth-
ers. (2000, 90-91)

Evangelical theology also puts male believers in a feminized position

of submission in relation to Christ, a feature of Christian thought that
evangelical feminists use in arguing for gender equality (Cochran 2005,
132). Because they are feminized, (ex-)gay men are discursively associ-
ated with the dominated gender and are, to some degree, dominated by
association. But under the godly gender regime, this association need not
be a death knell to claims to legitimate, if not hegemonic, masculinity.
Feminization is not necessarily a reason to exclude (ex-)gay men from
godly masculinity; indeed, it can serve as a means for establishing their
common ground with it. Ministries use that potential to their advantage,
carving out a masculine ideal in which their members can more comfort-
ably fit, and thus more honestly claim.
(Ex-)gay men are also masculinized in ex-gay discourse. For example,
at an Exodus workshop “Breaking the Myth of Masculinity,” the (ex-)gay
and ever-straight coleaders assured participants that they had a legitimate
place in the masculine world. “If you read our description on the website,”
they told the audience,

we put a question in there and said do I have what it takes to be mascu-

line? . . . We said if you come to our class that we would answer that
question. And the answer to that question is absolutely yes. Because you
know what? You were all born male. You were all born men. And every-
thing that you need to be fully masculine is within you. (Goeke and Mayo
2008)

If masculinity is endowed entirely by biology, then men are automatically

masculine by virtue of being born male; every person born male has a
claim on its attributes and privileges. And because the category of mascu-
linity must include all males, it needs to be inclusive enough for all men
to find their place.
As a result, traits, preferences, and dispositions, or what Bridges (2014)
terms “sexual aesthetics,” can be integrated into godly masculinity that
were once the very definition of non-masculinity. Ex-gay ministries work
to resignify them as legitimately masculine rather than suspiciously femi-
nine. This labor was evident in the “Breaking the Myth of Masculinity”
workshop. There, the leaders talked about their various likes and dislikes.
Mike Goeke, the (ex-)gay man, told the audience:
40 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

I love clothes, shopping, I really do, I’m proud of it . . . I like decorating, I

do. Stephanie [his wife] and I love doing that stuff together and I have
every bit of a strong opinion on it. I love architecture and art, things that are
beautiful. . . . I love to write. . . . I love long dinners, talking about life. I
love great conversation, any time where you can sit and talk about stuff,
life, relationships.

Jay Mayo, the ever-straight, responded,

I love UFC [Ultimate Fighting Championship]. It’s human cockfighting on

. . . Jeeps. I also love love stories. I love chick flicks. I cry at every one. . . .
I love to write. I love genuine conversation. I hate BSing. I hate walking
into the context of guys and talking about nothing important. It’s crap, but
I did it most of my life. I love to hug, I love affection. I love candles. And
my favorite flavor is vanilla bean. (Goeke and Mayo 2008)

This exchange served, in part, to put the stamp of legitimate masculinity

on practices that are frequently used to delegitimize claims to masculinity
and especially hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity’s power is
based on the domination of women and has frequently involved the stig-
matization of feminized traits in males, especially those who are homo-
sexually oriented (Hennen 2008). But within an inclusive godly
masculinity, some feminized traits are reconfigured as valid expressions
of masculinity that can even be endorsed by ever-straights with UFC-
loving credentials. When successful, these traits become part of a reper-
toire of legitimate masculinity that even those ever-straights can put into
practice without shame (Bridges 2014).
One feminized trait that has newly found masculine legitimacy in the
ex-gay context, and in evangelicalism more generally, is the ability to
share feelings (Bartkowski 2004; Flores and Hondagneu-Sotelo 2013). In
ex-gay programs, members are expected to identify their feelings and
share them intimately with the group, all in the name of re-establishing
masculinity (Erzen 2006). In writing about the need for (ex-)gay men to
connect with the masculine, Nicolosi contrasts the false impulse toward
homosexual contact with another option: “One authentic way to reconnect
with the masculine would be to express feelings to a male friend” (2004a,
190). This validation of expressing feelings as legitimately masculine is
taken a step further when ex-gay leaders discuss the process of homo-
sexual recovery. Going to therapy, attending support groups, and commit-
ting substantial time and energy to healing are reinscribed as masculine
acts. Leaders take pains to show that this pursuit is imbued with the active
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 41

spirit deemed essential to godly masculinity. “Reparative therapy is initia-

tory in nature,” Nicolosi writes. “It requires not just a passive musing over
insights into the self, but an active initiation of new behaviors” (2004a,
213). John Hinson (2007), leader of a “Fear of Men and Masculinity”
workshop, painted the pursuit of healing as exemplary of masculine cour-
age and endurance:

I had a feeling about healing. [It’s] not going to happen if you’re passive.
You need to be proactive and do whatever you need to get the kind of heal-
ing you want. You need to go do it. I’ve had four therapists, once when I
was in Phoenix, he was in Los Angeles, went every other month and talked
on the phone every week. Went to men’s weekend in New York, in Florida.
Did whatever to get the healing I wanted and needed. [It] takes grit, guts to
do this work.

There are few other venues where seeing four different therapists and going
to multiple men’s weekends evidence the “grit” and “guts” of masculinity.
But within godly masculinity, association with feminized activities need not
threaten one’s claim to male legitimacy; it may even enhance it.
Effeminacy itself can at times be legitimized within godly masculinity.
While not always acceptable, being effeminate is sometimes seen as an
opportunity for the expression of more essential male traits; at the very
least, it is not always interpreted as gender fraud. Andrew Comiskey
(n.d.), for example, talks about the irony of God calling him to speak
about masculinity: “God started asking me to start speaking on masculin-
ity, it’s like Lord, I mean that’s my weakness. . . . And it’s at that threshold
that I say God, I’m your son, I’m weak. . . . And out of that God forges
what pleases him.” Hegemonic masculinity may not be his strong suit, but
strength is not necessarily what God wants from men. It is weakness in
the area of gender normativity that gives God the opportunity to make
Comiskey a godly man. Lack of hegemonic masculinity thus becomes the
opportunity to cultivate godly masculinity.
Medinger also writes of his struggle with feminized characteristics and
discusses another ex-gay leader to show that effeminacy need not invali-
date claims to godly masculinity:

Part of [God’s] plan for me is that I would manifest more of certain femi-
nine qualities than most men and a few less of the masculine. That’s part of
what makes me unique, but it doesn’t make me less of a man. Sy Rogers is
one of the best known leaders in the Exodus International network. . . . For
a number of years Sy lived as a woman, and he had the characteristics that
42 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

enabled him to pull it off quite well. Now, years after his conversion and
healing, Sy still bears some feminine characteristics. They are noticeable
when you first hear him speak, but after listening to him for a few minutes,
you find that these characteristics fade from view. Sy’s genuine manhood—
something that now dwells at the core of him—starts to emanate with
power and masculinity. (2000, 192)

Feminine qualities, in this account, need not discredit masculinity. They

are, rather, a unique form of masculinity that should have a place in the
godly gender regime. Sy Rogers himself rejects the charge that he is inad-
equately masculine by invoking the distinction between godly and
worldly standards of masculinity

Some people think if I was healed I’d be more butch—what standard of

butch are we talking about? Which standard of masculinity do you want me
to live up to? . . . Most [of this] criticism comes from an American market,
but [I] belong to a bigger market and to God’s market.” (2005)

In this case, the defense against a hegemonic masculinity that insists on

traits gendered male and the absence of those gendered female is the
appeal to godly masculinity that includes even such a man as he, who
passed for years as a woman.

Homo-intimacy
A third distinction between godly masculine ideals and culturally
hegemonic ones involves relations between men. Hegemonic masculinity
emphasizes individualism, competition, and emotional distance. Godly
masculinity, by contrast, advocates homo-intimacy. In ex-gay ministries,
as in other gendered evangelical projects, the ideal relationship between
men includes an emotional and relational closeness that goes beyond
homosocial and flirts with homo-erotic (Sedgwick 1985).
According to reparative therapy, homosexual men become real men
when they develop intimate relationships with other men, through mentor-
ing relationships with (ex-)gay men further along in their healing or with
ever-straights. These relationships are usually cultivated in church set-
tings, men’s groups, or the ministry itself. According to advocates of these
relationships—and in contrast to hegemonic assumptions about masculin-
ity—men are happy to support (ex-)gays in their search for masculinity
through positive, affirming, supportive processes, not through social trials
that consolidate masculine identity by repudiating the abject “fag” (Pascoe
2007). Nicolosi (2005), for example, claims:
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 43

[A] heterosexual man will work with a man who is trying to overcome his
homosexuality and the reason why is because men cannot procreate the way
women procreate, we cannot make babies. But men, we are wired to make
boys into men. That’s natural for us. And when we see a man come along
who’s struggling to find his masculinity, the manhood in you is prompted to
mentor this guy and the fact that he’s dealing with homosexuality is irrelevant.

These mentoring relationships, according to Nicolosi, are based on men’s

innate drives to help other men achieve legitimate masculinity, drives that
are feminized not only by their parallel to the gestation experience but by
the very notion of a biologically based nurturing impulse in men. In con-
trast to the hegemonic model, godly masculinity is not produced by iso-
lated men facing obstacles alone and overcoming them through individual
strength and social independence. It occurs when the nurturing capacities
of the mentor are evoked by a vulnerable man. Homosexuality, in this
account, is not the result of too much male-male intimacy, but of too little.
“I don’t assume that you have never had a healthy relationship with a
man,” writes Joe Dallas, “but I will assume that you haven’t had enough
intimacy with men” (2003, 160).
Once established, these male-male relationships involve a level of
emotional disclosure, intimacy, and closeness that also defy standards for
hegemonic male-male relations. According to reparative therapy, men
desire homosexual sex as a substitute for the deeper desire for identifica-
tion and closeness with men. Sex, in this account, will never fill this pur-
pose; only nonsexual male-male relationships can. Nicolosi writes, “The
only way a man can absorb masculinity into his identity is through the
challenge of nonsexual male friendships characterized by mutuality, inti-
macy, affirmation, and fellowship” (2004a, 100). These are notably not
constitutive elements of hegemonic masculinity. In these relationships,
men share the details of their lives, express their hopes and fears, and turn
to other men for support, caring, and validation. Mark, for example, told
me that his ministry participation allowed him to receive positive feed-
back from men for the first time. While he had received male praise
before, in this group he was “able to share on a level that I had never been
able to share.” Because he knew these men so well, their positive feed-
back penetrated more deeply. “I was never really able to take in that [ear-
lier] affirmation because they didn’t know me. So once I was open and
people [in the ministry] kept saying the same thing, then it began to sink
in and mean something to help change me.” Interpersonal knowledge,
personal disclosure, and emotional receptivity are more likely to be
derided as feminine than lauded as masculine under the hegemonic regime
44 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

of masculinity; in the ex-gay context they become fundamental to the

masculinization process itself (Medinger 2000, 111).
Physical, albeit nonsexual, intimacy also has a place in healing homo-
sexuality. Ex-gay writer Chad Thompson writes about the touch depriva-
tion he experienced, its role in developing his homosexuality, and healing
it in the course of relationships with other Christian men (Thompson
2004). Alan Chambers (2005) told an audience at the Love Won Out con-
ference about his experience of healing during a five-hour-long hug with
men in his church:

I had a struggle with my relationship with my dad growing up, and . . . in

homosexual relationships I always wanted someone who would be that
young, affirming, good-looking, wonderful father. Not for the purposes of
sex, but I was craving what God intended for me to have, that intimacy and
that connection. And I remember one night dealing, it was a couple of years
into the process, dealing with this whole issue, praying through these issues
and when it was over that night, after I had been hugged for about five
hours by this man who was praying for me and another man from the
church, I felt like God supernaturally healed my lifelong desire for that type
of inappropriate relationship.

In the context of prayer and healing, touch, bodily contact, and the physi-
cal expression of closeness with other men become legitimate means of
pursuing change rather than suspect expressions of homosexual desire.
While this form of homosociality may well be pursued in order to con-
solidate the dominance of men over women (Sedgwick 1985), it looks
strikingly different from the hegemonic form of masculinity that regards
physical male-male closeness with suspicion.
Thus, godly masculinity can be marked by a male-male closeness that, in
other contexts, may appear to be the homosexuality it is meant to oppose. As
long as it is expressed within the confines of godly community, does not
include acts deemed sexual, and does not become a rival for communal iden-
tification, deep emotional and physical closeness between men need not be
problematic. Which acts are deemed sexual, which are not, and why are
important questions that merit further research. But prominent (ex-)gays
frequently convey experiences that seem to blur that line without much con-
troversy. Chad Thompson, for example, writes almost romantically about his
experience with other (ex-)gay men, yet is recognized as a movement leader:

When I first met Lenny [an (ex-)gay mentor] at an Italian restaurant in

Chicago, he instantly wrapped his arms around me, looked me in the eye,
and told me that he loved me. That moment was the beginning of my healing
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 45

process, and since then God has put dozens of men in my life to provide the
nonsexual love and affirmation that I need in order to change. (2004, 22)

In a different context, the need for love and affirmation expressed by a

man would render his masculinity and sexual orientation suspect. Yet in
this context it is written without irony as an important move toward the
kind of godly masculinity that hegemonic masculinity impedes. Indeed,
under the guise of godly masculinity, (ex-)gays are allowed a wide range
of emotional intimacies with people of the same gender that may be indis-
tinguishable from, or indeed may be the heart of, homosexual desire.

Conclusion

Ethnographer Tanya Erzen has noted the queer quality of (ex-)gay

men’s sexual conversions (2006, 14). I would extend that observation to
the realm of gender, suggesting that the inclusivity of godly masculinity
generates a queerish masculinity, one that effects the kinds of gender blur-
ring that queerness aspires to, without subscribing to the political priori-
ties or critiques that fund more deliberately queer gender experimentation
(Gerber 2008; Gerber, forthcoming). In its effort to include those who
have been excluded on grounds of gender identity or performance, it runs
the risk of including elements that undermine the very meaning of the
category. An emphasis on male brokenness, the expression of feeling, and
the legitimacy of a wide range of masculine expression would signifi-
cantly change the terms of hegemonic masculinity and may even have the
unintended potential of undermining it. Indeed, it may well have been a
factor in Exodus’s recent disavowal of sexual reorientation as a legitimate
goal of Christian ministry and its dissolution as an organization. If highly
feminized traits have a legitimate masculine home, for example, what
does masculinity actually mean?
This queerish compromise on homosexuality is pragmatic in a number of
ways. First, it gives (ex-)gays a more livable space within the Christian
world. While Christians who experience homosexual desire in this context
need to renounce it, they no longer need fear admitting it. And ex-gay min-
istries, in partnership with supportive church communities, give (ex-)gays
an opportunity to satisfy a range of needs and desires within legitimized
contexts: They can experience intense intimacy with other men and culti-
vate community without necessarily conforming to rigid gender expecta-
tions or proving heterosexuality through sex with women. They no longer
need to be silent about their experience and can even use the standards of
46 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

godly masculinity to critique homophobia within the church itself. For those
who do not wish, or are unable, to sever ties with conservative evangelical
churches, the ex-gay movement provides opportunities for a life that need
not be lived in utter secrecy.
It also provides potential benefits for the evangelical world at large.
Godly standards of masculinity, and the (ex-)gay men who remake those
standards, can reduce “the costs of masculinity” (Messner 1997, 8). By
broadening the repertoire of legitimate masculine expression and criti-
quing certain aspects of hegemonic masculinity, ex-gay gender experi-
ments may increase the livable space for all evangelical men, regardless
of sexual desire. At the same time, it gives the evangelical community the
opportunity to maintain subcultural distinction through principled opposi-
tion to homosexual genital acts and political opposition to gay social
movements (Smith 1998). They may also serve as ideological legitimiza-
tion for the failure of conservative Christian men to live up to other stand-
ards of hegemonic masculinity.
These possibilities are just that: possibilities. The data in this article
speak to the discursive experiments (ex-)gays have tried within their con-
fines and in relation to certain institutional partners. Recent changes in that
movement raise many questions of interest to scholars of gender, sexuality,
and religion. One of the most theoretically significant is whether Exodus
was vulnerable to the kinds of instability that gender experiments can gener-
ate. Queer theory often celebrates the disruptive potential of queerness to
prevailing systems of sex and gender. Queerish practices, ones that blur
gender distinctions and binaries without an accompanying queer politic,
such as the ones outlined in this article, may have been sufficiently disrup-
tive to the organization’s stated gender and sexual ideologies to render its
project of sexual reorientation less plausible or less necessary. Exodus’s
demise would thus be a useful case for evaluating queer theory’s analytic
claims and should be pursued in future research. Other questions raised by
Exodus’s closure include how actors who continue efforts at sexual reorien-
tation re-narrate their efforts and the degree to which these discursive efforts
find recognition and acceptance in the broader evangelical world. While
ex-gay ministries have been successful in developing partnerships with
powerful evangelical institutions, it is unclear whether that institutional
legitimacy translates into lived legitimacy on the popular level or into theo-
logical innovation based on changing gender ideals. Taking (ex-)gay femi-
ninities into account, as well as female masculinities in the (ex-)gay context,
would further develop our understanding of how godly masculinity works
in relationship to hegemonic masculinity. And the specificities of this study
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 47

in terms of race and nation raise problems for further research regarding the
multiple masculinities at play in a globalized evangelicalism and how race
and nation intersect with gender and religion and generate hegemony in
these contexts. These important questions merit further research.
But looking at the discursive strategies within the ex-gay movement
provides important reminders to scholars researching religion, sexuality,
and gender. The most important, in my view, is the caution not to conflate
conservative religious masculinity projects with hegemonic ones.
Advocates for the hegemonic positioning of masculinity do not necessar-
ily support the masculinity that is, in fact, hegemonic in a given social
space, and there is no reason to think that they should. Godly masculinity
is a contender in a field of multiple masculinities vying for hegemonic
power. The fact that its advocates believe that gender relations should be
hierarchical and that masculinity should be hegemonic does not keep them
from advocating for a kind of masculinity that is more reflective of, and
advantageous for, their particular position. Conflating the complex gender
projects of the ex-gay movement, and evangelical Christianity more gen-
erally, with hegemonic masculinity makes it difficult to see the nuanced
fault lines on which this project might stand or fall. As Arlene Stein has
observed, “Just as we should understand masculinities and femininities in
plural rather than singular terms, so are there clearly homophobias in the
plural” (Stein 2005, 604). It is critical, I contend, to be specific about the
form we are seeing in the ex-gay movement and to be clear about its
political possibilities as well as its perils.

References

Bartkowski, John P. 2004. Promise Keepers: Servants, soldiers and godly men.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Bayer, Ronald. 1987. Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of
diagnosis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bederman, Gail. 1989. “The women have had charge of the church work long
enough”: The Men and Religion Forward movement of 1911-1912 and the
masculinization of middle-class Protestantism. American Quarterly 41:432-65.
Bird, Sharon R. 1996. Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality and the mainte-
nance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society 10:120-32.
Brekus, Catherine A. 1998. Strangers and pilgrims: Female preaching in Amer-
ica, 1740-1845. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Bridges, Tristan. 2014. A very “gay” straight: Hybrid masculinities, sexual aes-
thetics, and the changing relationship between masculinity and homophobia.
Gender & Society 28:58-82.
48 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

Chambers, Alan. 2005. Reaching the homosexual I: Teaching. Workshop given at

Love Won Out, Seattle, Washington, June 25.
Cochran, Pamela D. H. 2005. Evangelical feminism: A history. New York: New
York University Press.
Comiskey, Andrew. 1989. Pursuing sexual wholeness: How Jesus heals the
homosexual. Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House.
Comiskey, Andrew. n.d. Masculinity [CD]. Grandview, MO: Desert Stream Min-
istries.
Connell, Raewyn. 2005. Masculinities, 2nd edition. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Connell, Raewyn, and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. Hegemonic masculinity:
Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society 19:829-59.
Dallas, Joe. 2003. Desires in conflict: Hope for men who struggle with same sex
identity, revised edition. Eugene, OR: Harvest House.
Davies, Bob, and Lori Rentzel. 1993. Coming out of homosexuality: New freedom
for men and women. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Demetriou, Demetrakis Z. 2001. Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A
critique. Theory and Society 30:337-61.
Donaldson, Mike. 1993. What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society
22:643-57.
Donovan, Brian. 1998. Political consequences of private authority: Promise
Keepers and the transformation of hegemonic masculinity. Theory and Soci-
ety 27:817-43.
Douglas, Ann. 1977. The feminization of American culture. New York: Knopf.
Elias, Juanita, and Christine Beasley. 2009. Hegemonic masculinity and global-
ization: “Transnational business masculinities” and beyond. Globalizations
6:281-96.
Erzen, Tanya. 2006. Straight to Jesus: Sexual and Christian conversions in the
ex-gay movement. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Flores, Edward Orozco, and Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo. 2013. Chicano gang
members in recovery: The public talk of negotiating Chicano masculinities.
Social Problems 60:476-90.
Gallagher, Sally K. 2003. Evangelical identity and gendered family life. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Gallagher, Sally K., and Sabrina L. Wood. 2005. Godly manhood going wild?
Transformations in conservative Protestant masculinity. Sociology of Religion
66:135-60.
Gerber, Lynne. 2008. The opposite of gay: Nature, creation, and queerish ex-gay
experiments. Nova Religio 11:8-30.
Gerber, Lynne. 2011. Seeking the straight and narrow: Weight loss and sexual
reorientation in evangelical America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gerber, Lynne. Forthcoming. “Queerish” celibacy: Reorienting marriage in the ex-
gay movement. In Queer Christianities, edited by Mark Larrimore, Michael
Pettinger, and Kathleen Talvacchia. New York: New York University Press.
 Gerber / Grit, Guts, And Vanilla Beans 49

Goeke, Mike, and Jay Mayo. 2008. Breaking the myth of masculinity. Workshop
presented at Exodus International Conference.
Gritz, Jennie Rothenberg. 2012. Sexual healing: Evangelicals update their
message to gays. The Atlantic, June 20, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/
national/archive/2012/06/sexual-healing-evangelicals-update-their-message-
to-gays/258713.
Haley, Mike. 2004. 101 frequently asked questions about homosexuality. Eugene,
OR: Harvest House Publishers.
Hatch, Nathan O. 1989. The democratization of American Christianity. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Heath, Melanie. 2003. Soft-boiled patriarchy: Renegotiating gender and racial
ideologies in the Promise Keepers. Gender & Society 17:423-44.
Hennen, Peter. 2008. Faeries, bears and leathermen: Men in community queering
the masculine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Herman, Didi. 1997. The antigay agenda: Orthodox vision and the Christian
right. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hinson, John. 2007. Fear of men and masculinity. Workshop presented at Exodus
International Conference.
Ingersoll, Julie. 2003. Evangelical Christian women: War stories in the gender
battles. New York: New York University Press.
Kimmel, Michael S. 1994. Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence
in the construction of gender identity. In Theorizing masculinities, edited by
Harry Brod and Michael Kaufman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krondorfer, Bjorn. 1996. Introduction. In Men’s bodies, men’s gods: Male identi-
ties in a (post)-Christian culture, edited by Bjorn Krondorfer. New York: New
York University Press.
Medinger, Alan. 2000. Growth into manhood: Resuming the journey. New York:
Shaw Press/Random House.
Messner, Michael. 1997. Politics of masculinities: Men in movements. Lanham,
MD: AltaMira Press.
Moberly, Elizabeth. 1983. Homosexuality: A new Christian ethic. Cambridge,
UK: James Clarke Ltd.
Nicolosi, Joseph. 2004a. Healing homosexuality: Case stories of reparative ther-
apy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Nicolosi, Joseph. 2004b. Reparative therapy of the male homosexual: A new clini-
cal approach. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Nicolosi, Joseph. 2005. The condition of male homosexuality. Lecture given at
Love Won Out, Seattle, Washington, June 25.
Pascoe, C. J. 2007. Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Putney, Clifford. 2003. Muscular Christianity: Manhood and sports in Protestant
America, 1880-1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Robinson, Christine M., and Sue E. Spivey. 2007. The politics of masculinity and
the ex-gay movement. Gender & Society 21:650-75.
50 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2015

Rogers, Sy. 2005. One of the boys remix: The Sy Rogers story [DVD]. Fort Lau-
derdale, FL: Worthy Creations.
Sedgwick, Eve K. 1985. Between men: English literature and male homosocial
desire. New York: Columbia University Press.
Smith, Christian. 1998. Evangelicalism: Embattled and thriving. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Stein, Arlene. 2005. Make room for daddy: Anxious masculinity and emergent
homophobias in neopatriarchal politics. Gender & Society 19:601-20.
Stoltenberg, John. 1999. Christianity, feminism and the manhood crisis. In Stand-
ing on the promises: The Promise Keepers and the revival of manhood, edited
by Dane S. Claussen. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press.
Thompson, Chad. 2004. Loving homosexuals as Jesus would: A fresh Christian
approach. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press.

Lynne Gerber is a visiting scholar at the Institute for the Study of Societal
Issues at the University of California, Berkeley. She is the author of
Seeking the Straight and Narrow: Weight Loss and Sexual Reorientation in
Evangelical America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).