Dear Friends:
I am writing to ask for your support in a matter that is very important to me.
Recently, Psychology Today magazine abruptly terminated, without explanation, my highly popular online sex column “Intelligent Lust” that had won an astounding 400,000 readers since its September start.
At first, editors had applauded the column’s frank, personal and sex-positive approach — an alternative to the typically negative sexual perspective most people grow up with — that came from my nearly 40 years experience as a psychotherapist. Various international outlets, including publications in Lebanon, Brazil, Italy and Oprah’s South African magazine, printed the columns after reading them on the site.
About six weeks ago, my immediate editor took a leave of absence and her replacement denied my column a slot on the weekly “must-read” list where it had been regularly featured. This new editor never explained why the column, despite its soaring success, had been “demoted” nor did this editor provide any guidance as to how the column needed any changes.
During this time, I came out in one column as a gay man and in general opened up about my own sexuality, breaking the sacred code of neutrality that psychotherapists are expected to maintain. The response to my honesty was overwhelmingly positive. Many wrote saying that my authenticity inspired them.
Then, last Tuesday, I wrote a column called “Sex Worker or Therapist?” about how several of my patients have benefited from their experience with sex workers.
I drew a strong comparison between the care that is shown by some therapists and sex workers when helping clients who have serious sexual problems.
My editor refused to publish this column, saying that the site does not cover issues relating to sex surrogates or sex workers. I was shocked because my research showed that at least a dozen articles on these very subjects, some even sharing my point of view, have run over the recent past!
Presented with this fact, this editor then said the column was too “graphic” but did not elaborate. Keep in mind, I was brought on as a sex columnist. Instead, the next morning, the editor-in-chief wrote me that she was “retiring” my column, also without explanation.
In an instant, one of the most popular columns on the site was terminated.
My subsequent requests for an explanation have been ignored and a previous column, “Penis Envy,” has been removed while the other columns remain on the site. When I asked for an explanation of this, I was threatened with the removal of my remaining columns if I publicly challenged the editors’ censorship.
What has really happened here?
As any psychotherapist knows, unreasonable, rash and extreme reactions without conversation or explanation are often based in phobias.
It’s my belief that the Psychology Today editors had a deeply phobic reaction to my sexual honesty, the sex-positive approach to my work and my affirmation of disenfranchised people, including transgendered, fetishists, sex workers, and adult film actors.
Efforts to arrange a meeting with the editors and owner of the publication continue to be ignored.
My concern goes beyond my own interests. My experience as a therapist brought a hard-won wisdom to the column that readers are now deprived of without a word of explanation on the site.
Censorship is a danger that left unchallenged puts people’s lives at risk. The suppression of free thought has serious implications. My columns are based on the real-life experiences of my patients who needed treatment to overcome serious mental health challenges.
The cancellation of my column, “Intelligent Lust,” is an infringement on every author’s freedom of expression and demonstrates an editorial malfeasance that must not go uncorrected. Stand with me in denouncing censorship. Write your comments below.
Regards,
Stanley
Click on these two links to read the columns that started this firestorm:
“Penis Envy” was published on PsychologyToday.com on February 14 and removed two weeks later.
“Sex Worker or Therapist?” was censored by Psychology Today on February 21 and never appeared online.
TELL PSYCHOLOGY TODAY THAT CENSORSHIP MATTERS TO YOU!
“Kaja Perina” <kaja@psychologytoday.com editor in chief
“Lybi Ma” <lybi@psychologytoday.com>, senior editor
lawrence@psychologytoday.com, president
jo@psychlogytoday.com, CEO/owner
54 comments
Vanja Tingle says:
Mar 5, 2012
For Psychology Today,
I have received PT for a long time, and it was through your magazine that I became such a fan of Siegel’s writings. I now have his books too. Sex is something everybody is interested in, because we all have it. I don’t feel Siegel is promoting, but that he opens the case to see sexual issues from many different views.
I really hope that PT will show some back bone and not only support articles about issues all other magazines write about.
Thank you,
Vanja Tingle
Rick Whitaker says:
Mar 6, 2012
I for one will happily boycott Psychology Today if they don’t reverse their decision and continue publishing Stanley Siegel’s sex-positive Intelligent Lust column.
Jorge Martín says:
Mar 6, 2012
I am deeply surprised at the peremptory behavior of the editors at Psychology Today. I have enjoyed reading Dr. Siegel’s column Intelligent Lust and have found them to be very helpful in my own life, which, after all, I should hope is one the intentions of publishing PT. I cannot think of anythingnive ever read in Dr. siegel’s columns that could qualify as overly graphic. That the discussion of human sexuality in a serious and therapeutic way should be censored by a reputable American journal is truly dismaying. I hope PT will reconsider and restore the column by Dr. Siegel for future issues.
Jeffrey Chaplin says:
Mar 6, 2012
As a touch therapist and a citizen of our “free” culture. I am appalled that a publication like “Psychology Today” would censure the ideas of someone who is willing to look outside of the comfort-social norm. What is good psychology if it is not to venture into the bastion of human thoughts and behaviors? Is sexuality a simple issue rarely part of the human experience? I think not. Are there advertising issues here that are threatening your support? This is simply unconscionable.
jennifer leist says:
Mar 6, 2012
Don’t get rid of Stanley Siegel! Censorship helps no one.
estella says:
Mar 6, 2012
I love your articles!! only reason I visit psychology today..
Mark Zemanek says:
Mar 6, 2012
Dear Sir/Madam:
As a longtime reader of Psychology today I’ve read and learned much through the many insightful articles and columns in your magazine. One of those columns was Stanley Siegel’s open, intelligent, mindful, and educative column titled “Intelligent Lust.”
Personally, I feel the removal of his column is both a big mistake and huge step backward for your magazine. I believe we are in a new age of enlightenment, where every voice and opinion counts, and I find Mr. Siegel’s work and opinions to be on the cutting edge of humanities current evolution in consciousness.
It saddens me to see that his popular column has been removed from your magazine, because I considered Psychology Today part of that cutting edge. The removal of Intelligent Lust from Psychology Today, however, demonstrates to me that censorship still lives in our country, and I feel compelled to inform you that this is unacceptable to me in this day and age. At this point I am seriously considering refraining from supporting your magazine through any future purchases.
In sincerest regard,
Mark Zemanek
Seattle, WA
Devon Hunter says:
Mar 6, 2012
It’s unfortunate that information that might be helpful has been censored by people who may very well need the help most. I do hope you find other venues where your ideas can be allowed to have the space they need to do the most good possible.
Leo says:
Mar 6, 2012
No to censorship! I support the re-establishment of your column in PsychologyToday.
Jeff Gottesfeld says:
Mar 6, 2012
Please pass these comments on to Psychology Today.
I’m the son of an Ackerman-trained therapist who knows you; I’ve read your column with interest for months now. You are always provocative, interesting, well-reasoned, and gentle in your writing. I don’t always agree with what you write, but hey, agreement is boring. What’s most important is that you got people thinking about arenas which they might not have entered otherwise. And after all, isn’t that what psychotherapeutic and psychological inquiry all about?
I’m stunned that Psychology Today would cancel your column. It was one of the best things on the blog portion of their website. Fortunately, this is a poor decision that can be reversed easily. I hope that the editors of the magazine will bring your column back, and fast.
Jeff Gottesfeld
http://www.jeffgottesfeldwrites.com
Los Angeles, CA
Yves says:
Mar 6, 2012
I find this censorship so ofensive is like going back to a racist america, I mean there still lots of kinds of descrimination and it is everybodys duty to fight against it.
I personaly start reading the Dotor’s column and it help me a lot challenging some old knowledge and giving me a new and healthy perspective of a lot of things in my life and most importat I have the right to reade his column if I want to, that is not somenthing you have a say into.
Finally I will finish with this line from Braveheart: You can take the columns out but you’ll never take our FREEDOM!!!!!
Jess Gaitan says:
Mar 6, 2012
STOP CENSORSHIP AND BRING BACK STANLEY SIEGEL”S BRILLIANT COLUMN “INTELLIGENT LUST”.
Your unexplained suppression of this column ignores what readers wish to read: real-life experiences written by an honest and qualified professional. His openness has been paid back with censorship and it is to Psychology Today’s DETRIMENT.
We will organize and boycott your advertisers and your publication if you ignore our call for fairness.
It is up to you. PS: Stop envying PENIS!
JAG
Jess Gaitan
235 W 22 2J
NYC 10011
jess.gaitan@gmail.com
Robert Pontarelli says:
Mar 6, 2012
I am a regular reader of Stanley Siegel’s column and am shocked it has been eliminated. I found it helpful and frequently empowering. Shame on Psychology Today.
Alyssa Siegel says:
Mar 6, 2012
Shocked, confused, and disappointed. What’s the reasoning here? These posts were very popular and prompted such interesting conversation threads. They helped normalize experiences previously kept in the dark and presented a strength based and positive approach to issues around sex and sexuality. I have heard so much praise for this blog and his work and ideas, as controversial as some may have been. Psychology is about asking questions, increasing awareness, developing theories and insights. What’s the real story behind the discontinuation of this blog?
Chanko says:
Mar 7, 2012
… being in the sex industry for years now I find your posts interesting and intriguing! ! can only say: PSYCHOLOGY ends there where CENSORSHIP starts!
I would like to offer UNCENSORED exposure at my website RentMen.com with 400,000 visitors/readers a months. I think i can speak out for the majority of our site members who do not tolerate CENSORSHIP: “Dear Mr. Stanley Siegel We would love to have you on our site!”
Rob Sedgwick says:
Mar 7, 2012
I’ve been following and am now saddened about your magazine’s censorship of Mr Seigel’s Intelligent Lust.Censorship is wrong. It smacks of fear and ignorance,
yours, Rob Sedgwick
Kelly Cash says:
Mar 7, 2012
Get me the editor’s email so I can bitch!
Olivia says:
Mar 7, 2012
Yeah! Contacts, please– let us know what we can do.
Chase Booth says:
Mar 7, 2012
In a particularly insulting election cycle we are all being exposed to incredibly loud voices telling us that sexual liberation is ‘dangerous’, and that the LGBT community should be denied common civil rights–and that’s just from the people who wish to hold the highest office in the land. Those who peddle their influence to a much more fearful community are saying far worse. This is not the time to perpetuate the myths surrounding a growing fear of sex and sexuality in this strangley confusing era in our country’s growth. When a revolutionary thinker like Stanley Siegel is taken out of the conversation, it gives the craven in our society the right to revel in their ill-conceived beliefs. It is wrong to silence this dialogue. It is wrong for Psychology Today to be afraid. It is wrong for a publication that purports to be interested in the investigation of the fascinating human psyche to reveal that they do not in fact wish to see what is hiding there. Fear is anti-american; it is anti-human; and it has no place in a the healthy maturation of our sophisticated world. Psychology Today has covered itself in shame, and should never be thought of again with the same respect it has enjoyed all these years.
Rhea Anne Cook says:
Mar 7, 2012
Mr. Siegel, your work has made such a difference in my life. I am compelled to voice my frustration and disappointment that a national publication that professes to share your goals for the overall psychological welfare of the human race would have such a weak stomach for the subject that is often the most difficult for its audience to confront.
Overall, people who seek professional consultation for their internal life must gather a great amount of courage to do so. But when it comes to addressing their sexual desires, fears and confusion, that takes another level of courage altogether.
Your work is breaking down long-held beliefs through your ground-breaking ideas, experience and frank discussion – based not on sexual prowess, but based on the whole lives we live – and the messages and beliefs we carry into our adult lives.
I believe that it is essential that your work be kept in the light and not lost from view because of the seemingly closed minds of the editors of one magazine. I will do all that I can to make sure that happens.
anonymous says:
Mar 7, 2012
As a fellow blogger for PT, I can tell you that their names are Kaja Perina and Lybi Ma. Their email addrsses are the first name @psychologytoday.com. WE SUPPORT YOU STANLEY. Say NO to censorship.
Joe says:
Mar 7, 2012
Hang in there Stanley!
MJ says:
Mar 7, 2012
It appears that you can send an email to the editor in chief here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/kaja-perina
A.K. says:
Mar 7, 2012
If you make a hyperlink so that we can sign a petition or write directly to the editor from here, that will dramatically multiply the support you get.
J Matthew Cobb says:
Mar 7, 2012
Censorship is a beast. Although the new direction at Psychology Today may have been a good reason to let you go, it still doesn’t warrant the action to silence your voice and the readers that want to hear from you. What they’d did was clearly wrong. As a journalist myself, I understand your frustration and 100 percent support you.
Minx says:
Mar 7, 2012
Yes, please provide a link to where we can send complaints. I found your columns refreshing and well-informed, based in fact and yet revealing a likeable vulnerability.
Coley says:
Mar 7, 2012
I’m with you!
Johnathan Wilber says:
Mar 7, 2012
here’s the contact info: ttp://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/34087
Quizzical mama says:
Mar 7, 2012
What a loss! You have my full support; I stand with you. Will tweet this.
Ronete Cohen says:
Mar 7, 2012
We need more people like you, not fewer. If more people talked about sex openly and natuarlly, the world would be a better place. Sex is natural and healthy and fun, and we do it in many different and wonderful ways. There’s nothing wrong with that. In my practice (I’m a psychologist) I always talk frankly and openly about sex and it really helps people overcome their doubts and fears.
Lena Sorensen says:
Mar 7, 2012
I abhor an form of censorship retweeted and shared with full support.
Mandi says:
Mar 8, 2012
We all need sex, we all want sex, it is good for us. Why not cultivate a healthy attitude towards sex? Why not have a highly informed readership? Isn’t that worth it to the editors of Psychology Today? What are we in the 50′s again?
Let’s not forget the censorship of Doctor Alfred Kinsey’s work. Now we have the Kinsey Institute. I will proudly boycott Psychology Today and stand with Stanley Siegel. Your work is greatly appreciated by so many! Stay strong through this difficult time.
With Great Respect,
-Mandi
Trent says:
Mar 8, 2012
What real editor acts like this? She should be fired.
Phil says:
Mar 8, 2012
Maybe Kaja isn’t getting any..?
We support you Stanley!
Mark says:
Mar 8, 2012
Your columns changed my life. Seriously!
Amber says:
Mar 8, 2012
As a fellow writer and as a fellow truth-seeking human being I am very disheartened by this decision on the part of Psychology Today… ESPECIALLY because IT IS a psychology based publication. Clearly, they have acted in fear and further continue to do so. I sincerely offer my prayers and support to you. I also applaud you in your honesty and your courage to be true to your own sexuality as you write, counsel, support, and advise (without judgment) others to do the same.
God-speed, amber
Clay says:
Mar 8, 2012
Stanley-
Wanted you to know that I sent an email to the four addresses you listed above voicing my disappointment & asking that your column be returned.
Hope it helps, brother. Keep your head up.
Ronelle says:
Mar 9, 2012
As a psychologist in South Africa I often come up against similar narrow minded and fear based responses towards sexuality as that which the editors of this magazine seem to exemplify by this latest action. When Stanley’s blog first appeared I was delighted both at the quality of writing, and his insights into human sexuality, and his openness and willingness to share even of his life experiences. I am shocked that his column has been terminated in this manner, but in a way not too surprised since this is after all a Popular psychology magazine, and the rise of (in my opinion fear based) conservatism and closed mindedness in the USA as seen in the Republican campaign speeches seem to be the zeitgeist of the time and probably has influenced this editorial decision. A sad state of affairs.
Joan Price says:
Mar 9, 2012
I am shocked, appalled, and disheartened at the editor’s decision and refusal to discuss this with you. Your work is valuable to all of us. I’m happy to help pass the word.
Joan Price says:
Mar 9, 2012
I just posted a note about this on my Naked at Our Age Facebook page — http://www.facebook.com/JoanPriceAuthor. I know my 700+ followers there will be very interested.
Ure P Auckland says:
Mar 9, 2012
The actions of Psychology Today you have described reflect a lack of adult behaviour, a lack of professionalism, and the type of fear and need for control that exemplifies the worst of corporate life.
Psychology Today, I applaud Stanley’s public discussion of this injustice and to the extent that there is wisdom lying between the four walls there you would be wise to look at this situation with a new perspective and see what lessons lie here for you to learn.
An open and honest dialogue as peers with this well respected and authentic member of the community whose work was revered would be a good start.
Mr. B says:
Mar 9, 2012
This cold-hearted censorship of a wonderful column is very shocking.
I will encourage those who are against this sort of thing to do a viral boycott of Psychology Today. This kind of betrayal of a well respected and brave pioneer should not have happened. Is this how you treat people that work for you? I expected more from P.T.
Quizzical mama says:
Mar 9, 2012
I can’t even find the other posts of your column there now; has all of it been removed? Infuriating.
Sheri Winston, CNM, RN, BSN, LMT says:
Mar 9, 2012
It’s a shame that Psychology Today would align themselves with the sex-negative forces and discontinue a column that supplies a much needed voice for sex-postive culture.
Moira Gallo says:
Mar 10, 2012
I just read your articles and I am fascinated. It’s a shame and ridiculous that PT has censored you.
I also ordered your book, I cannot wait to read it.
I’m not a long time reader, but I’m definitely supporting you.
Ken Helman says:
Mar 10, 2012
Just another attempt to “sex down” Americas culture. It continues to be the sign of the times in our political and social atmosphere these days.
Very sorry to hear that PT is pandering to this side of the fence. That Stanley’s insightful column,that often deals with subjects not given voice to,is silenced,shows me that the magazines mission is more interested in satisfying their advertisers than their readers.
John Lamb says:
Mar 10, 2012
You’re articles were great, and your viewpoint needs to be discussed. It is a shame that they have stopped publishing you!
Krista says:
Mar 11, 2012
Sometimes it’s hard to believe it’s 2012. In America.
I am appalled but unfortunately not shocked that Stanley was discriminated for his sexuality and progressive views on sex. What sickens me is that he was not silenced by a religious group nor a seemingly political one but by an organization I had presumed believed in self empowerment and individuality. What’s going on here?
Please return Stanley to PT. The censorship of psychology related writers damages the entire point of psychology. Psychology is a science, true, but a science devoted to understanding and shaping human behavior. We HAVE to push the envelope. We MUST question societal norms.
Silencing unpopular or controversial thinkers limits psychology’s credibility.
Please return Stanley to PT.
A. Herman says:
Mar 11, 2012
to psychologytoday.com, ‘the powers that be’, and editors:
well isn’t that special! a very clinical SEX forum for mature adults being censored! now that’s what i would call an ‘oxymoron’!!!
the purpose of this topic is to deal openly with issues that may be considered taboo, otherwise. of those who remember the sex therapist and radio personality DR. RUTH [westheimer] – imagine censoring her very ‘graphic’ appeal on national radio!
Mr. Siegel has guided me through many challenges over the years with his clear and open attitudes. he is extremely courteous, considerate and proper – and it angers me, your implying his column was ‘crude’ when that is such an inaccuracy about him. on whichever topic i have seen Mr. Siegel write or present – it has always been thorough and very professional.
the bottom line is that you made a mistake by canceling his column based on someone’s misinformation or bias. going forward your organization should be selective as to whom it designates handling very ‘sensitive’ topics like this one. assign people from a western culture who are in tandem with the american perspective. certainly not people who have pre-dispositions or any kind of sexual hangups when dealing with the many issues that come with the subject of ‘SEX’.
Shani says:
Mar 11, 2012
Hi Stanley
This is what I just wrote to the psychologytoday.com staff you listed above:
I am writing to ask why what happened to Stanley Seigel column “Intelligent Lust”?Why has it been removed from the Psychology Today blogs?
I found his columns thought-provoking and refreshingly “non-traditoinal” yet inoffensive. The perspective was from his opinion and his experiences. His arguments, if any, tended towards a questioning of one’s status-quo. What is the offence in that?
Thank you. I look forward to hearing a response to this matter.
—
Estraven says:
Mar 11, 2012
PT refused to remove Loren Olsen’s offensive blogs about bisexuals, despite being requested to do so by the bisexual community They have also refused to remove Izzy Kalman’s love-your-bully blogs, despite being requested to do so by the anti-bullying community. They DID remove the offensive “black-women-are-ugly” blog, but only after HUGE pressure:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/evolutionary-psychologist-says-black-women-are-scientifically-ugly-advocates-muslim-holocaust/
So they support bullies, and are against LGBT people and POC. A very ugly pattern is beginning to emerge here.
Stacey Swimme says:
Mar 11, 2012
Hey Stanley,
This is terrible. But why bother going back to them? You should start a new publication and call it “Psychology Tomorrow” where professionals can have real discourse about important issues in our modern world, including but not limited to sexuality.
In solidarity,
Stacey Swimme
angelique says:
Mar 12, 2012
Regrettable decision, RIGHT in step…with the RIGHT WING reversal of freedoms that has this country in a tailspin. If psychologists can’t intelligently speak about those topics which would be taboo in polite conversation, then who and where? OF COURSE it is a popular column! We are all interested in exploring sexuality; our own and in the lives of others.
If you censor this column, I wonder what other “editing” occurs, whether there is integrity to your research, or must it reflect the sensibility of your editors?
rob pommert says:
Mar 16, 2012
They should be ashamed ! a mag that was supposted to be using science to form oppions is letting some kind of “public fear” form oppions. Can i trust PT in the future???