5 VOLUME 8 |ISSUE 3 |2017
Many, but certainly not all,
people coming out of cults
have experienced an array
of sex-negative messages, at
times implicit but more often
explicit in the cult’s ideology
or theology.
Whether they are demanding unwanted sexual behavior or
stifling natural sexual development and expression, cultic groups
have this in common: They demand that one conform to an
external and rigid set of rules or guidelines, irrespective of one’s
history or variation, as opposed to supporting an individual
exploration of one’s unique sexuality (which can and often does
involve nonnormative sexual/gender identities, orientations,
interests, and behaviors).
Sexuality Counseling and Therapy With
Former Members
In working with former (and a few current) cultists around
sexual issues, I typically find it important to initially discuss a few
ground rules, the first involving how to determine what will be
the ultimate basis for our discussion
about or work on sexuality. I am
generally very open about my training
and orientation: I am committed to
the science of sexuality (technically
referred to as sexology). My opinions
and interventions are based on this
evolving science, with some aspects
of sexuality now being accepted as
fact (such as the fact that same-sex
sexual behavior, or homosexuality,
is a natural variation that exists in
hundreds of animal species), while
other aspects (such as whether
homosexuality in human males has a
primarily pre- or postnatal cause) are
still being actively studied. Many of
my clients, including former members
of Bible-based cults, correctly
associate a biologically based view of homosexuality with a
more general belief in evolution, and that perspective in and of
itself can be a difficult bridge to span. Some former members
of therapy, political, and New Age groups, although they are no
longer actively involved in their groups, nevertheless maintain
a belief in constructivism, which postulates that most of human
thought, belief, and behaviors are not inherent, or part of human
nature, but are instead socially constructed and can therefore be
deconstructed. They reject the notion of homosexuality having a
primarily biological, hormonal, or neurological basis, for example,
and instead insist that all sexual interests, orientations, and
behaviors are a matter of individual choice. Many of these clients
are bright and well-educated they are aware of the growing
research on sexual fluidity and cite these studies to reinforce the
constructivist beliefs they learned in their cult.
As a therapist, I am faced with an ongoing conflict in this context:
To what degree, if any, do I confront not just the group’s cultic
processes (often already studied and at least partially accepted
if my client is a former member), but also the group’s cultic
philosophy, which is often still ingrained in the former member
and is almost always intricately intertwined with the former
member’s sexuality. In the interest of honesty and building trust, I
feel it is important to state sooner rather than later that I approach
sexuality primarily as a scientist and sometimes as a historian/
sociologist, and not as a moralist, philosopher, or theologian.
What I typically explain is that, in practice, a scientific approach
means I strongly encourage “less judgment, more curiosity”1
when it comes to discussing sex and sexuality. To be less
judgmental and more curious means being open to any and all
sexual thoughts, feelings, interests and (at times) behaviors 2
that approach can often bring us back to discussing the conflict
between a scientific vs. a nonscientific (i.e., moralistic) approach.
Research on human sexuality tells us that, with rare exception,
awareness of the unwanted aspects of one’s sexuality is necessary
for understanding, growth, and, for those who desire it, self-
control (Eichel, 2014). The nonscientific view in many cultic belief
systems is typically that the unwanted aspects (by the cult, the
member, or both) of one’s sexuality are evil or demonic, and must
be actively and vigorously suppressed. So even talking about
nonnormative sexuality can be a highly conflicted activity.
Ultimately, I am a pragmatist. I believe
what works is what is usually best. A
recent client,3 although physically no
longer involved in her fundamentalist
Christian sect, nevertheless
maintained a very literal belief in her
former church’s interpretation of the
Bible. She was struggling with same-
sex attraction, which she considers
sinful. Nevertheless, the fact that she
sought therapy obviously implied
that suppression of her sexual feelings
had not been entirely successful.
She slowly began to consider the
possibility that one can be a deeply
committed Christian and at least be
nonjudgmental of one’s same-sex
attractions (without acting on them)
she agreed to research this possibility
on the Internet. She had an opposite-sex fiancé with whom she
had not been fully sexual she had explained to him that this
limitation was because of her faith, when in fact it was largely
because of her lack of sexual attraction to him. She eventually
got to the point where she could stop suppressing her feelings
and accept her same-sex attraction to others. However, she
and I agreed to take a break from therapy for now because the
next step (which might involve ending her engagement) is too
frightening for her at this time. With current and former members
of cults, this form of on-again, off-again therapy, which I refer to
as brief intermittent developmental therapy, or BIDT (Eichel, 2002,
2016), is quite common.
Sexual Acting Out, Reenactment, and
Addiction
Some former members, and especially those born or raised
in high-demand groups, react to years of sexual repression or
suppression by engaging in the other extreme: intense and
even hyperactive sexual behavior (what some call hypersexuality
or even sexual addiction4). Because many associate the term
addiction with an inability to control, mental illness, the need
for a spiritually based 12-step program, or just plain immorality,
I do not refer to sexual addiction or use any other judgmental
terminology. For some, especially gay men and women who
Many, but certainly not all,
people coming out of cults
have experienced an array
of sex-negative messages, at
times implicit but more often
explicit in the cult’s ideology
or theology.
Whether they are demanding unwanted sexual behavior or
stifling natural sexual development and expression, cultic groups
have this in common: They demand that one conform to an
external and rigid set of rules or guidelines, irrespective of one’s
history or variation, as opposed to supporting an individual
exploration of one’s unique sexuality (which can and often does
involve nonnormative sexual/gender identities, orientations,
interests, and behaviors).
Sexuality Counseling and Therapy With
Former Members
In working with former (and a few current) cultists around
sexual issues, I typically find it important to initially discuss a few
ground rules, the first involving how to determine what will be
the ultimate basis for our discussion
about or work on sexuality. I am
generally very open about my training
and orientation: I am committed to
the science of sexuality (technically
referred to as sexology). My opinions
and interventions are based on this
evolving science, with some aspects
of sexuality now being accepted as
fact (such as the fact that same-sex
sexual behavior, or homosexuality,
is a natural variation that exists in
hundreds of animal species), while
other aspects (such as whether
homosexuality in human males has a
primarily pre- or postnatal cause) are
still being actively studied. Many of
my clients, including former members
of Bible-based cults, correctly
associate a biologically based view of homosexuality with a
more general belief in evolution, and that perspective in and of
itself can be a difficult bridge to span. Some former members
of therapy, political, and New Age groups, although they are no
longer actively involved in their groups, nevertheless maintain
a belief in constructivism, which postulates that most of human
thought, belief, and behaviors are not inherent, or part of human
nature, but are instead socially constructed and can therefore be
deconstructed. They reject the notion of homosexuality having a
primarily biological, hormonal, or neurological basis, for example,
and instead insist that all sexual interests, orientations, and
behaviors are a matter of individual choice. Many of these clients
are bright and well-educated they are aware of the growing
research on sexual fluidity and cite these studies to reinforce the
constructivist beliefs they learned in their cult.
As a therapist, I am faced with an ongoing conflict in this context:
To what degree, if any, do I confront not just the group’s cultic
processes (often already studied and at least partially accepted
if my client is a former member), but also the group’s cultic
philosophy, which is often still ingrained in the former member
and is almost always intricately intertwined with the former
member’s sexuality. In the interest of honesty and building trust, I
feel it is important to state sooner rather than later that I approach
sexuality primarily as a scientist and sometimes as a historian/
sociologist, and not as a moralist, philosopher, or theologian.
What I typically explain is that, in practice, a scientific approach
means I strongly encourage “less judgment, more curiosity”1
when it comes to discussing sex and sexuality. To be less
judgmental and more curious means being open to any and all
sexual thoughts, feelings, interests and (at times) behaviors 2
that approach can often bring us back to discussing the conflict
between a scientific vs. a nonscientific (i.e., moralistic) approach.
Research on human sexuality tells us that, with rare exception,
awareness of the unwanted aspects of one’s sexuality is necessary
for understanding, growth, and, for those who desire it, self-
control (Eichel, 2014). The nonscientific view in many cultic belief
systems is typically that the unwanted aspects (by the cult, the
member, or both) of one’s sexuality are evil or demonic, and must
be actively and vigorously suppressed. So even talking about
nonnormative sexuality can be a highly conflicted activity.
Ultimately, I am a pragmatist. I believe
what works is what is usually best. A
recent client,3 although physically no
longer involved in her fundamentalist
Christian sect, nevertheless
maintained a very literal belief in her
former church’s interpretation of the
Bible. She was struggling with same-
sex attraction, which she considers
sinful. Nevertheless, the fact that she
sought therapy obviously implied
that suppression of her sexual feelings
had not been entirely successful.
She slowly began to consider the
possibility that one can be a deeply
committed Christian and at least be
nonjudgmental of one’s same-sex
attractions (without acting on them)
she agreed to research this possibility
on the Internet. She had an opposite-sex fiancé with whom she
had not been fully sexual she had explained to him that this
limitation was because of her faith, when in fact it was largely
because of her lack of sexual attraction to him. She eventually
got to the point where she could stop suppressing her feelings
and accept her same-sex attraction to others. However, she
and I agreed to take a break from therapy for now because the
next step (which might involve ending her engagement) is too
frightening for her at this time. With current and former members
of cults, this form of on-again, off-again therapy, which I refer to
as brief intermittent developmental therapy, or BIDT (Eichel, 2002,
2016), is quite common.
Sexual Acting Out, Reenactment, and
Addiction
Some former members, and especially those born or raised
in high-demand groups, react to years of sexual repression or
suppression by engaging in the other extreme: intense and
even hyperactive sexual behavior (what some call hypersexuality
or even sexual addiction4). Because many associate the term
addiction with an inability to control, mental illness, the need
for a spiritually based 12-step program, or just plain immorality,
I do not refer to sexual addiction or use any other judgmental
terminology. For some, especially gay men and women who
