"Homosexuality Can Be Cured"?!?

A video has been doing the rounds among conservative Christians affirming that the American Psychological Association (APA) maintain that homosexuality can be cured; that "change is possible".

This is very misleading and contains a lot of dis-information.

It would be more accurate to described the video clip as, "Two psychologists find homosexuals can adopt heterosexual behaviour and only in some cases," as mentioned in the video. I still find nothing in this video that suggests they successfully altered people's sexual identity; they only were able to achieve a change in some of their behaviour. This is an important distinction.

The video is particularly misleading in that there is no mention of another more exhaustive study that was presented at the same conference.  This study was very critical of the claims that "change is possible".  I think it only fair to any reader here that they balance the video against this other study.  A CNN summary of the other larger study can be found here and the detail here.

This study noted the following:

• Prior ex-gays studies did not indicate for whom change was possible, how long it lasted, and its long-term mental health effects.
• A change in behaviour was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex.
• Efforts to switch a person's sexual orientation through aversive treatments might cause harm, including loss of sexual feeling, suicidality, depression and anxiety.
• Many who tried to change and failed "described their experiences as a significant cause of emotional and spiritual distress and negative self-image"

The video also fails to mention the following important statement:

"[The] Council of Representatives passed a resolution Wednesday urging mental health professionals not to recommend to their clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or any other methods."

The Jones Yarhouse paper presented at the APA conference in 2009 relates to the findings of their 2007 study.

Therefore, the larger APA study ("Therapeutic Response") includes the Jones Yarhouse 2007 study in its critique ... extensively.  I must admit, I do wonder why the APA allowed Dr. Jones to present the paper the Sunday after the Wednesday when the APA's own extensive study was presented. Maybe it was an olive branch? I do agree with Dr. Jones that the APA should not exclude research that is associated with religion. One's religion (system of belief) does inform much of one's behaviour and should be allowed in psychiatric research.

Here is more on their 2007 study, although I do admit that while these links are not reputable psychological responses, they do reference them:

• Truth Wins Out
• Box Turtle Bulletin
• Good As You
• Freedom To Be

What is interesting in the "Freedom To Be" link is that it appears that Yarhouse has changed his view slightly:

'At a Sept. 25 symposium at Regent, Yarhouse said — according to The Virginian-Pilot — that while same-sex attraction may be changeable in some individuals, not everyone can change.

'“For me, in my own practice, I would not focus on change of orientation,” said Yarhouse, a psychologist and counsellor who teaches at Regent, an evangelical Christian school. …

'Yarhouse’s study focused on those who said their same-sex attractions collided with their religious beliefs. He said his research found that there was “modest” movement away from homosexuality among some Exodus participants, but categorical conversions to heterosexuality were rare.

'Yarhouse recommended that counsellors avoid uniformly steering struggling gays toward heterosexuality and focus instead on the best outcome for the individual.

'That could include celibacy or exploring different faith groups with various attitudes toward gays and lesbians, he said.'

Indeed Dr. Yarhouse, change is possible; change of opinion is possible and I sincerely hope this change does filter through to other conservative Evangelical Christians!

_________________________

_________________________

Are Consensual Incestuous Adult & Consensual Gay Relationships Ethically Comparable?

In one of my previous blogs, I stated that

“While some Christians and others may feel that same-sex behaviour based on loving, committed and consensual relationships still is a sin, it remains entirely inappropriate, prejudicial and unjust to compare these with abusive, domineering, non-consensual and selfish behaviours.”
Is Homosexuality a Simple Choice?

Someone challenged me that not all loving & consensual relationships are ethical, such as consensual incestuous adult relationships, and they argued that consensual incestuous relationships are a valid ethical comparison to loving & consensual gay relationships. To this end, it may be worth taking some time to consider how one establishes something to be right or wrong: ethics.

However, it is not my intention in this blog to discuss the detailed ethics of consensual adult incest ... nor to get drawn into one! Rather, the purpose of this blog is to show that consensual & loving homosexual relationships cannot and should not be compared ethically with consensual incestuous adult relationships.

_________________________

Please recall from my previous post that I maintain homosexuality is a sexual orientation and the sexual identity part of this is not a simple choice. It is a human characteristic. Some aspects of our sexual orientation, how we behave according to that sexual identity, have elements of choice.

Incest (and specifically for this discussion consensual adult incest) is a sexual behaviour and this behaviour is true for heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals.  The Guardian Newspaper featured two articles in 2002 and 2003 on this subject.

1) Non-Religious Ethics

Let's begin to consider the issue of consensual & loving adult incest using non-Religious ethics:

“Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, justice, virtue, etc.”
2010 Wikipedia Ethics

To keep this short I'm going to use the modern branches of ethics as the post-modern forms tend to be more academic: Consequentialism and Deontology. Granted, these are big words like “marmalade”.

1.1) Consequentialism

If we take the perspective of Consequentialism (the end justified the means), we need to look at the third-party consequences of consensual adult incest: high birth defects and low survival rates of the off spring. Using Consequentialism I would therefore conclude that consensual adult incest is wrong. Challenging this view would be modern contraceptive techniques that may prevent children from being conceived. It is also difficult to use Consequentialism when assessing the ethics of same-sex consensual adult incest: it is unlikely that a child will be conceived.

1.2) Deontology

Deontology determines the goodness or rightness from examining acts, rather than third-party consequences of the act as in Consequentialism, or the intentions of the person doing the act as in virtue ethics. In this case,  one would consider the intentions of the consensual adults in moving from existing loving family relationships into a sexual relationship. The existing loving non-sexual family relationships have responsibilities and moving from these into sexual relationships is where I believe the crux of the ethical discussion is.

What is it that causes two people to move from loving each other within the bounds of a family relationship to being “in love” with each other?

However, this discussion is way too complex to go into here.

All the consensual and loving homosexual behaviours that I know of, are similar to the vast majority of heterosexual relationships and do not have the element of an existing loving family relationship. Nor do homosexual relationships risk the birth of a child likely to have abnormalities or a shortened life span. Therefore loving & consensual gay relationships cannot not be compared with consensual adult incestuous relationships. Non-incestuous consensual and loving homosexual relationships are more akin to heterosexual non-incestuous, consensual and loving relationships. Therefore, the ethical comparison remains strictly at this level.

_________________________

2) Christian Ethics

Personally, I am a Christian and, being a Reformed Evangelical Christian, the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” governs my arguments on ethics. “Sola Scriptura” maintains that the Bible is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. As a person redeemed by Christ's atonement on the cross, I need to bring all aspects of my thinking and actions, in fact every aspect of my life, under that redemption. This includes ethical decisions. (There are other Christian ethical frameworks but I'm going to use the one I'm familiar with.)

Beginning with the Scriptures then, the following link outlines the Bible verses pertaining to incest and in some of the verses, consensual adult incest:
http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/Incest/Nave

You will notice however, that there are instances where consensual adult incest occurred and therefore the Bible appears to contradict itself, as it does on polygamy/bigamy (e.g., King David and King Solomon). The New Testament also says extremely little on consensual incestuous relationships (only Herod Antipas and John the Baptist).

As a side, it is interesting that this same issue of marrying your brother's wife was the instigator of the English Reformation when Henry VIII wanted his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, his brother's wife, annulled.

As a person who believes in the infallibility and in-errancy of the Scriptures, I need to consider the anthropology and sociology of the time (as mentioned in one of my previous posts) to explain these apparent contradictions. We have to understand the purpose of Jewish patriarchal social and cleanliness laws in Leviticus & Deuteronomy. We need to understand these in light of the ancient Jewish understanding of property rights and how the family structure was key to these rights. It was after all a Jewish theocracy. We also need to consider the concept of endogamy prevalent at the time (and in some cases still today): “the practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group, class, or social group, rejecting others on such bases as being unsuitable for marriage or other close personal relationships.”

Indeed, the concept of incest as we know it today only came about circa 1200AD and is difficult to compare entirely with the ancient concept of “incest”. Therefore, as a Reformed Evangelical Christian, where the Bible is not clear on modern ethical issues, I need to revert to the overall governing principle: how does one's behaviour (thought and actions) reflect on one's love for God, on one's love for other human beings and on oneself (Matthew 22:37-40). Additionaly we may refer to other principles established elsewhere in Scripture. However, we need to be careful about not being too dogmatic when we need to rely on other related principles.

This overall governing principle includes both the concepts of “consequence” and “intent”, and therefore it is not dissimilar to the non-religious ethical frameworks of Consequentialism and Denotology above.

Therefore, even using my Christian ethical framework I can only justify that the ethical comparison between heterosexual and homosexual loving and consensual relationships. I cannot justify the ethical comparison with adult consensual incest.

_________________________

_________________________

Is all Homosexual activity unnatural, does it exist in nature, and is it a threat to the human species?

In my previous two blogs I set out why I believe that homosexuality (as a sexual orientation) is not a simple choice; that we have to distinguish between sexual identity and sexual behaviour; how some sexual behaviours have elements of choice; and that the Bible is not clear in its condemnation of homosexuality. In this blog I wish to tackle the arguments that homosexuality is unnatural as it does not occur in nature, the related argument that if homosexuality goes unchecked it will be a threat to the human species, and that the Bible regards it as unnatural.

_________________________

1. Homosexuality in Nature

It is not true that homosexuality does not occur in nature and therefore is unnatural as some would have us believe. This topic is eloquently handled in a New Scientist article. In this article they establish that Homosexuality does occur quite regularly in nature and there a various evolutionary reasons why this may occur.

I have to agree with the editorial on this article that homosexuality in nature is not a guide to morality. It it first and foremost a basic human rights issue!

_________________________

2. Homosexuality Threatens The Human Species

Nor can homosexuality be a threat to the species. Depending which figures you refer to, the gay population is between 3%-4% of the populace; other figures state that it may be slightly higher, between 8%-10%. Irrespective, there is little chance that this will threaten the human species because not enough people are procreating. This also erroneously assumes that gay couples will not want children. There are several modern options available to gay couples wanting their own children (other ethical and moral issues aside).

Therefore, this is just plain scaremongering: some conservatives would have us believe that one's sexuality is a choice and, therefore many more people could easily choose homosexuality and not procreate. As we do not choose our sexual orientation it is therefore not possible for heterosexuals to become homosexual and visa versa.

_________________________

3. Theological View

In my first blog on whether or not homosexuality is simple choice, I touched on the one aspect of the theological argument that homosexuality is unnatural as it is against God's design. Here I wish to examine why some argue that Leviticus and Romans do state that homosexuality is unnatural.

3.1 Leviticus

Many feel that as Leviticus regards same-sex male penetrative sex (note: female same-sex behaviour is not covered in these verses) as an abomination; that it is therefore regarded as unnatural. It is incorrect to translate the original Hebrew words "shiqquwts" into the English word "abomination". The Hebrew word in Leviticus means "unclean" and not "unnatural". It relates to Jewish laws of cleanliness. If one were to accept that "abomination" equates to "unnatural", then a Christian should not eat shell fish or any of the other "unnatural" foods either.

Remember, that these cleanliness laws no longer apply. With respect to the prohibition on unclean food, in Peter's vision in Acts 10:11-15, God tells him not to regard as unclean that God has made clean. Additionally Christ is the fulfillment of the laws in Leviticus (Mat 5:17).

3.2 Romans

The use of "unnatural" in Romans 1:26-27, as else where in Romans (Rom 11:21,24), pertains to people behaving "against their own nature", not "against nature".

"... the text does not condemn homosexual acts by homosexuals, rather "homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons" [...] or heterosexuals who "abandoned" or "exchanged" heterosexuality for homosexuality ..."

Wikipedia (2010) Homosexuality in the New Testament

As I discussed in a previous blog, while I do not regard one's sexual identity as a simple choice, I do believe that aspects of one's sexual behaviour are a choice. For example, in a prison where there is a lack of the opposite sex, heterosexuals may adopt homosexual behaviours but when they are released they revert back to heterosexual behaviours. Their underlying sexual identity has not changed.

The Roman's verses are also in the context of idolatry and therefore more likely to relate to temple prostitution when people were having sex with the gods, deities or angels.

"Paul is condemning specific types of homosexual activity (such as temple prostitution or pederasty) rather than a broader interpretation..."

Wikipedia (2010) Homosexuality in the New Testament

The idea of sex with deities or angels is regarded as sin: the cause of Noah's flood and the reason why Lot (a righteous man) offered his daughters to be raped by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Therefore, is a Sodomite not technically a person who wants to have sex with an angel and not one man with another?) Furthermore, it is interesting that the original Greek in Jude 1:17 refers to sexual immorality of Sodom & Gomorrah as lusting after "another flesh" - few translations such as the NIV even reference this in a foot note. Others do include it, such as the NASB.

_________________________

_________________________

Does the Bible really clearly state that homosexuality (a sexual orientation) is a sin?

In my previous blog, I discussed that modern psychology differentiates between one's sexual identity (heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual) and how one's behaviour is informed by one's sexual identity. In this blog, I wish to explore if the Bible does clearly regard all aspects of homosexuality as evil or a sin.

_________________________

1) Interpreting the Bible (Hermeneutics)

Oddly, I'd like to begin the discussion on whether or not the Bible clearly condones slavery. Please bear with me. The web site Got Questions defends the Bible against the accusation that it does clearly condone slavery. I particularly agree that

"what many fail to understand is that slavery in [Biblical] times was very different from the slavery that was practised in the past few centuries in many parts of the world."

It is a very important step in hermeneutics (the theory & methodology of interpretation) to first & foremost understand ancient texts in context of the anthropology and sociology of the time they were written, as well as what we know from archaeology.

Once we understand this, we can then place the scripture in our modern context and defend the Bible against its critics. On the issue of slavery, another website Fighting For God reinforces this important hermeneutic step.

_________________________

2) Homosexuality in Biblical Times

However, the Got Questions web site's discussion on homosexuality immediately abandons this first hermeneutic step. It launches straight into a condemnation of homosexuality using modern terms:

"The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin ..."
Got Questions (2009) What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?

Actually, the Bible cannot consistently tell us anything about homosexuality in the modern sense of the word (i.e., a sexual identity/orientation): the word "homosexual" is a relatively new word (circa 1892) and did not exist in Biblical times. For example, it is erroneous to translate the obscure Greek word "arsenokoitai" into the modern word "homosexual": "arsenokoitai" refers to a person behaving in a certain way, not to a type of sexual orientation. (Fighting For God)

"Biblical writers had no concept of sexual orientation or sexual development as we understand those today. Therefore, passages that reference same-sex sexual activity should not been seen as comprehensive statements concerning homosexuality, but instead should be viewed in the context of what the ancient world that produced the Bible understood about sexual activity."
Fighting For God (2009) Attack #6 - The Bible Is Anti-Homosexuality

Now I appreciate that some readers are probably jumping up and down screaming, "You gay people and your sympathizers will twist scripture any which way you wish to justify your sin!" Please understand that I remain committed to the authority and integrity of the scriptures. However, I believe we must be consistent with our approach when interpreting scripture. We cannot use one technique when it suites us to defend the Bible on slavery and, then use another when we want to condemn homosexuals and justify things like the Ugandan "anti-gay" bill. After all the Bible is not open to private interpretations (2 Peter 1:20).

_________________________

In conclusion I must admit that I was also one who thought that the Bible was very clear in its condemnation of homosexuality. However, I now believe that homosexuality is a modern concept and the Bible does not deal with it. It could not; the concept was not around at the time! What is apparent is that the Bible condemns certain kinds of sexual behaviour, both heterosexual and homosexual. What it is consistent in condemning is sexual behaviours that are selfish, abusive, non-consensual and domineering. In reviewing the texts that apparently condemn homosexual behaviours, this condemnation consistently relates to the latter and I'm not able to find any condemnation of loving, caring and consensual homosexual behaviour.

_________________________

_________________________

Is Homosexuality a Simple Choice?

The anti-gay lobby vehemently defend that homosexuality is a choice as it justifies so much of their view that homosexuality is purely a moral issue, it can change and should be changed. Therefore, in some cases, they regard that it is acceptable to legislate against homosexuals, e.g., the Ugandan “anti-gay” bill. For the gay rights and equality lobby, the aspect of choice is vehemently denied as they believe it is key to understanding why homosexuality cannot be nor should it be changed. Therefore human rights protect homosexuals and anti-discrimination laws are so important to protect them as a minority group. Both sides begin with apparently mutually exclusive presuppositions without trying to understand each other and what is informing each other's views.

From my own perspective, I to started with the presupposition that one's sexual orientation was a choice. However, over time I have reconsidered this position in light of what I have found both in the scriptures and modern psychology. I now regard that one's sexual identity (homosexual, heterosexual or somewhere in between) cannot be regarded as a simple choice; that there is no big dial on someone's chest that can be flicked between heterosexual or homosexual, or left somewhere between the two. In some ways I acknowledge that the simple “choice” presupposition was a lot easier as I could view life as black and white. However, my own life experiences have taught me that life is not monochrome.

However, I believe that there are elements of choice when considering how people behave in response to their sexual identity.

Now that I have declared my presupposition, I will attempt to justify it.

_________________________

In modern psychology, sexuality is not just about sex, as it

"refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."
APA Website (2009) Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality, (page 2)

Other equally respectable psychological bodies in other countries concur.

Modern psychology understands that our sexuality is core to our being. This is not dissimilar to the Christian understanding that, as we are created in the image of a triune God, we are relational beings and specifically we are designed to be in life-long partnerships.

The above APA definition establishes two important factors, 1) a person's sense of sexual identity and 2) related behaviours.

1) A Person's Sense of Sexual Identity

One's sense of sexual identity is understood to be a somewhere on a continuum between total heterosexuality on the one end and total homosexuality on the other.

Both sides of the debate throw various studies, documents and web sites at each other that supposedly offer conclusive proof that one's sexuality is either a choice or it is not. Both sides then accuse the other of not being willing to face the facts and will do anything to justify their position.

Given all these various studies, I can only conclude that there is no conclusive proof why some people's sexual identity is towards the one end or somewhere in the middle of the sexual identity continuum. However, what is clear is that

"most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
APA Website (2009) Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,(page 3)

Even the controversial "ex-gay" author Richard Cohen acknowledges that one's sexual orientation is not a simple matter of choice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVf_11FRurk

For example, anti-gay people reference an APA conference paper in a Focus on the Family Action video clip supporting the view that people can leave homosexuality. The problem I have with this video clip is that the presenter only states that people can adopt heterosexual behaviours in some cases. I still find nothing in this video that suggests the authors successfully altered the patients' sexual identity. The “treatment” was only able to change the patients' behaviour. This is an important distinction that is highlighted in a CNN article on an APA report into these treatments: Programs to change gays to straights don't work, report says

In another example, someone in a Facebook discussion proposed a study “proving” that homosexuality is a choice:

“... homosexuality is a behavior, it is a choice. Studies have been done to prove this. George Ebner and George Rice of the University of Western Ontario have found no evidence in the "X" chromosome that a person is born homosexual or heterosexual. The reason for using the "X" chromosome is males have a "X" and "Y" chromosome and females have two "X" chromosomes. Due to the fact that both males and females practice homosexuality their only choice of finding the genetic code would be in the "X" chromosome.”

I have not been able to get hold of this report, but I suspect that Ebner & Rice did not conclude from their study that, de facto all homosexuality is not genetic and, therefore has to be a choice. Nor do I think that Ebner & Rice would state that their study precludes other genetic factors that may influence one's sexuality. Rather, I believe their study merely could not find any correlation between the “X” chromosome and homosexuality. Finally, this person's defence of “choice” also failed to distinguish between identity and behaviour, which is often the case for both sides of the argument.

If we understand sin (what is right and wrong) to relate to how we behave (both thoughts and actions) towards God, ourselves and each other, then one's sense of one's sexual identity cannot in itself be a sin or evil. Sexual identity is not a behaviour. Therefore it has to be neutral of the concept of sin or what is evil.

Some may point out that God “designed” us to be in male-female relationships; anything else is a “perversion” of that design. However, we need to acknowledge that not everyone experiences the world as it is “designed”. Most blind people (and others with “handicaps”) do not regard themselves as disabled. Rather, they feel they are “other-ly enabled” and most certainly not unnatural. Just because their experience in this world (in which humans are “designed” to have sight) is different, does not make the way they exist any less valid. Their “other-ly ability” is merely a characteristic of who they are; it is neutral of the concept of sin and not a perversion of sight.

Therefore, I feel that it is important to note that one's sexual identity is merely a human characteristic; it cannot be by its nature a "choice".

_______________________________

2) Related Behaviours

So modern psychology draws a distinction between a person's sexual identity and how they behave according to their identity. Some Christians acknowledge this distinction with the statement, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." (In another blog I'll discuss why I have come to believe this still remains a pejorative hetero-sexist statement.)

There is little dispute that our behaviour does include an element of choice and our behaviour can change.

“Behavior […] refers to the actions or reactions of an object or organism, usually in relation to the environment. Behavior can be conscious or subconscious, overt or covert, and voluntary or involuntary.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior

2.1) If we begin with heterosexual behaviour. Not all heterosexual sexual behaviour is regarded as acceptable. In the case of such behaviours as rape, paedophilia and bestiality, both secular people & people of faith generally regard these as abusive behaviours. These behaviours are based on dominance and they are not based on mutual consent. Generally, where secular and sacred are divided is on the questions of:

• Does all heterosexual consensual sexual behaviour have to take place within a loving & committed relationship otherwise it is potentially selfish, e.g., if two people consensually agree to sex on a one night stand?
• What is the nature of a loving & committed relationship in which this behaviour can take place, e.g., common law, marriage?
• How should people behave sexually when these relationships break up, e.g., divorce and remarriage?

In a modern, multi-cultural and secular society we agree to disagree on these choices of behaviour but we do not discriminate against others who disagree. Generally, heterosexuals do not loose their jobs because they had sex before they are married, they are not thrown into prison because they committed adultery, they are not given twin rooms because they book into a hotel with different surnames and unmarried titles, nor do they loose their home because they are not married or cannot afford estate taxes when their life-partner dies.

Additionally, heterosexuality is not condemned as evil because some (even if it were a majority) practise unsafe sex or have multiple sexual partners.

2.2) Homosexual behaviour is in no way dissimilar. It to involves the concepts of mutual consent, love and commitment. This is why I understand the gay community's anger when their loving & committed relationships, based on mutual consent between two adults, are compared with rape, paedophilia and bestiality. While some Christians and others may feel that same-sex behaviour based on loving, committed and consensual relationships still are a sin, it remains entirely inappropriate, prejudicial and unjust to compare these with abusive, domineering, non-consensual and selfish behaviours.

Similarly homosexual behaviour also includes elements of choice. The point here is that those whose sexual identity is homosexual may choose:

• heterosexual behaviours (and some of these may regard themselves as ex-gay),
• to abstain from either (celibacy), or
• to consensually act on their sexual identity whether or not within a loving and committed relationship.

Again, in a modern, multi-cultural and secular society, we all owe it to our common humanity to respect each other's choices even if they disagree with our own understanding of what is right and wrong, provided of course that such behaviour is not abusive.

I cannot understand why some Christians & others seem to think that homosexuality and/or homosexual behaviours are a special kind of sin (assuming they are sin), and therefore it is acceptable to introduce legislation against homosexuals, e.g., the Ugandan anti-gay bill.

This is why, as a Christian, I find myself having to support gay rights and their call for equality.

__________________________

To conclude, Archbishop Tutu summed it up well:

"It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual. You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred. It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7100295.stm

Therefore, I maintain that in the light of modern psychology and other considerations, for anyone to insist that human sexuality is a simple choice between heterosexuality or homosexuality is a gross over simplification. It is akin to insisting the Earth is flat and, the solar system & universe revolves around it.