At the gym the other night, I watched a TV news story about the recent arrest of Senator Larry Craig of Idaho for allegedly tapping his foot, among other things, in a men's bathroom stall. The fiery girl conducting the interview was marveling at why Craig would find it important or beneficial to proclaim, as part of his press conference address, "I am not gay. I never have been gay." She almost seemed to wonder who really cared because it's the behavior--the law--his constituents are upset about, not the possibility that he thinks men are sexy or ever has, right? Right?
Apparently, she hasn't spent much time in the rural United States. Here's a research project for our cunning reporter: spend a week in Idaho, especially outside of the thriving metropolis of Boise, and tell me if you're still confused, dear.
30 August 2007
29 August 2007
Office Store Boy Breaks My Heart
It was just another post-workout grocery store run to nab a few needed items for my pantry. I casually wove through the aisles seeking some cereal here, bread there, bananas over there...and on my way to the juice, what I saw initially made my little moho heart skip with homo surprise. Was it? Yes! It was office store boy! He looked just as cute in his western-style snap-up shirt as he did in his store uniform. OK, moreso. I laughed to myself at the strange little tricks life seems to play, seeing him there on this night when I just went to the grocery store on my way home as an afterthought.
But wait...who was that beside him? No, no this was not possible. Just a friend, I told myself. But no, they were walking a bit close to be friends. Definitely too close. Maybe close friends. No, this couldn't be. But my poor little moho heart sank as it became painfully obvious: he was shopping with a girl with long, silky brown hair who was definitely NOT just a friend and certainly didn't look like a sibling. Ouch. Not only was he taken, but he was taken by a girl.
After a second or two of pure disappointment and mourning, I laughed to myself at the beautiful trick life had played on me and so quickly thrown out there just to say, "Gotcha!" Yeah, good one, life. I'll give it to ya.
I can't deny I had some fun afterthoughts, like, "Well, you're going to the store he works at again tomorrow anyway, so maybe you could really put him to the test and see if he responds. He didn't seem to see me at the grocery store, so maybe he will think I don't know he's taken and try to get some on the side." I laughed at how deviant my mind could be--I just don't pull stuff like that--and shrugged it off, chuckling to myself.
Then as I was checking out, so were they. Right in front of me. He stood there, weight shifted onto one leg, hip askew in a decidedly non-alpha-male way. "He's fooling himself. Surely it's a phase." I then swallowed hard, gathered my courage, and looked. It had to be done. She was flipping through a magazine, left hand hidden just enough. Until she put the magazine back on the rack. And then the gold and glassy sparkle of horror. They are engaged. Office store boy is engaged. But look at the way he's standing!! And it's all fair game until the covenants are made, right? No, no, no. OK, so even if he were available, I wouldn't do anything about it. No, I'm not about to make him my boyfriend. But can't I just be allowed the fantasy?! *sigh* Moving on...
...speaking of which, there was this guy at the gym the other night who caused much bruising around tooth marks on my left index finger knuckle. I'm talking quick-throw-me-in-a-cold-shower-and-sing-a-few-thought-replacement-hymns hot. I'm not usually that affected, but...well, I'm going to go take a cold shower and think virtuous thoughts.
But wait...who was that beside him? No, no this was not possible. Just a friend, I told myself. But no, they were walking a bit close to be friends. Definitely too close. Maybe close friends. No, this couldn't be. But my poor little moho heart sank as it became painfully obvious: he was shopping with a girl with long, silky brown hair who was definitely NOT just a friend and certainly didn't look like a sibling. Ouch. Not only was he taken, but he was taken by a girl.
After a second or two of pure disappointment and mourning, I laughed to myself at the beautiful trick life had played on me and so quickly thrown out there just to say, "Gotcha!" Yeah, good one, life. I'll give it to ya.
I can't deny I had some fun afterthoughts, like, "Well, you're going to the store he works at again tomorrow anyway, so maybe you could really put him to the test and see if he responds. He didn't seem to see me at the grocery store, so maybe he will think I don't know he's taken and try to get some on the side." I laughed at how deviant my mind could be--I just don't pull stuff like that--and shrugged it off, chuckling to myself.
Then as I was checking out, so were they. Right in front of me. He stood there, weight shifted onto one leg, hip askew in a decidedly non-alpha-male way. "He's fooling himself. Surely it's a phase." I then swallowed hard, gathered my courage, and looked. It had to be done. She was flipping through a magazine, left hand hidden just enough. Until she put the magazine back on the rack. And then the gold and glassy sparkle of horror. They are engaged. Office store boy is engaged. But look at the way he's standing!! And it's all fair game until the covenants are made, right? No, no, no. OK, so even if he were available, I wouldn't do anything about it. No, I'm not about to make him my boyfriend. But can't I just be allowed the fantasy?! *sigh* Moving on...
...speaking of which, there was this guy at the gym the other night who caused much bruising around tooth marks on my left index finger knuckle. I'm talking quick-throw-me-in-a-cold-shower-and-sing-a-few-thought-replacement-hymns hot. I'm not usually that affected, but...well, I'm going to go take a cold shower and think virtuous thoughts.
26 August 2007
There Will Be Surprises
I just looked up the quote I mentioned in my copy of Mere Christianity, and I thought I'd post some of the actual text here. Ever since I first read it, I've found it very helpful in maintaining perspective both with myself and in the way I approach and/or view those around me. There's something beautiful about the imagery of the naked soul:
"Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God's eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. [Victorian Cross... similar to a Congressional Medal of Honor.] When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God's eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.
It is as well to put this the other way around. Some of us who seem quite nice people may in fact have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing that we really are worse than those whom we regard as fiends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler [the man who controlled the SS and Gestapo during Nazi reign]? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological makeup is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or the worst out of this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought our own, but which were really due to a good digestion, will fall off some of us : all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises."
"Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God's eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. [Victorian Cross... similar to a Congressional Medal of Honor.] When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God's eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.
It is as well to put this the other way around. Some of us who seem quite nice people may in fact have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing that we really are worse than those whom we regard as fiends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler [the man who controlled the SS and Gestapo during Nazi reign]? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological makeup is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or the worst out of this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought our own, but which were really due to a good digestion, will fall off some of us : all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises."
Rules
Unfortunately, it has been so long since I first composed these thoughts (13 May)that I have forgotten the blog post which sparked them. It's been sitting as a draft for a long time, so I thought I'd just post it to promote it to full-fledged blog entry. It may seem out-of-the-blue and incomplete, but it's relevant, I think, to some recent thoughts of mine, so without explaining how it relates (I'm lazy tonight), here it is:
-----------------------------------------------------
What of the prohibition against coffee and tea? The very revelation in Doctrine and Covenants says it's given not by way of commandment but as counsel. Now, I think it was Brigham Young who said that as far as he is concerned, the Lord's counsel is as good as commandment, and the church decided to adopt abstinence from coffee and tea (among other things which are, in my opinion, more pernicious and damaging) as a prerequisite to entering the temple. Was this a Pharisaical move? I sometimes wonder. I comply because for now, there are things more important than a nice cappuccino.
And maybe those proscriptions simply serve as examples among many other things we might try to minimize or eliminate? Is it possible that we just needed a reminder that there are more subtle things to pay attention to, and SOMETHING had to be used as an example? Is the person who constantly and exclusively eats body-insulting junk food more righteous or worthy than someone who drinks a cup of coffee in the morning simply because there's no specific mention of junk food in a temple recommend interview?
It does seem strange that I even consider coffee consumption in analyzing my worthiness. I don't think I would have a problem with the removal of the proscription against coffee and tea from our requirements. My healthful habits would remain. I try to generally keep myself free from addictive and harmful substances and foods.
Good thing our doctrine also includes a time to sort things out before judgement. Those who didn't have "the law" may be given it in its purest form. Those who lacked covenants through ordinances may be given the opportunity. And I believe those who missed the beauty behind the laws--the true spirit of the gospel--may discover the love and charity they should have felt through it all, to discover the true spirit of the gospel behind the law, from which they may have allowed their checklists to tragically distract them, as I think I may have and may still.
There's a danger in justifying disobedience. There's another danger in replacing love with rules. And I believe, as C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, the frailties of the flesh will fall from us, along with temporal contexts, and we will be left with the naked soul, as God sees us, and there will be surprises.
-----------------------------------------------------
What of the prohibition against coffee and tea? The very revelation in Doctrine and Covenants says it's given not by way of commandment but as counsel. Now, I think it was Brigham Young who said that as far as he is concerned, the Lord's counsel is as good as commandment, and the church decided to adopt abstinence from coffee and tea (among other things which are, in my opinion, more pernicious and damaging) as a prerequisite to entering the temple. Was this a Pharisaical move? I sometimes wonder. I comply because for now, there are things more important than a nice cappuccino.
And maybe those proscriptions simply serve as examples among many other things we might try to minimize or eliminate? Is it possible that we just needed a reminder that there are more subtle things to pay attention to, and SOMETHING had to be used as an example? Is the person who constantly and exclusively eats body-insulting junk food more righteous or worthy than someone who drinks a cup of coffee in the morning simply because there's no specific mention of junk food in a temple recommend interview?
It does seem strange that I even consider coffee consumption in analyzing my worthiness. I don't think I would have a problem with the removal of the proscription against coffee and tea from our requirements. My healthful habits would remain. I try to generally keep myself free from addictive and harmful substances and foods.
Good thing our doctrine also includes a time to sort things out before judgement. Those who didn't have "the law" may be given it in its purest form. Those who lacked covenants through ordinances may be given the opportunity. And I believe those who missed the beauty behind the laws--the true spirit of the gospel--may discover the love and charity they should have felt through it all, to discover the true spirit of the gospel behind the law, from which they may have allowed their checklists to tragically distract them, as I think I may have and may still.
There's a danger in justifying disobedience. There's another danger in replacing love with rules. And I believe, as C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, the frailties of the flesh will fall from us, along with temporal contexts, and we will be left with the naked soul, as God sees us, and there will be surprises.
25 August 2007
Conflict, Integrity, and Ownership
In my previous entry, I mentioned that I am neither impervious to the pain nor living in misery over the conflict of choosing what to do with my attraction to men in light of my "religious beliefs" and life experience. I have been through painful or empty times when I wished I could just go to sleep and be extinguished out of all existence and be done with the conflicts, the contradictions, the trials, the harder parts of life. I am no longer in that state. Not for now. I don't expect to be so again any time soon, but I acknowledge the fact that you never know what curve ball life may throw.
I still face some interesting questions and/or dilemmas, such as the desire to ask out the cutie at the office/electronics store. But it doesn't tear me apart. Or isn't doing so for now. Maybe I'm cold-hearted. Maybe I'm old and crusty. Maybe I am in complete denial of the tortured, torn state of my wretched heart. Maybe I'm a religious zealot pretending things aren't as they are for comfort's sake. But wanting to ask the guy out and stopping myself seemed not so much a tortured, painful decision as a shrugging of my shoulders and a decision not to carry through, for my own reasons. It's a conflict, for sure, but not an especially painful or damaging one at this point, though it certainly has been heart-rending before.
I'm not the only one making this kind of decision. A married man meeting a beautiful woman may feel very inclined to get to know her better, maybe even ask her out to dinner for some quality one-on-one time, but most often, I'd guess married men choose not to pursue that route. They choose, instead, to acknowledge that attraction for what it is and move on with their life. They decide there are other things they value more than the newfound infatuation or genuine interpersonal connection: wife, children, family, covenants, promises, friends, responsibilities...
Should those things be resented or blamed for a man's apparent inability to fulfill his desire for companionship? Shouldn't he be allowed to be happy? Isn't happiness found in obtaining what he feels he wants and needs emotionally? He may have a wife to go home to, but what about when his wife is not fulfilling him emotionally, mentally, sexually, and the marriage is empty? Shouldn't his children want his happiness and understand when he leaves their home to be with a woman he wants to be with? Or are there things in life that matter more than feeling fulfilled by the only person it seems can fulfill you? Are there some relationships and commitments that matter more than others? It may seem a hard pill to swallow, but is it possible to find fulfillment in other ways when you have a reason not to pursue what feels so desirable? Or is that simply settling for something lesser, something compromised? Is feeling the desire for the woman wrong? Or is it completely understandable, especially if the marriage is rocky? In such a case, his actions will define who he is and what (and whom) he values most.
There is no person to whom I have covenanted to be emotionally and sexually devoted and with whom I have become "one flesh," so my conundra and reasons are not the married man’s. But the fact is that both the devoted, married man and I have chosen not to pursue that which does, in fact, come very naturally, because "natural" isn't enough.
It seems obvious to me that all human relationships are unique in their complex nature. For one man who wants to ask another man out with the potential for a romantic connection, I may not even try to apply the comparison I've drawn out here. For many men who want romantic involvement with other men, there may very well be little or no reason for them to choose not to pursue it. Certain spiritual and religious principles may or may not apply, or they may apply differently. Certainly a person who subscribed to no particular proscriptive religious doctrine but who follows their own code of ethics and spiritual principles which do not include the exaltation of opposite-gender marriage may have absolutely no reason to deny themselves a committed relationship with someone of the same sex. To such a person, my decision not to ask a seemingly very nice, attractive guy out to dinner must seem saddening, oppressive, and terribly self-denying. To me, it’s a choice, and one I made freely of my own agency, whatever the consequences.
Might my priorities shift over time? Might my beliefs wax and wane and change over the years? Might my outlook and perspective on life itself be blown apart and reformed in an entirely new light? Yes. Then, my decisions may change, and I acknowledge that possibility. But for now, they are a certain way, and I try to make my decisions generally respectful of them.
I think it comes down to what you truly believe and what you truly, deeply feel is at your core: what you most believe and what matters most. If you're a gay mormon and claim to find integrity in pursuing a same-sex relationship because you have to be true to yourself, what you're basically saying is that you don't have enough reason not to, which means you don't fully believe what the general authorities of the church teach in that regard, or you do believe it but value what you desire more than what you believe to be true. If that's your stance, own it. If you claim to find integrity by not embracing a same-sex relationship because you have to be true to yourself, what you are saying is that what you believe to be truth conflicts with and is more important to you than the potential happiness of having a romantic, same-sex partner, or maybe you believe you're going to change and are just waiting for the trasformation. If that's your stance, own it. Own your beliefs and choices and set aside pawning them off as requirements imposed by other people. I don't want to lose too much time lamenting over things which are, in reality, in my control.
So the long and not-so-short of it is that while it would be nice to not feel any conflict in my life, I think conflict is inherent to life and necessary for us to discover and define ourselves. Integrity, to me, is being true to all of yourself and admitting when you are compromising one thing for another. It is owning your life and your decisions. We all have to do it. We all decide what we value most and make our choice. I know it's easier said than done, and I realize my life experience and situations are not yours, and I make no claim of perfection in this or any other regard, so it's not about me preaching to anyone because I don't even have all the answers for myself, let alone anyone else, but for now I can't shake the questions: Don't I ultimately have the reins in my own life, for my own reactions and what I do with the situation I'm in, exquisite or horrific as it may be, whether or not I chose it? I may experience soul-wrenching conflicts and face terribly difficult decisions (and if you know me, you know decisions are not my forte), but why live in anguish when I am the one with the reins?
I still face some interesting questions and/or dilemmas, such as the desire to ask out the cutie at the office/electronics store. But it doesn't tear me apart. Or isn't doing so for now. Maybe I'm cold-hearted. Maybe I'm old and crusty. Maybe I am in complete denial of the tortured, torn state of my wretched heart. Maybe I'm a religious zealot pretending things aren't as they are for comfort's sake. But wanting to ask the guy out and stopping myself seemed not so much a tortured, painful decision as a shrugging of my shoulders and a decision not to carry through, for my own reasons. It's a conflict, for sure, but not an especially painful or damaging one at this point, though it certainly has been heart-rending before.
I'm not the only one making this kind of decision. A married man meeting a beautiful woman may feel very inclined to get to know her better, maybe even ask her out to dinner for some quality one-on-one time, but most often, I'd guess married men choose not to pursue that route. They choose, instead, to acknowledge that attraction for what it is and move on with their life. They decide there are other things they value more than the newfound infatuation or genuine interpersonal connection: wife, children, family, covenants, promises, friends, responsibilities...
Should those things be resented or blamed for a man's apparent inability to fulfill his desire for companionship? Shouldn't he be allowed to be happy? Isn't happiness found in obtaining what he feels he wants and needs emotionally? He may have a wife to go home to, but what about when his wife is not fulfilling him emotionally, mentally, sexually, and the marriage is empty? Shouldn't his children want his happiness and understand when he leaves their home to be with a woman he wants to be with? Or are there things in life that matter more than feeling fulfilled by the only person it seems can fulfill you? Are there some relationships and commitments that matter more than others? It may seem a hard pill to swallow, but is it possible to find fulfillment in other ways when you have a reason not to pursue what feels so desirable? Or is that simply settling for something lesser, something compromised? Is feeling the desire for the woman wrong? Or is it completely understandable, especially if the marriage is rocky? In such a case, his actions will define who he is and what (and whom) he values most.
There is no person to whom I have covenanted to be emotionally and sexually devoted and with whom I have become "one flesh," so my conundra and reasons are not the married man’s. But the fact is that both the devoted, married man and I have chosen not to pursue that which does, in fact, come very naturally, because "natural" isn't enough.
It seems obvious to me that all human relationships are unique in their complex nature. For one man who wants to ask another man out with the potential for a romantic connection, I may not even try to apply the comparison I've drawn out here. For many men who want romantic involvement with other men, there may very well be little or no reason for them to choose not to pursue it. Certain spiritual and religious principles may or may not apply, or they may apply differently. Certainly a person who subscribed to no particular proscriptive religious doctrine but who follows their own code of ethics and spiritual principles which do not include the exaltation of opposite-gender marriage may have absolutely no reason to deny themselves a committed relationship with someone of the same sex. To such a person, my decision not to ask a seemingly very nice, attractive guy out to dinner must seem saddening, oppressive, and terribly self-denying. To me, it’s a choice, and one I made freely of my own agency, whatever the consequences.
Might my priorities shift over time? Might my beliefs wax and wane and change over the years? Might my outlook and perspective on life itself be blown apart and reformed in an entirely new light? Yes. Then, my decisions may change, and I acknowledge that possibility. But for now, they are a certain way, and I try to make my decisions generally respectful of them.
I think it comes down to what you truly believe and what you truly, deeply feel is at your core: what you most believe and what matters most. If you're a gay mormon and claim to find integrity in pursuing a same-sex relationship because you have to be true to yourself, what you're basically saying is that you don't have enough reason not to, which means you don't fully believe what the general authorities of the church teach in that regard, or you do believe it but value what you desire more than what you believe to be true. If that's your stance, own it. If you claim to find integrity by not embracing a same-sex relationship because you have to be true to yourself, what you are saying is that what you believe to be truth conflicts with and is more important to you than the potential happiness of having a romantic, same-sex partner, or maybe you believe you're going to change and are just waiting for the trasformation. If that's your stance, own it. Own your beliefs and choices and set aside pawning them off as requirements imposed by other people. I don't want to lose too much time lamenting over things which are, in reality, in my control.
So the long and not-so-short of it is that while it would be nice to not feel any conflict in my life, I think conflict is inherent to life and necessary for us to discover and define ourselves. Integrity, to me, is being true to all of yourself and admitting when you are compromising one thing for another. It is owning your life and your decisions. We all have to do it. We all decide what we value most and make our choice. I know it's easier said than done, and I realize my life experience and situations are not yours, and I make no claim of perfection in this or any other regard, so it's not about me preaching to anyone because I don't even have all the answers for myself, let alone anyone else, but for now I can't shake the questions: Don't I ultimately have the reins in my own life, for my own reactions and what I do with the situation I'm in, exquisite or horrific as it may be, whether or not I chose it? I may experience soul-wrenching conflicts and face terribly difficult decisions (and if you know me, you know decisions are not my forte), but why live in anguish when I am the one with the reins?
Don't Cry For Me
Don't cry for me, please, or try to use me as an example of the misery brought upon mohos by their narrow-minded religion, but please do try to understand what it's like. The few people who read my blog come from some fairly varied perspectives, as far as I can tell, so I realize there are going to be varied reactions.
I would like to sincerely express appreciation for the concern visitors to my blog sometimes show. When I write happily, I sometimes find it hard not to see it as a little insulting or judgemental when people seem to project and think I should be more miserable than I am, so I generally just take it as sincere concern and an understandable reflection of what they, not I, are going through. I'm sure I do the same thing, seeming insensitive to another's sorrow because the experience doesn't pain me as much as it does them. We're limited, genetically flawed humans. It's what we do.
I appreciate your sympathy, your concern, your taking the time to let me know that my experiences and feelings are not entirely silly or invalid, and I do hope some readers cry with me when I write with tear-filled eyes (which has, I'll admit, been rare).
I am currently neither impervious to pain nor wrought with anguish over the conflict between my "religious beliefs" and the decision of what to do with my attractions to members of the same gender. I've experienced some feelings I never expected to, some conflicts I didn't realize I could experience so deeply. Some times have been extremely hard. Those are mostly in the past, as far as I can tell, for now at least, and for which I am grateful.
So cry for me if you will, but I may or may not join you in shedding those tears. Maybe I'll shed a few for you and your sorrow when I perceive that perhaps your reaction is more a reflection of your emotion and experience than of empathy for anything I'm going through. How unfair and hypocritical would it be for me to insist you not cry for me out of respect for what I, not you, go through and then refuse to cry with you when I see that you are so upset by it?
I would like to sincerely express appreciation for the concern visitors to my blog sometimes show. When I write happily, I sometimes find it hard not to see it as a little insulting or judgemental when people seem to project and think I should be more miserable than I am, so I generally just take it as sincere concern and an understandable reflection of what they, not I, are going through. I'm sure I do the same thing, seeming insensitive to another's sorrow because the experience doesn't pain me as much as it does them. We're limited, genetically flawed humans. It's what we do.
I appreciate your sympathy, your concern, your taking the time to let me know that my experiences and feelings are not entirely silly or invalid, and I do hope some readers cry with me when I write with tear-filled eyes (which has, I'll admit, been rare).
I am currently neither impervious to pain nor wrought with anguish over the conflict between my "religious beliefs" and the decision of what to do with my attractions to members of the same gender. I've experienced some feelings I never expected to, some conflicts I didn't realize I could experience so deeply. Some times have been extremely hard. Those are mostly in the past, as far as I can tell, for now at least, and for which I am grateful.
So cry for me if you will, but I may or may not join you in shedding those tears. Maybe I'll shed a few for you and your sorrow when I perceive that perhaps your reaction is more a reflection of your emotion and experience than of empathy for anything I'm going through. How unfair and hypocritical would it be for me to insist you not cry for me out of respect for what I, not you, go through and then refuse to cry with you when I see that you are so upset by it?
24 August 2007
Thanks for the electronic goods…how about dinner?
Let me preface with one tidbit about myself: I do appreciate beauty when I see it and sometimes see someone I think it would be fun to have my way with…or vice versa, but I don't really consider actually doing it. And I’ve never actually felt a real desire to ask someone out who I didn’t know. …until my friendly neighborhood sales boy at the local office and electronics store smiled at me with absolutely adorable eyes.
It didn’t happen immediately, mind you. I went shopping for a certain electronic device a couple of Saturdays ago, and the salesperson who came to help us was a breath of fresh air compared to my other experiences of the day. He was forthright, down-to-earth, non-pushy, admitted when he didn’t know something… And cute. Well, to me anyway. His smile, his peaceful, unassuming eyes, his endearing demeanor. But he was just the salesperson in the electronics section.
So a couple of days later, I went back to check the sales. He was there again. I was pleased. And he smiled and said something like, “So you’re back!” I smiled and tried to disguise the semi-giddy grin I really wanted to display if only to gauge his response. I talked electronics with him, got some input, went on my way.
I bought the product I had been looking at but from another location of the chain. When I encountered a problem with it, I called the original store where I had met the cute salesboy to find out about refund policy and, totally unexpected (yes, honestly), spoke with someone who sounded a lot like the same kid, though I couldn’t be sure.
So I went back to the store after work one night to buy an accessory for the product. It was late, so I truly didn’t expect to see the same guy I had seen the other times because that was always in the morning. But life has a quirky way of teasing me sometimes. There he was. We talked a bit about electronics-related things, but it was mostly just friendly banter, and I was enjoying it. Not obsessively so. Nothing sexual. Nothing needy. Just enjoying it and thinking we could be friends, or if I were looking for more, maybe we could be more. …assuming he swings that way, which he probably doesn’t. I mean, there was no wedding ring, but still. And besides, I wasn't looking for more, but still.
Anyway, as he went to the back to grab the last of the accessory they had in inventory, I got in line to check out. When he returned, he stood in line and waited with me. Granted, he may have been waiting in line to assure I was going to be OK purchasing a previously opened product, but he just stood there and talked about how it should be in good shape, it was only tested, etc. He repeated the same statement a few times, and I thought, “Oh, he’s kind of adorable.”
Yes, I was smitten in a way. For the first time ever, I actually had the urge, even if only for a moment, to ask a guy I don’t really know out to dinner. I thought better of it and decided against asking a probably-straight boy out for the small chance we might hit it off and be friends, and the even smaller chance he’s inclined towards boys and would be my new boyfriend if I decided to go that route… Folks, the mind of a moho is strange.
So I haven’t seen him since, and unless something fails and I have to return the product, I probably won’t again. Too bad.
But for the first time, I finally understand the whole, “Hey, I like you. Would you be interested in dinner?” thing. I never got that before. I always just found a desire to deepen relationships from my circles of friends. I didn’t understand how people could ask someone out without already knowing them. It seemed totally shallow and image-based. Though I didn’t do it, I understand now. He seemed sweet. He seemed real, kind, fun. He seemed…interested on some level. And I could have asked him out and not felt weird about it or afraid of the rejection. I felt like a regular person. Ironic, isn’t it?
It didn’t happen immediately, mind you. I went shopping for a certain electronic device a couple of Saturdays ago, and the salesperson who came to help us was a breath of fresh air compared to my other experiences of the day. He was forthright, down-to-earth, non-pushy, admitted when he didn’t know something… And cute. Well, to me anyway. His smile, his peaceful, unassuming eyes, his endearing demeanor. But he was just the salesperson in the electronics section.
So a couple of days later, I went back to check the sales. He was there again. I was pleased. And he smiled and said something like, “So you’re back!” I smiled and tried to disguise the semi-giddy grin I really wanted to display if only to gauge his response. I talked electronics with him, got some input, went on my way.
I bought the product I had been looking at but from another location of the chain. When I encountered a problem with it, I called the original store where I had met the cute salesboy to find out about refund policy and, totally unexpected (yes, honestly), spoke with someone who sounded a lot like the same kid, though I couldn’t be sure.
So I went back to the store after work one night to buy an accessory for the product. It was late, so I truly didn’t expect to see the same guy I had seen the other times because that was always in the morning. But life has a quirky way of teasing me sometimes. There he was. We talked a bit about electronics-related things, but it was mostly just friendly banter, and I was enjoying it. Not obsessively so. Nothing sexual. Nothing needy. Just enjoying it and thinking we could be friends, or if I were looking for more, maybe we could be more. …assuming he swings that way, which he probably doesn’t. I mean, there was no wedding ring, but still. And besides, I wasn't looking for more, but still.
Anyway, as he went to the back to grab the last of the accessory they had in inventory, I got in line to check out. When he returned, he stood in line and waited with me. Granted, he may have been waiting in line to assure I was going to be OK purchasing a previously opened product, but he just stood there and talked about how it should be in good shape, it was only tested, etc. He repeated the same statement a few times, and I thought, “Oh, he’s kind of adorable.”
Yes, I was smitten in a way. For the first time ever, I actually had the urge, even if only for a moment, to ask a guy I don’t really know out to dinner. I thought better of it and decided against asking a probably-straight boy out for the small chance we might hit it off and be friends, and the even smaller chance he’s inclined towards boys and would be my new boyfriend if I decided to go that route… Folks, the mind of a moho is strange.
So I haven’t seen him since, and unless something fails and I have to return the product, I probably won’t again. Too bad.
But for the first time, I finally understand the whole, “Hey, I like you. Would you be interested in dinner?” thing. I never got that before. I always just found a desire to deepen relationships from my circles of friends. I didn’t understand how people could ask someone out without already knowing them. It seemed totally shallow and image-based. Though I didn’t do it, I understand now. He seemed sweet. He seemed real, kind, fun. He seemed…interested on some level. And I could have asked him out and not felt weird about it or afraid of the rejection. I felt like a regular person. Ironic, isn’t it?
23 August 2007
07 August 2007
Appropriate Potato Salad
So...I'm here at home, and I get the munchies. I go to the fridge, and I remember I have leftovers from last night's potluck at the Matises'. So I take out the potato salad, dish some out, and take a bite, noticing that it's pretty decent potato salad. So as I replace the lid, I check to see what kind of potato salad some pot luck participant brought; the label reads, "San Francisco Potato Salad." Who's the wise guy?
03 August 2007
We Lable People Because It's Fun
In a comment on my Mohos, Mohomies, Mohoochies, Oh My! post, iWonder expressed concern over such extensive use of labels. I replied with another comment. And he wrote a post about his concerns, which I recommend reading, on his own blog. I then responded with the following, which I then shortened and decided, instead, to post on my blog rather than monopolize his comments space.
And it went a little something like this:
-----------------------------
Good thoughts about labels.
Since you have publicly quoted me in your more serious-tending context, I'd like to add that though I can't expect those who don't know me well to perceive my tone, I often speak very tongue-in-cheek and sometimes flippantly, which was the case with my "we label people because it's fun", which was really just me satirically filling the role of a sort of cartoonish class clown showing a certain disregard while waving a banner for the approving accolades of the masses.
You may also have a problem with my apparent flippancy regarding the questioning of labels, and that's cool. I think your perspectives here are significant and should be kept in mind.
You've sparked a lot of thoughts, so instead of obnoxiously taking up even more space on your comments, I'll blog about it myself.
-----------------------------
You mentioned that you're uncomfortable with the way you've heard "moho" used to distinguish people from "homos" as if the active mormon gays consider themselves superior to the doubting ones. I suppose that's basically the same as mormons referring to non-mormons or "less actives" in diminutive tones. If people are, in fact, using the term 'moho' in an elitist way, they have indeed distorted it.
A fairly unique situation and set of decisions is faced by "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who happen to experience an unusually strong attraction and/or affinity to members of the same sex and/or gender and who nevertheless strive to live by the doctrines of the church". "Mohos" is so much more concise and less tedious to say in groups who already understand what it means.
I, for one, will openly acknowledge that I am generally more comfortable with mohos than homos because, given our fairly unique situation, we generally share certain similar goals, beliefs, and behavioral limits. Generally.
I think that, given certain goals and circumstances, then certain choices are, indeed, "better" than others (I have no problem making certain qualitative assessments).
Does that mean the people making those choices are better? Nope. It's just that certain behaviors and beliefs of theirs which are important to me are more in harmony with mine. And gay mormons generally - again, generally - don't test my limits the way some friends of other faiths (who have no reason to believe my goals make sense) have, so we gravitate.
I also have a few gay friends who are not actively or have never been LDS whom I do love and appreciate for the good peops they are, at least a couple of whom I trust as much as any mohomie. They may be "homo" rather than "moho" and therefore not share some of my beliefs, but to believe labels are all-encompassing and defining would be entirely foolish.
Many people feel hurt when they hear people distinguish themselves using a descriptor they perceive as superior. I prefer to show sensitivity to those people when I'm aware of such. I know the sting of being the one who is NOT "happily married" and who does NOT have a "successful career". But I also recognize those are not meant to sting. They're simply a group of people with whom I would like to identify but do not, so it stings sometimes.
If a label is being used to deride a group of people, it's not the label that is wrong -- it's the derision.
All this said, I think I'm mostly with you. I don't think more and more division is what we need. I would hope we are all mature enough and familiar enough with alienation that we would be sensitive to and not look down on those who we feel don't understand us or who make different decisions. I hope we don't consider them to be inferior and therefore close them out of our lives. To me, identifying as "moho" is not about alienating the ignorant masses or proclaiming superiority over the heathen "homos". It's more about hoping we can identify with each other in positive (and yes, even light-hearted) ways, without becoming a glob of self-righteous elitists.
As far as I can tell, if anyone needs a sense of community, camaraderie, and fellowship, it's gay/lesbian/bisexual members of this church who are trying to live their beliefs. There's no shortage of people out there apparently happily acting on their attractions and enjoying same-sex partnerships (of a romantic and/or sexual nature). And I'm surrounded by active members of the church eagerly seeking and enjoying dating and marriage, oblivious to the pain or disillusionment of those who may not find such easy pleasure in it. Every day, someone or something tries to remind me how foolish I am to be adhering to this religion and not seeking same-sex romance. Every day, someone or something reminds me how faithless I am to not simply become heterosexual and get married.
There have been tough times. I don't deny the pain, the conflict, the loneliness, and the despair I've experienced. But that's not where I am now. So I enjoy identifying myself, light-heartedly, as this odd little anomoly of a homo, this strangely non-conformed mormon. I enjoy feeling a little spark of warmth when I say 'moho' and thereby remember all my mohomies and their mohomies and mohoneys who fully love and embrace them, and I remember that I am, in fact, in good company.
And it went a little something like this:
-----------------------------
Good thoughts about labels.
Since you have publicly quoted me in your more serious-tending context, I'd like to add that though I can't expect those who don't know me well to perceive my tone, I often speak very tongue-in-cheek and sometimes flippantly, which was the case with my "we label people because it's fun", which was really just me satirically filling the role of a sort of cartoonish class clown showing a certain disregard while waving a banner for the approving accolades of the masses.
You may also have a problem with my apparent flippancy regarding the questioning of labels, and that's cool. I think your perspectives here are significant and should be kept in mind.
You've sparked a lot of thoughts, so instead of obnoxiously taking up even more space on your comments, I'll blog about it myself.
-----------------------------
You mentioned that you're uncomfortable with the way you've heard "moho" used to distinguish people from "homos" as if the active mormon gays consider themselves superior to the doubting ones. I suppose that's basically the same as mormons referring to non-mormons or "less actives" in diminutive tones. If people are, in fact, using the term 'moho' in an elitist way, they have indeed distorted it.
A fairly unique situation and set of decisions is faced by "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who happen to experience an unusually strong attraction and/or affinity to members of the same sex and/or gender and who nevertheless strive to live by the doctrines of the church". "Mohos" is so much more concise and less tedious to say in groups who already understand what it means.
I, for one, will openly acknowledge that I am generally more comfortable with mohos than homos because, given our fairly unique situation, we generally share certain similar goals, beliefs, and behavioral limits. Generally.
I think that, given certain goals and circumstances, then certain choices are, indeed, "better" than others (I have no problem making certain qualitative assessments).
Does that mean the people making those choices are better? Nope. It's just that certain behaviors and beliefs of theirs which are important to me are more in harmony with mine. And gay mormons generally - again, generally - don't test my limits the way some friends of other faiths (who have no reason to believe my goals make sense) have, so we gravitate.
I also have a few gay friends who are not actively or have never been LDS whom I do love and appreciate for the good peops they are, at least a couple of whom I trust as much as any mohomie. They may be "homo" rather than "moho" and therefore not share some of my beliefs, but to believe labels are all-encompassing and defining would be entirely foolish.
Many people feel hurt when they hear people distinguish themselves using a descriptor they perceive as superior. I prefer to show sensitivity to those people when I'm aware of such. I know the sting of being the one who is NOT "happily married" and who does NOT have a "successful career". But I also recognize those are not meant to sting. They're simply a group of people with whom I would like to identify but do not, so it stings sometimes.
If a label is being used to deride a group of people, it's not the label that is wrong -- it's the derision.
All this said, I think I'm mostly with you. I don't think more and more division is what we need. I would hope we are all mature enough and familiar enough with alienation that we would be sensitive to and not look down on those who we feel don't understand us or who make different decisions. I hope we don't consider them to be inferior and therefore close them out of our lives. To me, identifying as "moho" is not about alienating the ignorant masses or proclaiming superiority over the heathen "homos". It's more about hoping we can identify with each other in positive (and yes, even light-hearted) ways, without becoming a glob of self-righteous elitists.
As far as I can tell, if anyone needs a sense of community, camaraderie, and fellowship, it's gay/lesbian/bisexual members of this church who are trying to live their beliefs. There's no shortage of people out there apparently happily acting on their attractions and enjoying same-sex partnerships (of a romantic and/or sexual nature). And I'm surrounded by active members of the church eagerly seeking and enjoying dating and marriage, oblivious to the pain or disillusionment of those who may not find such easy pleasure in it. Every day, someone or something tries to remind me how foolish I am to be adhering to this religion and not seeking same-sex romance. Every day, someone or something reminds me how faithless I am to not simply become heterosexual and get married.
There have been tough times. I don't deny the pain, the conflict, the loneliness, and the despair I've experienced. But that's not where I am now. So I enjoy identifying myself, light-heartedly, as this odd little anomoly of a homo, this strangely non-conformed mormon. I enjoy feeling a little spark of warmth when I say 'moho' and thereby remember all my mohomies and their mohomies and mohoneys who fully love and embrace them, and I remember that I am, in fact, in good company.
01 August 2007
Marriage, Manlove or Misery
Upon reading some blogs and talking to a friend or two recently, some thoughts are itching to be written.
Those of us who are active members of churches which preach against homosexual relationships and who are attracted to members of our own gender face some unique challenges and decisions. And we get it from both sides.
As much as I tire of hearing church members harp on me that I must find a woman and marry her to be truly happy, I grow equally weary of gay men and women shoving down my throat the notion that I must necessarily be miserable if I never find a same-sex romantic partner.
I don't subscribe to these false dichotomies. They're convenient for sob stories or "get over it" speeches, but I just don't buy that my happiness hinges on finding a romantic partner. As wonderful as romance has been and would be, there's a lot more to my life.
All else equal, I don't doubt I'd be happier with a partner with whom I feel complete attraction my whole life.
However, all else being equal, I'd be happier fathering children of my own with a woman I love, even if the sex isn't as great as it might be with a man.
All else being equal, I'd be happier determining my beliefs and living by those, regardless of romance.
All else being equal, I'd be happier with better health.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?), many people in the world simply have imperfect lives. Imperfect bodies. Imperfect upbringing. Imperfect psychology. Imperfect health. They miss out on many beauties of life because of circumstances beyond their control.
We tend to mourn that which we feel we've been robbed of. It's natural. We tend to place huge value on that which we feel we weren't given the chance to have. It's understandable.
But the fact remains: I'm given a choice. I can choose to have faith in and believe a set of doctrines which preclude homosexual relationships and then do with that what I will. Or I can reject those doctrines and do with that what I will.
If I choose to accept them, I then can choose to try my hand at marrying a woman and raising children. Or I can choose to find richness in other relationships and contribute my talents and energy to society in varied and meaningful ways regardless of marital status. Or I can defy those doctrines and beliefs and look for happiness somewhere between believing them and rejecting them, compromising because of the situation I was so unfairly thrust into.
I can also choose to reject those doctrines and free myself of the oppression of religion. I can then seek whatever it is I feel will make me happiest in this life without guilt and without bitterness.
Or I can stay in the church because...well... who knows why? Because it's part of my heritage? Because it's a good structure? And gloss over the positive and rail against it and vocalize anger and frustration for being exactly what it has been since I embraced it.
I understand feeling bitter about it. Believe me I do. Been there. Sometimes go there. But at some point, I have to remember that though I may feel beaten down by much of the rhetoric at church meetings, it's ME, not anyone else, who chooses to go back. And the church, being made up of humans, will have elements of human imperfection I can learn to accept just like I accept the humanity in those I love. Why do you go back?
Sometimes we just have to vent, and we feel trapped, and we feel abused, and we feel mistreated and marginalized. And often we actually are. But at some point, I have to OWN my situation NOW. OWN my choices. Is everyone else responsible for my happiness? Is someone MAKING me choose not to find a wonderful man and settle down with him? Or am I making that choice? Is anyone forcing me to identify as LDS? Or am I choosing to stay in the church?
Sure, I would like things to be different. I'd love for everything I want to somehow be reconciled and attainable without having to make unwanted sacrifices. But until they are, if they ever can or should be, I refuse to play the martyr and make myself a victim.
Yeah, it's hard. And there's SO much misunderstanding in our society about our situation, both from the religious community and the gay community. Life's hard at times. Our situation is very unique. But having a seemingly lifelong dilemma is not. Being unmarried for life is not. Marital trouble is not. Just try to remember this when it gets especially hard and you feel especially unfairly positioned in life.
I love my friends even when they seem unable to let go of the bitterness and pain and depression over being torn the way they are, because I know some degree of that turmoil. I hope for their lasting happiness and my own, and I'm confident it's attainable.
Those of us who are active members of churches which preach against homosexual relationships and who are attracted to members of our own gender face some unique challenges and decisions. And we get it from both sides.
As much as I tire of hearing church members harp on me that I must find a woman and marry her to be truly happy, I grow equally weary of gay men and women shoving down my throat the notion that I must necessarily be miserable if I never find a same-sex romantic partner.
I don't subscribe to these false dichotomies. They're convenient for sob stories or "get over it" speeches, but I just don't buy that my happiness hinges on finding a romantic partner. As wonderful as romance has been and would be, there's a lot more to my life.
All else equal, I don't doubt I'd be happier with a partner with whom I feel complete attraction my whole life.
However, all else being equal, I'd be happier fathering children of my own with a woman I love, even if the sex isn't as great as it might be with a man.
All else being equal, I'd be happier determining my beliefs and living by those, regardless of romance.
All else being equal, I'd be happier with better health.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?), many people in the world simply have imperfect lives. Imperfect bodies. Imperfect upbringing. Imperfect psychology. Imperfect health. They miss out on many beauties of life because of circumstances beyond their control.
We tend to mourn that which we feel we've been robbed of. It's natural. We tend to place huge value on that which we feel we weren't given the chance to have. It's understandable.
But the fact remains: I'm given a choice. I can choose to have faith in and believe a set of doctrines which preclude homosexual relationships and then do with that what I will. Or I can reject those doctrines and do with that what I will.
If I choose to accept them, I then can choose to try my hand at marrying a woman and raising children. Or I can choose to find richness in other relationships and contribute my talents and energy to society in varied and meaningful ways regardless of marital status. Or I can defy those doctrines and beliefs and look for happiness somewhere between believing them and rejecting them, compromising because of the situation I was so unfairly thrust into.
I can also choose to reject those doctrines and free myself of the oppression of religion. I can then seek whatever it is I feel will make me happiest in this life without guilt and without bitterness.
Or I can stay in the church because...well... who knows why? Because it's part of my heritage? Because it's a good structure? And gloss over the positive and rail against it and vocalize anger and frustration for being exactly what it has been since I embraced it.
I understand feeling bitter about it. Believe me I do. Been there. Sometimes go there. But at some point, I have to remember that though I may feel beaten down by much of the rhetoric at church meetings, it's ME, not anyone else, who chooses to go back. And the church, being made up of humans, will have elements of human imperfection I can learn to accept just like I accept the humanity in those I love. Why do you go back?
Sometimes we just have to vent, and we feel trapped, and we feel abused, and we feel mistreated and marginalized. And often we actually are. But at some point, I have to OWN my situation NOW. OWN my choices. Is everyone else responsible for my happiness? Is someone MAKING me choose not to find a wonderful man and settle down with him? Or am I making that choice? Is anyone forcing me to identify as LDS? Or am I choosing to stay in the church?
Sure, I would like things to be different. I'd love for everything I want to somehow be reconciled and attainable without having to make unwanted sacrifices. But until they are, if they ever can or should be, I refuse to play the martyr and make myself a victim.
Yeah, it's hard. And there's SO much misunderstanding in our society about our situation, both from the religious community and the gay community. Life's hard at times. Our situation is very unique. But having a seemingly lifelong dilemma is not. Being unmarried for life is not. Marital trouble is not. Just try to remember this when it gets especially hard and you feel especially unfairly positioned in life.
I love my friends even when they seem unable to let go of the bitterness and pain and depression over being torn the way they are, because I know some degree of that turmoil. I hope for their lasting happiness and my own, and I'm confident it's attainable.
Mohos, Mohomies, Mohoochies, Oh My!
Talking with a moho friend not long ago, I heard that another moho friend of mine has been using a moho term in a way I had not intended, and now I'm beginning to wonder if he's on to something here. So I'm turning to you, the blogging community, for a little input.OK, most of us know a moho is someone who is LDS and gay who generally considers their spiritual/religious identity to be more significant in determining their decisions than their sexual orientation. Basically, that's it in a nutshell, if you ask me, which you probably should.
The state or condition of being a moho could be called mohoness. The ever-growing community of mohos, along with our little subculture, can be called mohodom. You get the picture.
One of my moho friends, after enthusiastically adopting this term, extended it some, and he started calling his supportive but "non-challenged" female friends "mohoochies", which they accepted as a term of endearment, as it was intended, of course. Which is good. Nobody wants to upset a mohoochie.
Then he apparently started using the term "mohomies" for hetero guys who are understanding and supportive. I've always used the term just to refer to my moho buddies, but now I'm beginning to wonder...I think both deserve some sort of title, but I'm a little torn regarding to which group I should apply the "mohomie" label. Of course, if the definition of "mohomie" is changed, I may have to rename my blogging identity, but I am willing to make sacrifices for the greater good of mohodom, should there be a consensus to push for it.
And is there an alternative to "mohoochies"? Something... prettier? Kind of like the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly"?
Are there any other terms floating around out there you'd like to share with me? I'm all ears. ...eyes. ...whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)