Please do not hinge your hope on "change"

When the researcher admits validity of criticism and expressly requests to retract his former conclusions, it's time to reconsider: http://wthrockmorton.com/2012/04/11/robert-spitzer-retracts-2001-ex-gay-study/.

None of this should change your freedom to choose how to respond to your attractions, but my direct observation of and personal conversations with dozens and dozens confirms what a long-time ex-gay leader recently said about the popular claim among certain organizations and groups that "change is possible": http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/10/10/former-love-in-action-director-i%E2%80%99ve-never-met-a-man-who-experienced-a-change-from-homosexual-to-heterosexual/.

I've noticed a subtle and gradual (if not somewhat disingenuous-seeming) shift in the usage of the word "change" in organizations like Evergreen and Exodus, apparently to sidestep or move away from discussion of reversing orientation, as more voices come out in testimony that few if any people actually change in the way the word has traditionally been used in that setting. There are still organizations like NARTH which endeavor to amass evidence in support of eradicating "sexualized" same-sex attraction in favor of an emerging heterosexual orientation, so it's not like this was the last leg, as some are claiming, but when foundational voices are retracting their conclusions, it certainly raises questions.

After about eight years involved in support groups and gay Mormon social circles, the only two people I've met who claim to have changed from homo- to heterosexual are Journey Into Manhood founders, and I haven't sat down for a real, personal conversation with them to find out if that's even what they really mean when they say they "identify as a straight male", though they know very well how vulnerable, conflicted men will hear it and yearn for it.  The claims of those I know of but haven't met are such that any retraction from them would mean loss of therapy fees, book royalties, speaking fees, and the public pride and championing of activist loved ones, so I see a strong incentive for them to convince themselves and others.  But I have little or no justification to claim they're just bald-faced liars, and if I could sit down with one, I would listen and try to understand what they mean or have experienced.  They might mean that when the temptation to look at erotic images arises, the images tempting them are of women.  Maybe they mean men are no longer interesting to them, and they feel magnetically drawn to women now.  They might mean they're attracted to men primarily but express that attraction in only friendly ways and deny or refuse to entertain, in any way, the romantic or sexual yearnings that occasionally arise, or call them something else.  They may mean they have directed, suppressed, and "re-framed" their attractions to such an extent that they genuinely hardly think about it anymore and live a contentedly "straight" life.  But even if they mean the latter, I know few, if any, who achieve that stably before marrying a woman, or before their early thirties, so I'm left wondering how much of that is personal effort and how much is decreased libido and more present priorities and stresses.  Unfortunately, those who claim to have changed are understandably guarded, having been verbally assaulted and publicly mocked, so I don't expect to be able to sit down with one.

Some people I personally know have temporarily claimed, in snapshot testimonials, to have eradicated most or all of their same-sex attraction while increasing opposite-sex attraction.  But they later privately admitted they'd over-interpreted a decrease in overall sex drive, or increased opposite-sex curiosity or openness (not attraction), or behavioral changes and relationship improvements.  They'd mistaken relative absence of obsession and impulsion for lack of same-sex attraction.  Nonetheless, saying I've never seen anyone actually change from homosexual to heterosexual is not the same as saying it's absolutely impossible.  And I can only speak from my own experience and what others have told me about theirs.  I just have never seen anyone "change" in the popularly understood and deliberately intended marketing use of the word, and others who have been on the front lines of larger efforts have periodically made public admissions of similar observation.

Those who speak out in support of "change" use such cleverly crafted wording to make the intended meaning of "change" so nebulous as to obscure any distinction between their change and the sexual, spiritual growth of my straight friends.  Heterosexual friends have, seemingly likewise, reached points in their lives when they were no longer troubled by thoughts contrary to their belief system and dominated by obsessive drooling.  They've learned emotional intimacy and authenticity and learned not to act on every sexual urge.  They're no less "straight": they just...matured.

I don't point this out to keep people from taking a path I chose not to take or to defend my own.  I don't point this out to slander individuals.  I don't point this out to push legalization of marriage for same-sex couples.  I point this out because I've watched friends repeatedly engage in an exhausting effort to change their orientation which led to isolation, depression, emotional dishonesty and detachment, all of which they were convinced would be worth it.  But they haven't changed in the ways they hoped, even if they denied they hoped it.  I point this out also because I personally know what it's like to see no good to be gained from casting doubt on an ideal goal just because I and everybody I knew hadn't reached it, when in reality nobody among us had reached the legendary goal.  I point this out because I believe getting caught up in the ideal of being "fully released from the temptation of same-sex attraction" completely distracts from the truer, more practical and helpful discussion of "whether or not it ever changes, what now?"  

If hope is only found in eradication of same-sex attraction, then I know nobody who has real hope.  I concede in a theoretical way that it can possibly change for some, but if so, it's very, very few.  Not one person among the dozens I know has changed their orientation, not after Journey Into Manhood, years of therapy, years of quietly doing their own thing, or years of being married to a woman.  You might want hope it can change.  But for most of you, even among those who believe you must never engage in same-sex romantic or sexual relationships, it just won't.  Other things will change.  Your ability to cope.  Your openness to a relationship without the sexual chemistry you yearn for.  Your openness to finding real attraction with just the right person to make it work.  Your emotional stability.  Your social network and support system.  Your religious beliefs.  Your communication skills.  Your relationship intimacy.  Your emotional intelligence.  Your decisions.  Your goals.  There's a lot of hope to be found in those kinds of changes.

Maybe one day, someone will figure out a reproducible way to eradicate erotic, romantic, or sexual same-sex attraction, and political pressure will not stifle it.  Maybe some day, neurology will advance enough to re-wire anyone for heterosexuality for those who want it (I wonder how many people would choose to become bisexual to increase their options...huh...oh, right: topic at hand).  It's conceivable that there will be a way to turn same-sex attraction into opposite-sex attraction.  But today, it's just not happening for at least most people, probably all but a very select few, and possibly not for anyone.  Maybe a few have changed.  Maybe they're more righteous and hard-working.  Maybe they wanted it more.  Maybe they had just the right combination of therapy, support, desire, belief, chemistry, diligence, divine intervention, and experience.  Or maybe they're just an anomaly who understandably think their coincidental effort and desire earned or caused the change.  Maybe they're more adept at self-deception or repression.  Maybe they're twisting words to make a buck.  I don't know, and I don't much care.  I just know my friends--the people I personally care about--haven't experienced the coveted 180 degree orientation change...or even 100.  And I gave up on assuming it might be due to their supposed "lack of" anything.

Hope, I believe, is not found in the message that your "orientation" can and must "change", or that you can and should attempt to eradicate your same-sex attraction or even make opposite-sex attraction stronger than your same-sex attraction.  I believe hope is found in being told you are free to choose to live what you believe and want and that there are ways to make the best of a difficult situation.  Hope is found in recognizing the challenges ahead and trusting that you have the strength and support of people who care, not only to endure but to find fullness and joy in life.  Hope is being assured you are not a simpering victim of the lions of gay corruption or religious tyranny.  My hope was found in facing a tough probability or potential reality--that this might not completely change--dealing with it head-on, being open to what changes might be possible, and refusing to hinge my happiness and spiritual confidence on a specific kind of change that frankly does not come to most despite years of effort.  Try to change, if you feel you must, but please, please do not hinge your success, happiness, or self image on eradicating all homosexual feelings.

Change or not, you can do this, and you can find truth and happiness.  Something may have to give.  You may have to reevaluate the way you look at some things, what you believe to be true, what challenges you're willing to take on, how you see yourself, what attachments you might need to let go of, or what you most want.  But hang in there, and know that no matter if you're celibate, married in the temple, adopting children with your same sex partner, an all-around slut, or anywhere in between, you're in really good company if you still and always will most often feel something more instinctual and attractive for a hottie of the same sex walking down the street than a hottie of the opposite sex.

"Masculine" Rites of Passage

I never did see much point in arbitrary rites of passage. Even as a kid, I'd watch a documentary TV show about a tribe in Africa and see the boys all lined up for their group circumcision or their war games or whatever it was, waiting to pass through an ordeal or test of strength in order to become "men" in the eyes of their tribe, and I thought, "They are no different after the ritual than they were before. Just because they won a fight or got their penis snipped, it does not mean they're more 'men' now than they were before. They're still 15 years old and probably quite emotionally immature but will now think they have some authority or wisdom they didn't have before: I've seen it in American culture, too, and it's laughable when it's not dangerous. To me, being a man means being a mature, well-adjusted, well-rounded person who recognizes his strengths and weaknesses and is working on becoming better and who takes care of his family and treats people with kindness and is emotionally strong whether or not his body is physiologically strong or muscular and emulates Jesus the best he knows how...not someone who went through some ordeal to prove some arbitrary notions about what men are supposed to be like, or who wins a test of muscular strength, or who has had sex with a woman, or who has proven himself to be more aggressive than other men, or who has said the right words in conjunction with some ceremony...how silly."

When I received awards at scouting ceremonies, my first impulse was to roll my eyes at the formalities and hand shakes and token signs and scripts. But I thought, "There must be a good reason for it, and it's kind of fun, in a way, to be part of something official and formal: I just wish people didn't take it so very seriously because--aside from looking kind of silly to me when they're so serious about something that really didn't require any heroic effort on my part--what matters isn't the ceremony but the stuff I learned and accomplished, which isn't changed by whether I do the right salute or say the right phrase. I guess they just want to make sure we remember certain things by memorizing them, so that's OK."

And I think that's the point of ritual to me. I guess I appreciate the probability that most people are more responsive to things like fraternal orders and ceremonial formalities than I am. They just never made a lot of sense to me except as arbitrary ways of helping us remember and recognize principles and, for those who look forward to the recognition or formality, motivation to progress within certain systems of advancement usually tied to particular ideological and cultural ideals and templates. I just wasn't motivated by looking forward to another painfully formalized and pompous ceremony, so I found rites of passage to be almost a deterrent. But I appreciated the symbolism and reminders they offered. I appreciated rewards and awards but didn't want the ceremonial recognition. I was very shy, so that definitely came into play, but there was more to it on an intellectual level. Oddly, I still remember aspects of my arrow of light ceremony, which I remember thinking was overwrought, but I was still proud that I'd 'earned' it. The funny thing: I don't remember what I did to earn it or what it meant. So much for being a reminder. It probably worked at the time, for the time.

On the other hand, I remember the temple ceremony quite well and can probably recite the memorized parts but, of course, choose not to out of respect for what it is believed to mean by those who still participate in it. Somehow, the temple ceremony was different for me. I still saw it as somewhat arbitrary rites and phrases chosen to represent a deeper meaning and symbolic representation of gospel principles. I knew the ceremony had been changed over the years and that it may or may not be 100% dictated directly by God. But though most people are really weirded out by the ritual of it when they first go through, I wasn't. It seemed fine to me, not outlandish or odd. I'd been to a Catholic mass, I'd casually studied ancient religious traditions, I'd taken the stake temple prep class one-on-one, and I knew ritual was a way of engaging the adherent in a whole-body representation of the beliefs and principles taught, an interactive experience which went beyond mere spoken instruction to a more proactive kind of internalization of the ideas taught. I felt like the temple ceremony made me really think in an impacting way about what living the gospel was all about and why we make the commitments we do, and I felt like I was stepping up a bit more, manning up a bit more to a higher level of commitment than I had previously done if only by virtue of the fact that someone was now bothering to say, "Do you actively promise to dedicate yourself to X and Y?" and I was given the opportunity to explicitly state my intent and to follow through. Again, it wasn't the ritual or ceremony which mattered but what it represented, and I found personal motivation and meaning in it. Maybe part of what I appreciated about the temple as opposed to other ceremonies I'd been involved in or witnessed was that everything was very personal, not done with fanfare and individual recognition but sort of privately, one-on-one, as part of many who were doing the same rather than having any individual "recognition" beyond very private interactions I believed were meant to represent my direct relationship and connection with God.

In addition, when I 'received' the Aaronic priesthood when 12, I didn't consider myself to somehow be more of a man, but I did consider it an opportunity to learn a new level of service and to begin to learn to exercise the authority and power of God through my worthiness and dedication to the principles of the priesthood, an effort to become more like God in an eternal, steady process. It wasn't that I was becoming more of a man: it was that I was accepting the opportunity to grow personally and step up. It's a subtle difference, maybe, but a paradigm I think is tragically overlooked and ignored by many or most young men in the church who seem more fixated on the idea that they're being given some kind of badge or stripes each time they 'advance' in the priesthood or are called to serve a mission.

It's understandable, I guess, from an emotional standpoint: men are supposed to want and deserve validation as 'men' (in the social belonging sense of identifying with those who generally share similar traits as distinct from other groups, even if there are amazing, good men whose qualities are not the same as the socially traditionally ideal template), rites of passage into manhood (social recognition that they are maturing and reaching socially or culturally defined milestones which traditionally entitle them to rights and privileges not previously offered, arbitrary though they may be), affirmation and recognition for their accomplishments and learned strengths (both to motivate future progress in him being recognized, assuming he's motivated by social recognition, and to motivate others to want to work to earn the same recognition through their own personal progress), etc.

This all came up because I was reading some material on Evergreen's web site, an article by a somewhat popular author within EG circles about masculine identity (one day, maybe I'll dig into my disagreement with such people's conclusions despite my agreement with many aspects of what they say). Within various sexual orientation change circles, there's a strong trend towards masculine identification exercises and what I think is regarded as a return to a sort of primal, tribal brotherhood notion. I find it all a bit overwrought still, as if those pushing it believe it's the only or best way to motivate and bring accountability into men's lives. I may not feel a drive to be involved with ritualistic or fraternal order groups, but I recognize that we all have formal and informal social systems and that, generally speaking, most people are happiest when they have social order and structure in their lives and tend to progress more steadily with accountability and incentive in place, including social recognition and reinforcement through formal ceremony. I also recognize that a key way values and principles have been maintained and preserved throughout history is through established ritual and symbolic ceremony, regardless of whether I think there are or should be better ways. So I don't have a problem with formalized or fraternal "orders" which engage in more or less formal "ritual" as long as they're recognized for what they are--a social mechanism and symbolic representation of underlying principles--and not given magical importance in and of themselves, used to emotionally manipulate those who aren't cognitively aware of why they feel so "affirmed" and "strengthened" but just assume that everything being taught to them is right because of how good it feels to them to be a part of some grand brotherhood of men, or given free license to commit grave errors of action and thought because their members fear to lose the camaraderie should they challenge the status quo.

Unfortunately, I think fraternal orders almost always have more of that influence than I'm comfortable with, and I don't believe the benefits typically outweigh that effect. But then, I'm not the kind of man they draw to begin with...

Overrated Experience (Memoirs of the never-therapized, Part 1)

Those who know me well would almost definitely say I don't err on the side of jumping into new experiences recklessly and without looking. They'd say I err on the side of analyzing objectively until opportunities pass. They'd most likely, possibly, perhaps, maybe be right. At least in many instances. But when something is important or exciting to me, I do most often act on it and engage with few expectations or preconceived notions about what the experience ought to be like. See, the thing I like about my approach is that I recognize that a) until you've experienced something firsthand, you can't know exactly what it's like to experience it, and b) most experiences are what you make of them, in the end. Therefore, I have few regrets and have had many positive experiences. But there are always those who say, "Well, you can have all the ideas about it you want, but unless you've tried it, you don't know, do you? So I invite you to come experience it and see for yourself if it works, or if it's right for you."

OK, cult-master, sure, I'll set aside any reservations to join your program. *wink* OK, so not everyone who says that is a cultist. But seriously, folks, this kind of argument can be said about most things. Does that mean you're going to engage in such things just because enough people 'testify' it has been good for them? What if most of your friends had tried something, and they all said they had good experiences, even if they don't agree with the ideas behind everything they experienced? Would you set aside concerns about what is attached to those experiences, or ideas that you believe to be wrong or destructive, in order to give a fair chance to the experience? Whether or not you would, should you?

I think most LDS people have their ideas about Pentecostalism and whether writhing on the floor screaming gibberish is really what the gifts of the Spirit are all about. But I've had friends who were Pentecostal who told me I had to experience it for myself to know the power and joy of spiritual gifts. They said you can't know until you trust the Spirit and experience it for yourself. I politely declined, thanks.

So what if most of your friends, whom you love and know to be really good people, are Pentecostal or keep joining Pentecostal churches? Some of them admit they don't know if it's all quite what it's cracked up to be, and they may have stopped going, but they really enjoyed the experience of going and have learned principles that have been helpful in their lives, and they've had emotional experiences that have really been cathartic for them. I think most LDS people believe that of course you can get caught up in a mob frenzy of emotion and can think it's some divine manifestation because you feel something powerful, but they'd be skeptical.

I think most LDS people would listen--but skeptically--when a Pentecostal tells them their spiritual gift experience was life-changing. I think most LDS people would acknowledge that maybe they had some spiritual experience and may have even learned something profound about themselves or about eternity but that surely writhing and screaming was incidental to that. They might even study the concept and read the scriptures to see if that's really what it's supposed to be like or if their understanding fits better. They might consider going to the Pentecostal's services just to say they did and being open to whatever comes, but they might be hesitant because if they don't experience a Pentecostal's idea of 'gifts of the Spirit', they know the Pentecostals will likely just think they weren't truly open to it, and they know it's not going to prove anything to them anyway, and they don't feel a need to try it for themselves. When their Pentecostal friends talk about what their church services do for them, how they fill them, the LDS person recognizes that they both believe in a need for God in their lives but either doesn't identify with those particular motivations or feels quite similarly fulfilled by their own church services. And if they did go and experience something, they couldn't be sure it wasn't the devil playing a trick on them.

Or maybe the LDS person agrees the Pentecostal may have had some kind of authentic experience, and they can respect that each person has their own experiences with the Spirit, but that needn't be everyone's experience, and they're still pretty skeptical about its authenticity, and one needn't go to a Pentecostal church to learn those things. But whatever the LDS person's reasons for not going, or not experiencing the gifts of the Spirit if they do go, to many of the Pentecostals, the LDS person has never dared to give God the chance to manifest himself in the most glorious ways. And maybe for some of the more open-minded among them, they shrug and say God works in different ways with each of us. Maybe they acknowledge that not everyone receives the same spiritual gifts, but the LDS person's own lack of that gift or reluctance to try bears no weight in whether the Pentecostals' experiences being overcome by the Spirit are completely authentic.

I do have to say that I don't personally regard the Pentecostal concept of spiritual gifts the same as I regard therapies of homosexuality (while I'm skeptical of both, I admittedly think Pentecostalism is more 'out there'), but what I'm trying to illustrate is the general thoughts and emotions around relative experiences. Perhaps in this sense, some promulgators or fans of certain therapies of homosexuality can relate to _my_ view of those therapies and exercises and understand that if I choose not to engage in them, it's not just about me being dismissive or not giving them a chance. But I do have to acknowledge that no, I have never been to a therapist. I'm pretty sure, though, that if I had, and I still arrived at the perspective I have today, there would be a supposed slew of reasons why my therapy was ineffective or why I didn't quite do it right or lacked the right support system. If it did change me in some significant way, I would be another loss to tragically unnecessary, damaging self-deception. Therefore, if I ever do try it, it will not be to prove anything to anyone who doesn't already think one way or another, because it wouldn't prove anything even if I intended it to, either way.

Ted Cox presentation on JIM and ex-gay movement

I've found this presentation by Ted Cox, a straight, ex-LDS writer who went to a JIM weekend undercover and shares his experience and interpretations, pretty interesting, although he does tend to fall into the tendency to dismiss ideas based on personal choices of certain of those who espouse and promulgate them, and he clearly has a bias. But so do the creators of JIM, so...y'know. One thing I find interesting is that I've found myself nodding at many points but saying, "Eh, now wait a minute, that's not entirely on-point," at others.

If you're uncomfortable with some crude language and humor, you might want to skip over the first 2 1/2 minutes. In fact, up until about 4:45 of part 1 is just intro stuff that's not necessarily relevant. There's incidental language throughout the rest, but nothing too in-your-face, from what I've seen in the first 6 parts so far. To get to the rest of the parts, either watch this until the end and follow the links in the video, or click on the video to bring up a YouTube page with some of them listed on the right.

Pioneering paths and pitfalls

Note: this post began as a comment on my previous post and became a monster.



JIM SKEPTICISM

As is reflected in many of my posts, I'm quite skeptical of aspects of JIM, which skepticism is partially why I don't know if I'd ever be welcome even if I did have the money for it...that and my non-theist bent...and refusal to unquestioningly accept, even if I'd listen to and consider, a "life coach's" insistence about the causes and sources of my deepest emotional needs in a moment of cathartic vulnerability.


JIM BENEFITS?

But I've always said I don't doubt I could learn a lot about myself from one of those weekends, even if I am comfortable being my own man whether or not I fit anyone else's idea of "masculinity" and whether or not I think the weekend has anything to do with changing my attractions. ...And whether or not I think some valuable tools and true principles are attached to potentially completely wrong paradigms and assumptions, something I admit I may not be able to know unless I actually went and experienced it for myself...kind of like being in a healthy same-sex relationship, eh? But hey, reservations aside, I've been learning to 'follow my heart' and be willing to experience and listen to different things and take the good from them that I find and leave the stuff I consider superfluous or invalid.

I could imagine going to a JIM weekend under no false pretense if allowed, learning some cool stuff about myself and gaining clarity on a thing or two, quietly acknowledging the exercises or ideas I think are overwrought or contrived without imposing my skepticism on someone else's experience, maybe being surprised by the intensity of my own experience, giving consideration to the explanations given, and using what's useful and disagreeing with what I think is wrong, being open to the possibility that much less is wrong than I suspected.


ODDS AGAINST MOMS?

As for the statistical odds for 'mixed-orientation marriages', I don't know that I've seen reliable studies about it, but my observations seem to confirm that they aren't great. After all, I personally know several people who couldn't hold their marriages together, say they are happier in a long-term same-sex relationship than they ever were in their marriage with someone of the opposite sex, or who have held their marriages together but who (whether the SSA person or the spouse or both) confide to a few that they're quite unhappy and don't know if happiness is ahead but will probably never end the marriage out of obligation to their children and covenants, making it look to most people like a 'successful' marriage just because they're still together. I know many gay people who say they've never known a gay person in a mixed-orientation marriage who didn't eventually get divorced, didn't cheat on their spouse (usually often), and didn't confide in them that they weren't happy. But most of these cases, when pressed, admit their homosexuality either was not discussed before marrying, still hasn't been discussed or addressed openly, or was only discussed after being caught cheating or viewing pornography and therefore 'didn't go so well' and was off to a rough start.


HUNTING FOR HAPPY MOMS

I believe there are happy MOMs, but in order to know the couples who are happily married, you probably have to be in the right 'circles'. You often don't find them at Pride, or otherwise hanging out in 'out and proud' circles, or frequenting comments on The Advocate. They're most often quietly living their lives, often relying on a support network of other similar couples. Maybe they'll 'go public' more as society learns to accept and tolerate them, rather than pigeonholing them as doomed to failure and a threat to gay self-acceptance, and they're free to 'come out'. I personally also know several mixed-orientation couples who have been happily married for years, some for well over 15 years, a couple for decades. And because I personally know some of them fairly well, and a couple of them very well, I don't find it hard to believe they are, in fact, as happily married as any other married couple. Many or most of these were communicating openly about the issue from the beginning, and almost all of the rest weren't but have become so, with support systems in place for both spouses to help them through. Some observers say they'd rather not 'have to' have such a support system to stay married, myself included, but that's every individual's choice to make. Many of these have had rough spots, maybe more so than your average couple or maybe not--I can't know for sure. But they also usually confidently say they wouldn't trade what they have for the world and are glad they married and/or are glad they stayed together. And I typically believe them. But yes, many of them have been married fewer than 10 years. We'll see, but how disgusting might it feel to know the vultures are just waiting for your relationship to fail? I believe in optimism tempered with realism, but when it comes to hoping for friends' happiness, I try to let faith win out.


WHAT ABOUT SUBSETS?

Probable statistical odds conceded, we don't know the statistical odds for the subset of couples who married having communicated openly about the issue before marrying and throughout the marriage, having done therapy and support group work to explore their emotional needs and fill desires and needs for friendship and non-sexual intimacy in certain ways, developing their sex life, etc. Whether it's about "changing orientation" or about coping mechanisms or emotional fulfillment, I'd guess the success rates of that particular subset are much higher--though even if so there will still be ended/failed marriages, yes, and I wouldn't know what consolation to offer those in that group--than those who "had the right intentions" and tried to "make it work" in a diffuse sort of way or maybe even went to couple's counseling. It's possible that of the however many percent of mixed-orientation marriages which ARE successful and happy, many of those share common threads which, if identified and applied on a larger scale, could greatly improve similar marriages. Who knows? Some try seemingly weird things in the process of learning what makes the best relationships tick, and unless there's demonstrable evidence that particular practices are harmful for all people, why not focus on cautioning those who want to try them rather than simply squashing the whole thing? As for JIM in general, my personal conversations and reading tell me claims that the weekend was traumatizing or harmful overall are the very small minority. But these are the kinds of questions some are willing (and yes, sometimes desperate) to explore and experiment on because it matters so much to them to try, both the gay/SSA people and the ones who love them and want to be with them, challenges and all.


"I NEED A HERO!"

I am concerned about guys who see examples like Preston's and think, "He's my hero! I'm going to be just like him!" First of all, Preston's journey and those of others who have done similarly are unique to each person in their challenges and timelines, and their journeys aren't as perfect as many guys wishing for the same seem to think when they see stuff like this Nightline condensation of the last several years of his life in a snapshot now. When do you think people agree to be interviewed for shows like that? When they're struggling and down, or when they're on a high and have been doing pretty darn well for a while? Do you think they're never going to have some down times again in their long, gradual personal progress, at least like anyone else in the world dealing with a long-term challenge? There have been times I'm pretty sure they'd describe as 'difficult', not just an 'adventure', especially when they don't feel pressured to represent an organization or program which has helped them approach those difficulties better equipped and with more courage but are speaking on a purely personal level. But though I may wish they'd be more up front about it, many of them will admit to honest questioners and newcomers privately, where it can be discussed in a trusting environment, that it's not always easy, and they'll discuss the challenges and realities, and they'll reassert their belief that it's been worth it and is getting better all the time with the things they've been learning. Many of those I know try to help others learn from, rather than repeat, whatever mistakes they may have made and prepare them for the inevitable ups and downs by sharing what has brought them greater peace and happiness each step of the way. Such is the pattern of pioneering, mentorship, building on the knowledge and experience of those who dared to go before, whether or not the idea or practice being pioneered proves 'true' in the long run or right for everyone.


TO EACH HIS OWN

I've never let anyone showing me statistics about the success rates or longevity of gay relationships or 'explaining' to me the realities/superficiality of homosexual love make my decision for me as to whether I dare to try to defy the odds or find out for myself what that love can be. I've processed the information I've found and referred back to my own perceptions, experience, beliefs, and 'moral compass'. I've asserted there were other confounding factors involved, and my experience needn't be that of the majority, particularly if I wasn't going about it in the way the majority seems to. I wonder if I'd have a harder time forging my own path if I lived in a time when the majority of the scientific community did think homosexuality was a mental disorder, and you'd have been hard-pressed to find a gay man who believed in monogamy and long-term commitment between two men, much less had lived it.

I've also seen guys (and gals) try to do all the 'right' things, go to the 'right' groups, and keep the 'right' perspectives, and end up bleak and unhappy, a few even attempting to take their own lives when they can't understand why they're not so 'successful' and happy in that path as their testifying counterparts seem to be. I want to make sure folks like that know that there are options, that they haven't lost their only hope if they can't seem to bring themselves to marry a woman (or a woman to marry a man) in whatever timeline they'd imagined. I want them to know how to find others who won't insist they abandon their personal beliefs, values, or principles in order to conform to a prepackaged path.

I cannot make the decision for anyone else or predict who will thrive in a certain path and who will despair...nor presume to know exactly why. The best I can do is raise a voice of caution when I'm genuinely concerned, show others what has worked for me, listen to and learn from the experiences of others, encourage others to seek truth and happiness the best they know how and to live by their proven values and principles rather than letting anyone else prescribe their decisions, offer my ear and voice as they explore, and offer my hand if they want to walk with me.


PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

If a mixed-sex couple in which one spouse experiences predominant same-sex attraction grow old together, having a rich and fulfilling life together with their children and grandchildren, I suspect hearing "well, you were the exception to the rule" or "your example led to suicides of those who never knew you, never bothered to ask you about the realities of your situation or whether you believed all people should do it the way you did it, bought into a version of your story promulgated by those who thought you would fail, and consequently despaired when they didn't become straight within a year or two like they presumptuously thought you had" is highly unlikely to quell their gratitude for their decision to determine their own path to truth and happiness.

And I will determine mine.

Nightline's Journey Into Manhood

Note: For a more complete picture of my views on Journey Into Manhood and related efforts, see my blog entries marked with the labels Journey Into Manhood or Therapy of Homosexuality.



I was going to title this "JIM-Dandies on Nightline", but a friend who has been quite heavily involved with JIM for quite some time seemed genuinely offended when I said "JIM-dandies" a few weeks ago, and though I've wondered how he couldn't see that it's not meant to be "pejorative" as he said but good-natured ribbing, cheekiness isn't what this post is about, so I refrained...except for this paragraph. *smirk*

Nightline finally aired a story about Journey Into Manhood they filmed this summer, and it's a bit shorter than I expected, and less a personal narrative than I had the impression it would be, but it seems like a pretty fair approach to the issue of certain efforts of guys to deal with "unwanted same-sex attraction", probably as balanced as I've seen on any major news media.

The weekend portrayed was a reunion of sorts, not an actual, regular JIM weekend. The report included some exercises, but not nearly all of them. There are more intense and personalized exercises throughout the weekend, I understand. The ones portrayed in the report reminded me of some in which I participated at an Evergreen Conference in 2006 or 2007, when Rich Wyler presented about the experiential weekend in a workshop. For example, I was to stand face-to-face with another workshop attendee, just inside our comfort bubble, look into each other's eyes, and think of the "story" I was telling myself about who he is, why he's here, where he came from, what his traits are, etc. And hold the stare despite discomfort, paying attention to the feelings arising in that discomfort, letting them surface. Were we feeling vulnerable? Were we laughing nervously? Did we want to look away? Why? Etc. Not life-changing, but interesting and instructive. He told us this and a couple of others we did were just a small sample of the more intensive, deeper exercises we could expect from the weekend if we were to go.

But regardless of whether we got any real feel for the weekend from the story, I think I'm glad the story has been told. And to be honest, what stood out to me more than anything about the Journey Into Manhood weekend was just the personal perspective and story of a gay guy who married a woman and is choosing his path forward. I won't comment in much detail about the subjects, Preston and Megan specifically, since I do know them personally. I'll just say I believe them when they say they're doing well now, they're happy, and they're looking forward to their new addition to the family!

I have to admit that when the reporter talked about Preston achieving his dream of becoming a father, my heart swelled a little at the thought, and despite fighting some resentment towards him in connection with feeling like he contributed personally to my pain this summer, I couldn't help but feel warmly happy for him and Megan because I, too, have always hoped to one day have a family. I know that dream. I believe in its joy. And while I'm busy trying to sort out whether I'm prepared for the challenges of building a family with another man or the challenges of building a family with a woman, he is actually living that dream.

I couldn't help but feel a glimmer of a wish that I could have that, the picture I had in my head when I was young, before I realized my own attractions weren't geared towards women. I couldn't help but acknowledge my recurring notion over the past month that maybe I'm not cut out for this whole gay crusader thing, or not interested in the struggles accompanying same-sex companionship, and would be better off finding a woman who's willing to take on the challenge if I am, or at least being open and available should such a woman come along. In that state of mind, I've considered doing whatever it takes, whatever others have experienced as working for them to work towards being prepared for that step--marriage with a woman--even if I don't necessarily have the same motivations for doing it or ascribe all of the same explanations to the exercises.

Maybe I want to "drink the Kool-Aid" if the end result is the kind of happiness I have always most wanted and if the alternatives just don't work for me. Maybe I can't "have it all", and I have to choose what I most want and value, and what I most want and value can be found with a woman as well as with a man. Maybe I'll find that if/when a woman comes along for whom I genuinely fall, as I'd need to in order to marry in good conscience, it won't feel like a compromise after all, like being with a guy hasn't felt like the compromise I once thought it would be.

In that light, making this admission (which admission I suppose may anger, frustrate, or elate some of you), and at the risk of validating what they're saying by questioning rather than "confidently" decrying their dastardly self-deception, how can I blame the guy I dated for choosing to end whatever we had to try to find happiness similar to what such a good guy as Preston testifies has worked for him? And if I can experience what I'm thinking and feeling without even bringing God into the equation, how can I possibly demean anyone for wanting to try efforts to reject a "gay identity" in favor of hope for heterosexual marriage which will bring less friction socially and will allow them to procreate with their spouse, especially when they believe such marriage is key to celestial glory and that same-sex companionship is not only strictly temporal but also completely opposed to a most fundamental 'purpose' of our existence?

Whether or not I would do it exactly like Preston or think it's "right" to do it exactly like he has, how can I not feel love for his happiness and respect for his and Megan's right to pursue what they want according to their beliefs and desires? As much as I worry their story may seduce many young men into years of unnecessary conflict before realizing it didn't have to be that way and there is growth, joy, and love in value- and principle-based living outside of the JIM or reparative paradigm, I can't possibly fault Preston and Megan for wanting to share their experience, to make their story known to those who would like a similar life for themselves. And as much as I believe their past hasn't always been so sunny, I can't help but set aside childishly defensive cynicism in order to take them at face value and just be genuinely happy that they're happy.


On that vein, I enjoyed the end of this clip (from 4:10 on):



NOTE: For some reason, the video isn't working lately on ABC's web site, but you can see it on Hulu, and the clip I refer to at the end begins at 19:54. I'll embed it below:

Touch me healthily

Note: for the "short version", skip to the bolded paragraph of questions. That's what this post started with. It became a monster. Not my fault. It's just what my sometimes hyperactive brain does. I'm genetically programmed this way, and I wouldn't change it if there were a pill, so there.


SHUT UP AND HOLD ME

OK, I have my fair share of thoughts on the theories of holding therapy or "healthy touch" as it relates to therapy of homosexuality (as opposed to "healthy touch" for victims of physical abuse or therapeutic holding for those with attachment disorders, for example, although I'd guess they're all related to theories of underlying developmental causes of homosexuality), as far as I understand it, which, I've found, is at least considerably more than the average skeptic, most of whom think it's totally nutty when they hear about it, so they don't bother to learn any more.


YOU WANNA TOUCH MY WHAT?

First of all, as far as I know, when done in the "correct" therapeutic way, "healthy touch" or "therapeutic holding" is done with clothing on, is done with at least one objective third party present and with full knowledge of any spouses, doesn't include laying down together in bed, is more about embracing than caressing, is just part of a larger, concerted whole effort to connect with and affirm one's own latent masculine identity, is supposed to include a sort of father-surrogate role for the holder, ideally a straight man (I've heard of a couple who have actually been willing to help a buddy out in that way), etc. It's not the same as cuddling with someone you feel affection for, even without the feelings of attraction by which most of us are motivated to cuddle with someone.


GOTTA BE HONEST: I MISS MY VERSION OF HEALTHY TOUCH

I've said before that I've had friends I trusted and had no attraction to with whom I've cuddled, or who have held me, or I them, in difficult times or just to express affection and trust. As I've had experiences where I've discovered not everyone is good at separating physical contact from sexual urges, I've backed away, but to be frank, I do miss having friends I can just rest my head on or snuggle up with to watch a movie. I do still have friends I can kinda do that with, but they're relatively few, and experience has brought caution, and I miss the broader innocence of what I saw as non-sexual affection, my own perception of healthy touch. I think the world could benefit a lot from more physical connection without always interweaving sexuality into it. There's something calming and reassuring about knowing you can literally lean on someone you trust and give or receive supportive affection without sexual tension or suspicion of motives. It could be a female friend or a guy friend, but there's something about it being a guy friend that's just more...comfortable...or comforting?

I know. Some of you are thinking "HELLO THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE GAY!" But I'm not sure that simple statement explains it, if what you're implying is I like it more because I fall for guys because some of the friends I've been affectionate with are those I've not been the least bit attracted to physically. It's been more of a brotherly thing. And yes, I've known a couple of guys who were affectionate with their brothers...though spooning was probably not part of that, let's be honest.


AH-HA! YOU JUST CONFIRMED REPARATIVE THEORY!

Reparatives might jump on this and say it makes total sense that I'd feel more secure and fulfilled cuddling with guys because it has to do with my underlying need for male attachment which wasn't met in "normal" ways, the same developmental hiccup which led to the sexualization of that need: homosexuality. And then I'm supposed to say, "Oh my gosh...that so makes sense! That's why I want non-sexual affection from guys I trust!"

But I can't help but wonder: do straight guys sometimes like to be close to female friends for whom they don't feel sexual attraction? What about if they're the kinda guy who doesn't think he's allowed to think about a girl sexually, let alone touch her? And assuming they're not all weird about homophobia, do they find the same kind of comfort in physical expressions of affection with guy friends, or is a nice cuddle with a female just...different? Female friends are more physically expressive with their affection towards each other. Is cuddling with a guy friend different for them even when they're not attracted?


THE QUESTIONS THAT GOT THIS WHOLE, LONG POST STARTED: WHAT IF YOU PUT A STRAIGHT GUY THROUGH HOLDING THERAPY?

And I've always speculated: what if you take a pent-up straight guy, tell him his strong sexual urges towards girls are based on unmet feminine connection, tell him he needs to surrender to his need for the love and affirmation of women when he's felt rejected by women his whole life, have him hold and be held by women, some not so attractive, some smokin' hot, tell him it's natural that he should get an erection but "what goes up must come down" but that his response will decrease as he gets used to the experience, and he needs to just experience the affirmative and supportive contact and let his defenses down and just take in the affirming energy this woman is giving him, breaking down into tears if necessary over the years of rejection and resentment? Would he experience great healing and confidence from this, not to mention demystifying and desexualizing physical contact with women? Wouldn't he experience a healthier sense of sexuality and diminished cravings for physical contact with women if he knew he was going to regularly have these intimate holding sessions with women which taught him to see them as people with whom to connect rather than as sexual objects?


EVEN IF IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BECOMING STRAIGHT

I'm not saying "healthy touch" is useless: I'm just saying...I think it's more of a mindtrick or filler than therapy. The difference between me and most poopoo-ers of holding therapy is that I say, "Yeah, I don't think it's making anyone less gay, but if it's a tool that helps someone live more happily in his marriage or keeps a guy from tapping his foot in bathroom stalls or helps someone focus on finding a wife rather than dating guys, and his wife (if he has one) isn't threatened by it and supports him doing it, then why concern myself with it? Even if I don't believe it's doing what he thinks it's doing, and even if he keeps doing it his whole life rather than having the therapy just work and fulfill him, if it's helping him live happily with what he believes to be absolute truth, then why should he stop?"


BUT BUT BUT...

Of course, those who've bought into it and believed the stories from its practitioners about it diminishing their homosexuality and/or developing their masculinity and heterosexuality and only to look back years later regretting they convinced themselves of something which wasn't true after all, might have just cause to raise caution to others they don't want to see waste their time like they did. And I've gotta be honest, it grosses me out to think someone I loved and saw myself potentially having a great relationship with might trade our companionship, affection, commitment, mutual improvement, and investment for a possible lifetime of what might be substitutional coping mechanisms, including holding therapy, just in order to live a heterosexuality-congruent lifestyle.

But hey, if a guy truly believes that a same-sex relationship is absolutely not an option for him, for personal or religious reasons, or he believes he has unmet needs which are fulfilled by holding and other therapy, and regular therapy and/or holding brings him greater peace in his marriage or search thereof and confidence as a current or prospective husband and father regardless of whether he's any more heterosexual overall than he used to be, then I have to set aside my dismay. I have to set aside the nagging thoughts, "But I would have fulfilled that for you along with all the love I could offer and a possible lifetime of joy together as productive partners and parents without the need for holding therapy if only you had been able to believe it was right."

And then there's the fact that I've always (well, in adulthood, at least) believed partners or spouses rarely if ever are or have been absolutely everything to each other anyway. To expect your spouse to fulfill every single one of your needs is unfair and unrealistic, I think. Men usually still need time with the guys. Women usually still need ladies' nights. Even in a gay partnership, I think I'd still want my guys' nights alone with buddies sometimes. There are emotional benefits to having various relationships of different kinds, and what one couple may find in each other, another must seek in good friendships to find their balance.

And yeah, it's "weird" for most of us to think of people "getting their needs met" through physical affection outside of their marriage. I think most women would not be OK with their husbands going to even chaperoned "holding nights" where they'd be essentially cuddling with other women, nor would husbands be keen on their wives going to a holding group with a bunch of men, but the comparison isn't direct, and the situation for a marriage involving at least one same-sex attracted spouse is unique. So isn't that really up to the couple and their own assessment of what will make their marriage successful? Who am I to question their own, personal, uniquely tailored pursuit of happiness?


OK, O-MO, SO YOU SUPPORT 'HEALTHY TOUCH'?

As a method of increasing one's straightness, I think it's mostly bunk. As some sort of healing connection with one's own latent but damaged masculinity, I think it's mostly bunk. As a "safe" way of finding some affection and connection with trusted men without resorting to sex when a guy believes he is to refrain completely from any romantic or sexual involvement with other men, I think you should portray it as a sexual repression defuser or male affection session rather than trying to claim it's a straightening practice 'cause I know of just one part of you it's likely to straighten, and the rest...well...I can't presume to know any better than the guy who does it whether he's any less "gay", but let's just say I don't see a lot of guys finding their heterosexuality and leaving the holding therapy. I know several guys who have been to Journey Into Manhood weekends and recommend them who say they enjoy healthy touch and "feel better and more centered" after it but don't believe it has anything to do with making anyone straight.

But as a way to fulfill certain drives for affection or trust- and friendship-based intimacy in a safe way to reduce stress from sexual appetites or even tension around your self-perceptions and confidence, if it works for you, and it's done "correctly", and if your spouse--if you're married--supports it, I've gotta say I'm OK with it even if it does seem odd to people who don't agree with religious beliefs against homosexual relationships that anyone would "need" to do that rather than just pursuing a relationship which wholly fulfills that need. Religious conviction about the sinfulness of all same-sex relationships is powerful, and you're not going to just change someone's mind about that, so they're going to do whatever it takes, even things you think are "weird", to live within that context, and hey, if it's that or not finding ways to live within their self-imposed boundaries, why not let them do the best they know how?

As I said, even if it is a mind trick rather than actual therapy, a mind trick that helps you find temporary confidence and connection and reduced anxiety is probably better than living without anything to cope, right? Or would you rather they suffer in order to "recognize" what they're denying themselves of and date men, thereby validating your decision to do so or reducing the confusion of outsiders who don't understand that these men aren't really, truly straight, so they stop hounding you to do the same with statements like, "If only you tried like so-and-so does..." I think there are other ways of learning confidence, masculine identification (if that's necessary for mental health), interpersonal intimacy, and anxiety reduction more permanently, but gosh, until you've found those, I'm not comfortable telling anyone to refrain from doing...whatever works and doesn't harm anyone else.

Thoughts? Research? References?

Wreck

So much for nothing to say. Angst and pain and loss make for an effective verbal laxative, eh?

I'm not gonna hide it. I'm not going to pretend I've kept my chin up and maintained a positive outlook. I'm a wreck. But I've had OK moments and down moments. I've been among the living, not holed up and refusing to eat or bathe. But I've been breaking down almost randomly here and there. Sunday was hard. Monday was actually relatively good. I think the tears only came briefly maybe half a dozen times that day. Yesterday was possibly the worst day so far for various reasons. Maybe the pattern makes me due for a decent day today. I've only broken into tears once so far this morning, right when I woke up (which I think has been the case every day since Saturday night).

I ache to my core for what was lost so suddenly. I don't believe it needed to be lost but understand, to an extent, why it was. It was a short-lived relationship, but we spent a lot of time together in that short span and made a lot of memories, and it was getting steadily better (I thought), and though I'd had doubts about whether we were right for each other in some ways or whether it could possibly last or whether family matters were worth sticking through, I had decided to weather those doubts because the essentials of a quality relationship were there, and most of the relationship was just beautifully uplifting, productive, and, I think, mutually beneficial. As I stuck through those doubts, they had begun to resolve, and I was feeling really good about where we were going and glad we were moving ahead healthily and slowly but fairly steadily. I had ample reason to believe he felt the same, but I may have been missing something. It seems odd to me that I'm so broken up over something I suspected might be coming, in a relationship which I considered walking away from a time or two myself. I think part of that is that I compounded my emotional investment and risk by sticking with it and discovering that my cold feet were probably fear of things becoming "too good" between us and knowing how much it would hurt if he were to change his mind at some point, which I knew was a possibility, and with the decision to see it through despite the risk, I made myself that much more invested...and vulnerable.

I feel like a newly-found "home" was yanked away. I felt "at home" with him from the beginning, a feeling which was increasingly and consistently present throughout the time we dated. That's a rare quality, I think, and one I value. The loss accentuated my worry that it will be extremely hard to find someone with whom I feel so at "home" who will want me back, especially for more than an experiment or stepping stone, despite whatever they say to keep me around while they're figuring that out.

I hope the many sweet, happy, laugh-inducing, thoughtful, meaningful, and touching memories I have from the relationship won't be lost in my confusion and anger over how he ended it, as I hope with fervor that they aren't looked back on with contempt or shame or dismissal by the one with whom those memories were so lovingly made. I fear that he will think of what we had as nothing but a passing fancy, a mirage, the silly playthings of a relationship which can't possibly fulfill despite what he told me during the time we were together. Had he not decided it wasn't an option for him, I imagine the kind of relationship and life we could have built as being something most people envy. I know that sounds overly romantic or silly to say after only three months, and that may be. But I can only hope that, male or female (again, a discussion for another post), I find that again.

I've fantasized about some future day, when experiences have been gained and theories explored and changes made, when we'll come back together and resurrect what we had with renewed perspective and commitment, but I mourn it all over each time I remind myself I don't at all believe that will happen. And part of me isn't sure I want it to, but that may be defensiveness, not wanting to be burned again.

I'm fighting a sense of betrayal, irrational though it may be, towards the many friends whom I've kept close who are part of the system which lured away the one in whom I was so invested, in whom I'd knowingly taken such a risk. I feel like they unnecessarily robbed me of my greatest hope for a meaningful relationship by framing it disingenuously with their theories, and I don't feel safe with them right now because of it. I know they aren't responsible for his choice to pursue something I didn't know he would find so seductive, but I still feel like they're implicit and know they will be the ones offering him support for having made "the right decision" and entering the "right path" (i.e. the one away from me), adversaries to a relationship which brought me such joy with someone I cared so much about. It's like battle lines have been drawn, and our abstract differences have now become concrete in a very real and personal way. And for now, I don't have the strength to "get over it" or step back from it and be objective. Yet my anger has, in moments, mingled with sympathy for his parents who probably struggled with similar feelings towards me when he chose to be with me in the first place and, in their minds, give up exaltation.

I feel like everything I'm doing in life absolutely pales in comparison to the development of a relationship like we had but more sustainable, so a feeling of not only homelessness but purposelessness has set in. I know I need to be productive and contribute in meaningful ways to society and to individuals in my life. I want to find meaningful work, preferably some that pays well, though pay seems ever less important over time, and I want to find meaningful and engaging opportunities for service and civic engagement, but I also have this overarching sense that there's not enough time in life to do everything I want, and if I had to choose one thing to accomplish, it would be to have a quality relationship with a great person and hopefully raise children or otherwise make a difference, and let the rest come into place around that rather than having to "fit" a relationship in somewhere. Feeling hopeless about being able to do that thing which matters most makes everything else seem piddly. But as I recover emotionally, I'll probably experience renewed drive to engage myself.

As I write this, I'm feeling increased hopefulness and motivation. I expect this feeling will wax and wane. I guess getting some things off my chest and putting thoughts in semi-coherent form helps with that, as does a full night's rest (though interrupted once) for the first time since the break-up, not to mention a couple of no-holds-barred emotional releases yesterday. I think I've hit the bottom and am on my slow way back up. We'll see. It's time for some changes, and I'm feeling ready to do almost anything at this point (disconnect from certain friendships in order to 'move on', pack up two suitcases and head to Europe for who-knows-what, jump into school somewhere, see a career counselor, date women to be done with all of this social pressure and self-doubt baggage, even *gasp* go to JIM just so people can no longer say "he can't credibly criticize something he's never been to" and because I expect it could be an interesting learning experience even if it has nothing to do with 'healing' masculinity or 'resolving homosexuality'(as I suspect), etc). And as they teach in places like Evergreen Conferences, it's best to act quickly while your resolve is fresh and emotions are high because that perpetuates the commitment and creates a sense of value before rationales and doubts (or valid, rational counterpoints) develop.

Maybe it's time to try being more...impulsive.

...in which O-Mo announces he's going hetero.

That's it. I've been meeting a few gay dudes, mostly online through a compatibility dating site or what I call "the gay Facebook". Admittedly, it's only been half a dozen or so. But suddenly, I meet a friend of a friend (my preferred way to meet someone), and the bar for quick and natural connection, complete with attraction, has been raised above anything in recent memory, let alone among the gay dudes I've been meeting, and who was it? It was a conflicted moho, the punk. My idea of who's right for me may shift with time and experience, but forget it: it's too late. I give up. It's over. Bring on the women now that gay, non-LDS men all pale in comparison to yet another attractive, conflicted moho. Gosh.

Yep, I'm going hetero. If I met and married a woman, my family and friends can be more fully happy when I get married without that "oh, we're so happy you've found happiness even though we wish it had been with a woman and didn't eternally damn you from the highest kingdom of glory". And I wouldn't have to struggle with all that "rights" hooey and wondering how we'll have kids, and who would be legally able to adopt them, and whether they'd stay with their daddy if their other daddy died, etc. It's just so much to take on when you're not content with the carefree Gaga-worship life. With a woman, I don't have to be a pioneer of social change or live in a way that brings inherent stress and complication to my life and that of my theoretical future family. I could have my own biological children with a wife whose biological children they are, too. It'd be the "natural" way, filling the measure of our creation, taking joy in our posterity, yadda yadda yadda. None of this heteronormativity within a homosexual context blah blah blah.

Heck, maybe I'll just start going back to church while I'm at it and go back to being the good LDS boy who "just hasn't found the right one yet". It'd certainly be easier on my social life and help me meet people who share my values, even if many do primarily because they'll be ostracized or disciplined if they don't. Some of them are sincere and would live similarly without the watchful eye of accountability to an institutional patriarchy and nosy neighbors. And I could have ready-made community waiting for me wherever I go again, people to help move, etc. That'd be nice, right? Cute little invitations to ward events taped to my freshly painted door, people who come to my home to share a message I've already read and act interested in whether they can do anything for me once a month, casseroles brought to me when I'm injured...it's quite lovely in some ways. I could get used to the whole "God" thing again, and LDS theology. I did it for a few decades, I could go back. It'd be nice to tell myself some of the more hopeful ideas are true. Oh, and I could stop mentally replacing the words "God" and "Christ" with "Truth" and "love", and replacing "commandments" and "church standards" with "true principles" and "wise decisions" when listening to talks to make them applicable. I'd have doctrinal and cultural clutter to deal with, so I'd probably have to be a closet cafeteria mormon, one of those who believes the "core" doctrines but isn't so sure about the peripheral stuff, even the stuff the current administration doesn't consider at all peripheral, but I could swing it. It might be worth having a community of that sort again.

Yep, I give up. This whole "gay" thing is too much work, too much stress, too few predetermined, neat and tidy formulas. It's like living post-dictatorship: nobody likes the discomfort of self-determination and lack of governing rules to make life's decisions simpler, nor the difficulty of changing one's ways of thinking to fit an entirely new system or way of doing things. It's too much for what it's worth to find a hypothetical Mr. Right who probably doesn't exist except as an LDS guy who similarly can't stay away from the church and therefore won't commit to a relationship with another man. I suppose this means I'll be filling my Sundays with meetings, my days with scripture-reading, and praying hard to get a testimony again. I'm sure I can muster more convincing and poetically intense feelings I can call "the Spirit". I've done that before, too: I know what a "burning testimony" feels like. Maybe I was right to think it was divine, after all. I could try to re-convince myself of that. Maybe I'd be right. After all, better to play it safe and avoid the whole damnation thing in case it's real. Fire insurance. And I wouldn't have to be as judgmental as I used to be. I could be one of those "cool" mormons, maybe.

And now that I've experienced compatibility and attraction with both guys and girls, I know what to look for in a possible relationship with a woman, so I have that going for me. Maybe I'll go to JIM for extra measure and let them bring out supposedly repressed memories of daddy issues and masculinity-diminishing trauma. "Whatever works" to make me feel more ready to tackle a woman with my newfound, raw masculinity. I'm a warrior, hear me roar.

Plus, this way, I can flirt with other mohos, and they won't be as wary of me because I'll be one of them again. And even if I'm fooling around with other good LDS guys, I can call it "slipping up", repent, and be seen as a hero for "trying so hard to do the right thing" because my heart will be in the right place if I'm repenting sincerely. With more church leaders moving away from Pharisaical rules-based ministry, focusing instead on the intent of the heart, it's maybe easier to have your cake and eat it to. ...Has anyone else wondered if that expression even makes sense?

Gosh, it's a tempting prospect. Seductive. Little voices whispering, "Come on, you know it would be socially easier, everybody's doing it, it'll make life so much simpler, it's what you always wanted growing up, it keeps your relationships more harmonious, you never know when the right woman may come along..." What a relief, going hetero and/or moho again. I'll let you know how it goes. *mischievous wink*




Note: This is all meant to be light-hearted, so hold your horses with your righteous indignation and untwist your knickers. No, I don't think every gay guy who returns to church or hopes to marry a woman does it for these reasons. I do think some or many do bend to these reasons, whether they realize it or not, mingled with other reasons and often convictions, and they must find better, more lasting reasons if their resolve can be maintained and a happy marriage made. But that's for them to decide, not me. And no, I'm not "going hetero", even though I am open to a relationship with a woman if all the essential elements are there between us (a longer story than I care to explain here and now). I'm merely voicing some thoughts about a struggle/tension between what feels and seems right and what seems familiar and comfortable...from a different angle than I might have a couple of years ago.

And seriously, I need to stop meeting mohos who unexpectedly blindside me with their attractiveness but are still too recently coming to terms with things...which is probably part of why they're so attractive--they haven't done the whole Catholic-schoolgirl-gone-wild thing yet and bought into the lies so many gay circles shove down newbies' throats about what "being gay" means or requires... *le sigh*

Is That All?

I read the article about Journey Into Manhood. It was interesting, but to be honest, I'd kind of pieced most of that together from overhearing bits and pieces of conversations (usually among people who, for some reason, assumed I'd been through JIM, which has been often) and reading a couple of previous articles. Sure, some of it sounds outlandish from outside or a bit "out there" when you're looking in from a regular, daily-life context. It's much weirder if you look at it super literally, which is not how it's meant to be processed. Honestly, I came away from that article thinking pretty much the same thing as when I first went through the temple: "That's what everyone was making such a fuss over being so out-there and 'weird'? It was symbolic and meant to instruct in an impacting way...but it wasn't shocking..." Some of the JIM stuff described was, I'll admit, over the top. I could see how it'd be illustrative and cathartic, especially in the context of needing to just pound through the emotional garbage, but it seems like there must be more constructive ways to achieve some of the same ends. But hey, these aren't professional therapists: just guys trying to help each other out the best they know how in a controlled environment. ...And no, I still have no interest in going. :-)

Writer Declaring War on the JIM-Dandies

Oh boy, here we go. Sacramento writer, Ted Cox, a self-proclaimed straight, LDS-turned-atheist man, has written an article entitled My Journey Into Manhood: Undercover at a Gay Conversion Camp about his undercover involvement in what he calls the ex-gay movement, primarily an expose of the Journey Into Manhood weekend he attended in Phoenix last year in February.

A few things he says reflect a bit of bias in his approach: for example, he claims the weekends are designed to make gay men straight, which wording I'm pretty sure Rich Wyler would take issue with, since he said so in an Evergreen Conference workshop I attended a couple of years ago. But to be fair to Cox, Wyler's whole presentation centered around leaving homosexuality and offering examples of men who had gone on to marry women, a mixed message when he just said it's not necessarily about changing to straight. As always, one must read with awareness of the author's bias, and the ideas in the "ex-gay movement" are sometimes so complex (some would say convoluted?) that I'm not sure even a year is enough for someone to really have a firm grasp on it, especially if they're staunchly opposed and not really "open" to the ideas, but it's certainly enough to be dangerous. In one example, according to my understanding, he oversimplifies the theory behind holding therapy by saying it's making up for one's father not holding them enough, but I think it's as much an emotional as physical deficit, and the holding is meant to represent that deficit and affirm one's connection with and sense of masculinity, rather than make up for a lack of holding in childhood. That said, I've never participated in holding therapy and don't buy the theory behind it as I've heard it, and a lot of what he says in the introductory material I've read (I have yet to read the whole article) addresses concerns I have with the whole phenomenon of these weekends.

Again, as I've said before, most of my "SSA" friends have been to JIM weekends, and despite just a few who privately say it wasn't worth the investment or they felt compelled to join groupthink or be ostracized, they've definitely mostly come away with predominantly really positive experiences. I have yet to meet a single JIM-dandy who no longer experiences significant same-sex attraction (at least none whose income and reputation doesn't depend on saying so), and only a very, very few have experienced any lasting increase in attraction to women (and even then, it's usually their wife or a girl they're dating, not women in general, but as they say, it only takes one!), but I do know guys who have learned to leave behind unhealthy or destructive behaviors and habits and gained self-confidence, comfort with themselves, coping skills, tools for healthier relationships, paradigm shifts, etc. I don't doubt the weekends do a lot of good for a lot of people, and I'm happy so many friends have learned valuable lessons and gained self acceptance at the weekends.

I'm sure I'd learn a thing or two about myself, as well, much as I have in other workshops or self-discovery activities of a less intense variety. I won't be shelling out the cash anytime soon, however, as I have other priorities and don't trust such an intense, reprogramming experience at the hands of men who are making money from them and whose reputations and careers depend on defending what goes on there. Some friends have condescendingly stated that it's true: I probably shouldn't go if I don't trust the experience because I wouldn't get out of it what I could if I weren't willing to "give it my all" and "trust the process". I understand that's true with just about anything--you get from it what you're willing to invest--but the slightly cultish sound of it just makes me shudder a little. Then I shrug it off and laugh and move on, letting others believe I'm just all walled up and too closed for the process to do me any good anyway. What we can agree on is that it could be a great experience, whether or not it affects homosexuality at all, but that you have to want it enough to invest in it for it to be worth it. I'm OK with that.

When I've addressed the secrecy around the weekends, my JIM-dandy friends usually become wide-eyed to show their enthusiasm and confidence as they say, "It really is important to not know exactly what's going to happen. You need to go into it not knowing what to expect for the process to have the greatest impact." I think the idea is that part of the weekend is a cathartic emotional release and vulnerability that is achieved partially by blindsiding participants with challenging activities or experiences they need to respond to in a raw, unrehearsed way. But I'm not convinced hearing about the activities really would dampen the necessary reactions...but what do I know? I've never been.

Which leads to just a bit of conflict around reading Cox's article: I usually think things learned or witnessed in confidence should be held in confidence. To publish details about something you swore not to talk about outside of the experience is obviously deceptive, righteous cause or not. He says he didn't even know about the confidentiality clause until after he'd made a deposit and bought airfare, which I think he is using to imply that the deception began with entrapment on the JIM organizers' part. I suppose he, understandably, has to find a way to justify his breach of contract. But I also suppose I give some exemptions for things of a non-sacred or non-religious nature, particularly where people sincerely believe the welfare of others is truly at stake, and there seems to be no other way of getting "inside", at least none which don't involve pressuring others to breach their contracts. It almost seems better for the reporter to be deceitful than to interview others who would breach their contracts and somehow washing their hands of any wrong-doing. I can't help but question the journalistic ethics around it, but I must admit I'm probably going to read the article regardless.

In a video interview with Ted Cox, he reminds me of people I've known who have an air of objective intelligence but who really are rather egomaniacal and closed to ideas opposing their own views. To be honest, I think most crusaders are that way. But I can't know what he's like, and he seems, at least, to be trying to treat the story fairly (errors such as misstating the name of NARTH do bring into question his attention to detail, but I'm a stickler for that sort of thing, and I make the same mistakes at times, but I'd hope people wouldn't entirely disregard my thoughts because of such an oversight). I'll just digest his story as I try to digest most: openly with skepticism.

Were any of you at the weekend he attended? I actually think a couple of friends may have been. Any firsthand experience with him? I'm interested in the reactions of people who were there and knew him with the understanding that he was a fellow "journeyer" and how it feels to know he was just an investigative writer infiltrating something so emotionally sensitive and raw for most participants.




I couldn't help but grin and chuckle a bit when I read this article by Warren Throckmorton about an article published in Salt Lake's City Weekly independent (typically very liberal-slanted) newspaper. And he links to a story from the Daily Show that TOTALLY cracked me up.

Struggling

After reading about how yoga can cure homosexuality, I figured I should finally give it a shot.

Maybe I'll sign up for a JIM weekend while I'm at it.

And sever all ties with homosexuals (that should leave me with about two friends locally).

And give my heart, might, mind, and strength over to Dr. Robinson.

Oh, and avoid the gym for a while. ...and BYU.

And not watch Will & Grace anymore. Or Gay, Straight, or Taken. ...or Ugly Betty. ...or Brothers & Sisters. ...or The Bachelorette.

And start dressing in baggier clothes like I used to. No more fitted stuff from Express and Banana Republic--we all know how subversive to heterosexuality they are.

And go back to pretending I don't notice the hot shirtless guys all summer but instead looking everywhere but at them so as to not give myself away but all the while glancing back to sneak secret peeks at their lean, glistening physiques and telling myself it's not sexual but an intense curiosity and a jealousy because I really just want to be like them, not "get with" them.

And junk my movies which show gay characters in a humanizing, normalizing light. No more The Family Stone for me.

And work on being less selfish and narcissistic because selfishness breeds homosexuality.

And recognize that the notion of same-sex relationships working long-term and matching the intimacy and personal progress of mixed-sex relationships is a farce and is inherently impossible because of the nature of homosexual/homoromantic attraction, even if society adapts to foster same-sex commitment.

And frame my attractions to men as the sexualization and distortion of identification and connection needs while framing my attractions to women (there are some in here somewhere, I'm sure) as God-given and totally hubba hubba.

And make more straight friends to establish healthy, non-romantic male bonds, thereby increasing masculine identification and removing the stumbling block which prevented the natural development of heterosexual feelings in adolescence.

And read scriptures and pray and go to church and write in my journal...

And ask nice, young, LDS ladies out weekly to establish habit and become accustomed to interacting with women on a potentially romantic level again. After all, dating isn't meant to be fun: it's meant to be a way of finding a compatible partner who...

*Note to self: also make an effort not to say things like "Compatible Partners" when speaking of women...terribly self-defeating...*

Gosh, no wonder people "struggle" so much with gay-to-straight conversion; it might even be harder than heathen-to-Mormon conversion! Those of you who say you have tried and failed obviously just weren't working hard enough. Freak! I'll start tomorrow, maybe...

Seattle Pridefest

Warning: to my readers who are easily triggered into internet activities they want to avoid (i.e. viewing pornography) by pictures of scantily-clad people, I recommend reading with images turned off or skipping this post. There's no actual nudity, but there's some lack of clothing in several shots of people playing in the fountain.



So...I went to Seattle Pridefest since I was in the area. I was looking for something to do on such a beautiful day, a couple of friends were going to be there, and I figured there'd certainly be an entertaining photo op or two, so I went. Most of the stuff usually associated with Pride disgusts me. The sleazy flirtation, trashy costumes, tasteless kitsch, crude immodesty, celebration of cheap sex...I don't care how mainstream some people seem to have themselves convinced it is or should be, I still think certain attitudes and behaviors about sex and relationships are disgusting, cheap, trashy, and degrading, not just "different". But long story short, and justifications aside, I went, and maybe partially because I wanted to ogle some hotties...is that so wrong?

Here's what I found:


Big, Wet Dance Party

Around 2:15, I arrived at the International Fountain near the towering Space Needle at the Seattle Center, which is an epicenter of post-parade revelry with blasting, pulsing music and tight crowds watching people dance in the water spray in a huge bowl.




My Close-Up

As I stood on a bench, talking to friends on the phone and trying to locate them across the crowd, a middle-aged gay couple walked in front of me, and one of the guys pointed his camera right up at me and snapped a shot. I didn't know whether to be flattered or offended, so I chose to be oblivious.


Freaks and Hotties and Normal People, Oh My!

Freaks and hotties, that's admittedly probably what my four friends and I were scanning the crowd for. There were many "normal-looking" people there, and I found myself trying to resist the urge to only take pictures of the more outlandish ones, but let's be honest: they make more interesting subjects. So keep in mind that photos you see of Pridefest may, in fact, not quite accurately represent the general crowd there but probably highlight some of the characters unique to that crowd. Anyway, we found many costumed characters from the parade, hoards of dancing, gyrating bodies, children running around in the water, several sets of bare breasts of the female variety (yes, non-offensive nudity is legal in public parks in Seattle), and...oh my...Hottie McHotterson dancing in the fountain with...booooo, a girl. And...double boooo, kissing her. The hottest guy there was hetero. Figures. I gotta be honest, the percentage of hot gay guys in Seattle is lower than in Utah, in my opinion.








A Nipple Nudge

I felt a fleshy tickle on my left arm as we moved through the crowd. I turned my head to see with whom I was playing bumper bodies, and my line of vision was filled with voluptuous mounds of skin-covered fatty tissue, and I realized I had been brushed by the enormous, bare breast of a large-and-in-charge woman who was apparently slightly more comfortable with her body than I was and politely twisting her torso slightly away from me so as to not nipple-nudge me again. I thanked her with a total evasion of eye contact and a face distorted in disbelief as I forced myself not to completely write off any possibility of heterosexual functioning later in life should I choose to pursue that route. My first adult contact with a naked breast wasn't what I had imagined it should be, and I was dismayed that would likely be my only frame of reference for it. Eyes forward, I glimpsed another set of pastied parts which elicited just enough curiosity to hint at an ounce of hetero left in me.









More Freaks and Hotties

As we moseyed around the fountain to the booths, I couldn't help but grin at the outlandish outfits (or lack thereof), hair, costumes, and body piercings which one expects to see at events like this, particularly in Seattle. I also couldn't help but notice some quite attractive folks, though I wasn't interested in making eye contact or flirting. I wasn't in the mood. Not there. Not then.


Mesh-and-Leather-Clad "Sisters"

I lifted my camera to my eye to take pictures of some of the "sisters" from the parade (which I had skipped), and one stopped to say, "You know, I'm tired of everyone taking my picture. Can I take yours? Can I just take a picture of you guys?" I saw reason in this request and handed my camera over to the nice, mesh-clad drag queen, who snapped several photos of my buddies and me as his two cohorts wandered around behind us and diva'd their way into the background.











Information and Education

At the booths, I picked up some brochures about adoption (from an organization for non-traditional families), knowing my rights (ACLU), Seattle's AIDS walk, Hepatitis A and B vaccination on-the-spot (there are free clinics here), HIV vaccine trials, immigration equality, Seattle's PAWSwalk (Progressive Animal Welfare Society), and Bumbershoot 2009 (there should be some good artists I like this year). I also stopped by the Alaska Airlines booth to enter to win free flights and picked up some 15% off coupons. I was tempted to snap a picture of the well-build model standing in skivvies on a pedestal in the underwear booth, but I opted against it despite his obvious invitation to be seen and ogled. My favorite booth was possibly the Gourmet Blends booth with balsamic vinegars and oils, primarily because I got samples. Trust me, a bit of bread with vinegar on it is far more useful to me than a fake tattoo or a condom. They had a really tasty black currant balsamic which I decided I must have in my kitchen, though I had no money on me, so that will have to wait.


Gay JIM

I stopped out of curiosity at the QCamp booth when I asked one of my buddies if he'd heard of it, and he said a couple of his friends had gone and that it was kind of maybe like JIM but gay-affirming. I was skeptical and amused, so I had to ask some questions. The fellow fielding my questions was totally cute in a mildly socially awkward way (I mean that in the nicest way possible, I guess), and he won me over when he declared his distaste for promiscuity and sleaze. We had a brief conversation in which I surmised that this camp is possibly mostly for people who need some help making social connections and a bit of hand-holding for establishing quality connections with others. Maybe. I also decided it was most likely not remotely similar to a gay version of JIM. But he was cute and endearing, and I resisted the urge to pinch his cheek and make an "oh, you're so precious" face at him before moving on.


Fruity Old Men and Lesbian Gangstas

After the booths, I decided I'd had my fill and headed back to my car. However, the spectacle of the fountain and the fact that I was waiting to hear back from somebody before going to my car combined against me, and I sat at the edge of the fountain and snapped some shots of the most entertaining dancers.












On my way out, I passed two girls and a guy with a little girl running around. After I'd walked past, I heard the guy say, "You're so cute. You know that? Hm? You know that?" I wryly grinned as I pictured him talking to the cute little girl and her shyly smiling. Then one of the girls said, "Hey, you hear'm?!" I turned to see them all looking at me expectantly. I smiled as I kept walking and said, "Oh, well thank you!" Not knowing what else to say, I gave them a nod and kept on towards my car, shyly smiling.