http://psychmeasures.org/index.php?sid=64625&lang=en

Saw this on facebook:

"If you have ever been a member of the LDS church, and ever experienced same-sex attraction of any kind -- please fill out this survey: http://lds-ssa-survey.com/. It's a study being conducted by Utah State University, and could have very important implications on LGBTQ Mormons in the U.S. Thanks in advance."

I'm as straight as the come ....


In case Ur interested, this survey appears to be targeted at ppl who have had 'strong' SS attractions and/or related conduct OR perhaps a close friend who has had such feelings OR conduct.... I looked at it as PERHAPS a chance to give useful data, but I prolly don't have any such information/data.

It's for people who have experienced same sex attraction of any kind, and who have been (or still are) a member of the lds church.

It's a longer survey (took me about 30 minutes) but I liked the questions they asked. I'm curious what they are going to do with the information.

I thought you were talking about Social Security. I figured they were going to compare how many Mormons were accepting government entitlements!

Ah, yes, frame of reference...

Anagrammy

BUT are they SSA or GAY? I hate the label of SSA--some what for the church to change it into just being about sex.

I'm bi, though I've never said that out loud. It doesn't really matter much since I'm in a stable, fulfilling hetero relationship. Plus, it's not really anyone's business. I think I'd 'come out' if it mattered, but I don't feel like it would accomplish anything except generate unwanted attention regarding my sexuality (That being said, I wouldn't hesitate to share my experience with anyone personally as a means of offering support).

Anyway, I took the survey, since it applies.

I mentioned in there a few times where their questions are kind of offensive-- and I wish they had included opportunities where the questions themselves could be critiqued-- they really are starting off badly. I mean, to insist on using "SSA"-- loaded terminology, instead of conventional terminology, is fundamentally disrespectful. On top of that, some of the questions really pushed my buttons because they were being asked from an LDS orientation. Like where it talks about ways that you might have gone about coming to terms with your sexual orientation (talk therapy, support groups, etc.)-- on the second page where it asks for details, it labels the support avenue as an "intervention". "Intervention" is a loaded concept. People stage "interventions" to deal with harmful/destructive behavior. Getting therapy or support as you are coming to terms with facts about yourself that might have been troubling initially does not really strike me as an "intervention". For me there was no "intervention" it was just learning facts about myself and growing up.

Ugh. There were so many other little things that bugged me about that survey. I appreciate that people are trying to understand, but I wish they would make an attempt to rid themselves of their powerful preconceptions before trying to address people that the LDS institution has wronged. Like-- at least have the whole thing proof-read by scientists who have more conventional views about homosexuality?

Maybe I'm being oversensitive? I don't know, the whole thing kind of pissed me off.

I found your input very informative.

They have a section about sexual abuse-- they ask if you were ever sexually abused, followed up by whether you discovered you were LGBTQ before or after. That is what pissed me off the most probably. This is a question that has been studied and studied and no link has been established-- despite considerable effort to do so. The question arises from the notion that homosexuality is "hetero development gone wrong". To continue to ask this question, out of ignorance, or because prior answers have been unsatisfactory, betrays a serious bias on the part of the people who put this survey together. Or maybe I don't understand how behavioral science works and it's just standard procedure to ask outdated questions that are suggested by bias?

Also, there wasn't much room in the survey questions for a person like me to answer truthfully because the survey seems to have been designed with the assumption that all people who are not completely hetero struggle with it, try to fix it, go through a crisis requiring intervention on account of it, or possess attitudes of either self-loathing, or superiority because of it. There wasn't much room for neutral attitudes-- and that's where I'm at. I'm happy with myself and my sexuality is not an issue for me personally (although it's clearly an issue for certain parts of society). In many ways, I've had it easy in virtue of being a bisexual woman-- I didn't have much to come to terms with-- just a few things in my past to make sense of.

By insisting on treating homosexuality and bisexuality as one category, "SSA", they aren't just betraying their bias, they are setting themselves up for misleading answers. For example, there's one question that asks "I prefer to keep my same-sex romantic relationships rather private." For me that is a strange question because while it is technically very true in my case, it's not in virtue of the fact that they are "same-sex romantic relationships". In my life, I have preferred to keep ALL my romantic relationships private and would regardless of the genders involved, or society's acceptance of them. I am a private person. The survey lacked the depth to place answers in accurate context. A biased person (such as the folks who put together this survey) reading off my honest answers to the questions, is going to get the wrong idea about me because the survey was badly formed. There were several such instances, where honest answers would be misleading in virtue of a badly formed question.

Anyway, I answered the questions I could, criticized and elaborated where I could, and hopefully some good will come of it. If not, whatever. Mormons are going to believe whatever the hell they want anyway.

That section bugged me too. It was especially poorly designed even compared to the rest, which was framed badly in several ways.

First off, there's what you said about the fact that research does not support the assertion that sexual identity and abuse are correlated. Then they conflated sexual, emotional and physical abuse for all these questions and never allowed you to identify *which* you may have experienced or to what degree. Then they had the dumb question about whether abuse happened before or after identifying as LGBTQ. Well, I could possibly characterize one step parent as emotionally abusive, and it was something that went on from maybe age 6 to 20. There's no way to say that it happened both before AND after identifying as LGBTQ.

I ended up erasing what I started to write, clicked the "no" button and went on to the next section. It's just as well, because if I had answered using their constraints, it would have badly misrepresented my experience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2011 02:14PM by Inverso.

I had to stop the survey not even 20% though, it seemed weighted and I wasn't able to answer accurately for much of it due to my personal situation.

I have the interesting situation of being married (for 15 years) in a hetero relationship with a woman that I love, but I'm gay.

I never admitted to myself that I was gay until I was fully out of the church, because to do so would have admitted that on some level that I was evil and "sinning" just because I was attracted to the wrong group of people.

I fully believe that have been gay since birth, looking back on my life, all the way into childhood I see all the signs that I ignored or forced myself to not believe. Even before I was 10 I remember having crushes on my Sister's boyfriends.

So, how do I answer questions like "when did you identify your self as?" when the answer could be 10 or 37, depending on whether your looking for admitted to myself or, looking back see when it was there.

Some questions just didn't make sense in my case, I honestly didn't allow myself to believe my attraction until just a few years ago and this survey didn't account for such situations... I have a feeling that I'm not alone in my experience in the church.

(BTW, I have no plans to come "out" to anyone, except completely anonymously. My wife and I have a great relationship and we love each other in our way and probably have the best marriage in my family, as far as I know she does not know, or if she does, chooses not to mention it. I have no desire to ruin this relationship.)

Just curious...are surveys and links allowed to be posted here now? If so, I wholeheartedly applaud the policy.

And you are definitely NOT the only one who is married and has identified themselves as gay after a long marriage. I'm sure there are thousands in the LDS church (and outside of it). I married my husband knowing he was gay. We have been "apart" for over 15 years, but still legally married--but we do have a better relationship than most couples we knew/know do/did. We'd lay in bed at night and talk about that fact when we were active mormon. Here we had this big issue and we were best friends and all our neighbors only tolerated each other.

I haven't read the survey because I am not gay, but I'm curious if my husband did go through it.

Just the label of SSA always infuriates me--so that should have been a clue right there. I like to believe that society (the mormon church--I hear so often that they have come so far)--anywa, I'd like to believe the mormon church has come a long ways since I found out my ex is gay 28 years ago, but that is NOT the case. They just change the words to sound more "acceptable."

it just amazes me that even after 30 yrs. how quickly the anger comes back for what those bastards (the LDS church) did to me.

Why was there no option for SAHM for job at the beginning? It's not like I'm unemployed.

I have some sympathy with what they did...sex and identity is tricky stuff to try to work out multiple choice boxes for. Still, the blind spots and mentality of the authors showed through more then it should have. I wonder, though, whether they chose SSA in order to avoid alienating members who identify their preference that way. After all, the test *was* for current or former LDS...some good it would do them to offend those who view such a difference as a curse to struggle with. No easy answers with that one.

Also, it's entirely possible that the researches are seeking to discredit the gay/abuse link and similar allegations. To do so, they would need to ask those questions. It's worth the benefit of the doubt.