A straight guy says, "It gets better"

I appreciate the following video made in response to Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" campaign in response to gay teens facing bullying and ostracizing to let them know that there is joy ahead for them. I've heard/seen Dan Savage online before, and he's an engaging and frank speaker/columnist on issues of queer life and relationships and sexuality who sometimes impresses me with his candor and practical wisdom and sometimes...yes...upsets my more conservative sensibilities or personal standards or makes statements I think are not completely thought through. I believe this campaign is a good-hearted effort to reach out.

To be honest, I feel a little discouraged by some of the videos people have personally made in response to the call to testify "it gets better" on YouTube and other social media because I can't relate or hope I don't become an awkward old queen or a slimy, shirtless manslut. Yes, I'm judging, don't judge. *momentary "wait, what did I just say?" expression* But some I relate to. And I think that's part of the beauty of the campaign: many different faces and voices piping in to say, "Hey, it may suck for a while, but it gets better, even better than we could have imagined. We promise. We're glad we stuck around to find that out and hope you'll do the same."

It may be hard for people in other belief systems to understand, but most young LDS gay guys and gals, along with those in similarly homosexuality-eschewing belief systems, aren't going to find much comfort in this campaign. It's full of people who are "happily" living with their same-sex partners or as out, single gay adults who have become comfortable with their sexual orientation. In a way, it could make it worse: "Oh great, so it gets better, but only if you're living a sinful lifestyle, which I won't do, so what about for me? Does it get better for people like me?" So far, I haven't seen the faces of those who are saying, "Hey, you're torn right now, but don't worry: life gets better as a faithful, single member of the church." I may not agree that same-sex relationships are clearly and inherently contrary to the will of whatever deity may exist, so in one way, I don't want organizations out there sending that message because I struggle to believe it leads to happiness for most who pursue it, but I also know many for whom it is their only option (in their minds) and seems to have led to happiness as they've done it wisely rather than white-knuckling. And I also remember that as an LDS youth, it would have been meaningful to have found video messages of that sort, to see faces and voices of people setting aside doctrinal expositions and assertions of "change" to simply say, "Hey, it gets better."

So whether or not an organization like North Star pipes in with their own version of "It Gets Better" videos, in the meantime, I appreciate videos like this one from a straight guy who can relate on some level to the bullying and "being different", even if not in the same exact way:





PSA from the campaign:

Evergreen is not an asylum of crazies

In relation to my recent post about my first time attending the Evergreen Conference, I want to make one thing clear: the therapists and presenters are not a bunch of total kooks, they are not liars, and they are not self-loathing shells of human beings. They believe what they preach, I think, and are sometimes surprisingly and disarmingly rational about their approach. It's taken me a long time to come to my current opinions and perspectives about reparative therapy theories and efforts to live the heterosexual lifestyle. Along the way, I've listened to those whom gay activists dismiss outright as dangerous quacks, and I found that the supporters of what I call "the Evergreen way" had more of a basis for their arguments than they're typically given credit for, even if they overstate certain things, mask or gloss over certain realities, make certain foundational assumptions which I consider to be leaps or with which I simply disagree, and too often present theories (though not completely unfounded) as facts or absolutes. They're often, in fact, happy-seeming and energetic, charming people, particularly the ones placed up front as the faces of the issue at the Evergreen Conference who aren't as much there to convey psychological research as their own personal experience. Whatever glossing happens, such sins are not unique to Evergreeners. Leaders and speakers for all kinds of organizations, whether political, fraternal, religious, etc, tend to overstate support for their positions and downplay and discredit those who don't agree, and they often do so with emotionally moving passion and zeal which appeals powerfully to many.

So before you act all shocked that someone could be seduced or convinced by Evergreen Conference presenters' philosophies, or you think your friend is a total dupe, read Evergreen's "Myths" page to find documented responses to many dismissive, pop-culture claims made by opponents of re-orientation therapy or behavioral conformity to heterosexual lifestyles, information you're not likely to see in many places partially because it's not widely accepted by experts in the field of psychology, and partially because it's just not "politically correct":

http://www.evergreeninternational.org/Myths.htm

There are counterarguments or clarifications for some of what is said here, sure. I think North Star's leadership would take dispute with their claim that "Evergreen International is the only known organization that supports Church teachings and practices 'without reservation or exception,'" even if it's not so specifically worded. Also, most people who've been around a while know that the words "change" and "homosexuality" have somewhat specialized uses in these circles which allow them to honestly make the claims they do. And I could swear that, four years ago or so, Evergreen used to deny that certain aversion therapies were ever even used more than incidentally and attempted to personally discredit people who claimed they'd gone through such programs (but I may just be projecting what certain individuals heavily involved with Evergreen said, rather than the organization itself). But most of what they point out on this page cannot be summarily dismissed, and I never have done so.

I do believe everyone should be free to make the best of their life given their beliefs, values, orientation, etc. I agree that to say "change" is not possible is disingenuous, as there are people who claim to have changed, and I may question what they mean by "change" (the only people I've met who have claimed to actually become heterosexual are those who make their living from insisting so), but who am I to tell them they're lying if they claim a full or partial change in sexual orientation? I fully believe that even a relapse (like John Paulk getting caught in a gay bar) does not completely negate a person's efforts or ideas. If that were true, there'd be a lot of gay guys whose relapses into their conservative religious cultures and heteronormative lifestyles they find so familiar and comfortable could never claim to be truly "gay" or "ex-ex-gay".

I believe that when one's beliefs leave no room for same-sex relationships of any romantic or sexual kind, they should have opportunity to work within their boundaries towards fulfillment and happiness in ways alternative to "the norm", as long as those efforts do not negatively affect other people. I think that, though it may not be ideal to have to "work" at loving someone of the opposite sex in a way most people take for granted, on top of all of the usual issues of a relationship, a lot of life isn't ideal or fair, and this is one more (probably big) way that's true, and if two people have assessed the risks and weighed the pros and cons and decide to take them on, or if someone decides to find fulfillment as a single man or woman, we should wish them the best and support them in doing it as healthily as possible. I may not "be interested" in doing what it seems to take to get there--permanent involvement in support groups, regular experiential weekends, holding activities with other (usually "SSA") men, persistent mentorship, etc.--but if it's a choice between "whatever it takes" and "being alone", I definitely see (now more than ever, believe me) why so many make the effort, and many even eventually succeed in building the life they wanted according to the options they allowed for themselves (or believe God allows for them), if they tough it out.

When I first went to an Evergreen Conference in 2006, even though I didn't buy into everything I heard or saw, I could see that it was possible to "deal with it" in ways I could be satisfied with for myself, assuming my beliefs dictated it, and it was refreshing to hear others affirm and support the notion that I could hold my beliefs and determine my own destiny. Since I tended to believe my beliefs did prohibit a same-sex romantic relationship, I was among supporters, and I felt energized and uplifted.

I knew that, for me, it came down to what I believed. Did I really believe my only viable options were the church's doctrinally proclaimed options: to live as a single man or with a female partner? Did I really, truly believe I was not to have a male partner? I wanted to be with a man but have it be socially acceptable and consistent with the gospel. But that wasn't an option in my mind, so I lived by the church's policies and believed I would be blessed for doing the right thing, and all else would be compensated beyond all comprehension in eternity. But I also knew that if it weren't for the strictures of my beliefs, I would clearly want to be with a man and believed it was possible to do so happily and healthily. I didn't have a desire to date women except as a show of obedience and sacrifice and to have the family I always wanted, but I knew that if I thought it was possible to have a fulfilling, committed, family-building relationship with a man, that was what I really wanted, if it was consistent with God's will, assuming God existed and gave a rip about which sex my partner was, which I really did assume and believe. Since I had felt naturally inclined, magnified, motivated, brightened, animated, and enriched by a same-sex relationship, more so than I had felt in a mixed-sex relationship, I knew that if I didn't believe the gospel precluded same-sex romance, that is exactly what I wanted, social and reproductive challenges of it aside. But the religious, social, and reproductive factors did, I had to admit, exist--I did believe a same-sex relationship was not an option--and I saw my best option, given that framework, as being the pursuit of a possible future mixed-sex marriage or fulfillment as a single man.

My perspective has shifted and evolved over time as I've had my own experiences and talked with others who have had a wide range of their own. The religious factor has changed. The social factors are still admittedly tiring and daunting. Even though most people closest to me say they just want to see me happy and are willing to suspend their perceptions of the way eternity is to accept that we'll wait and see how it all turns out, I just feel a tinge of sadness, like they'd think, "We're happy for you, but..." even if they'd never say so. But so it is also for an LDS couple from evangelical families getting married in the temple: their families might be happy they've found companionship even while quietly believing they're damning themselves by following a false religion. You deal with that and rely on your own convictions of what is right.

This is the kind of perspective I want to know a future same-sex partner has faced honestly and candidly. I couldn't feel right about being in a relationship with a guy if I felt like I'd steered him away from even looking at that for fear he might choose a different kind of happiness at the expense of my own. My personal philosophy is that if I love someone truly, his happiness matters more to me than my own comfort or security. So it was and is. I may doubt whether what he's choosing can really make him as happy as he could have been with me or some future great guy he might meet, based on our conversations and what I saw in him while we were together, but to deny him the opportunity to choose or to coerce him away from even seeing the option would have felt selfish and wrong. These are the risks one takes in having conviction in principles rather than in doctrines or dogma: losing people to the seduction of "certainty" to which so many seem to claim exclusive rights.

I cannot judge or see what is in anyone's heart. While I may tend to believe he is more likely succumbing to social and familial pressure to conform to an artificially or arbitrarily limited set of options for happiness, I certainly understand that if his personal beliefs have been re-circumscribed to exclude a relationship like ours, or he was only with me as a consolation to a perceived inability to have a more standard life, or he had never even considered the ideas presented to him, or if he was secretly harboring discontent in our relationship and looking for an 'out' anyway, then if he's going to honestly consider the ideas at Evergreen's conference, that means not dismissing them unnecessarily because they're as-of-yet not proven or are socially unpopular in many circles. It's not craziness. It's being open. It's experimenting on their words. It's...still hard for me to accept because of the happiness I had with him and thought he had, and the even greater happiness I was confident we could have found together in time.

And yet, if he had refused to go to Evergreen out of a stubborn or rebellious refusal to even hear what they had to say, I might have lost some respect for him for not even being open. Unlike many gay men my age, I don't believe they are complete nutjobs denying reality because I've seen them in action firsthand. They are working within a framework of beliefs and options. I just don't believe the same fundamentals they believe (and didn't think he did, either, but I was apparently very wrong about that), so even though I can see benefits and happiness in a mixed-sex relationship, and consider that option potentially viable for myself (and increasingly attractive when feeling hopeless about finding a guy with whom I can expect to have the kind of relationship I want), I also have had my best (and most painful) experiences with men so far, and I'm willing to do what's hard for a relationship which is worth it, whether the "hard" stuff is struggling against my attractions and refocusing my thought patterns in order to find a woman, confronting social stigmas and legal limitations, facing fears of rejection, or risking losing someone because I love them too much to keep them locked in my philosophical tower, away from reasonable ideas built on premises I just don't agree with.

However "wrong" this break-up has felt to me (and oh, has it felt wrong), I don't think he's crazy for pursuing what he believes will bring him happiness, and despite my doubts about his motives or rationale, I truly hope he finds the happiness we wants (apparently a better kind than he believed he could find with me) because...what can I say...I love the cuss, and I think it'll be easier for me to move on if I believe at least one of us is truly happier this way.

Backfiring Principles

I lost a relationship with someone dear to me because something about the Evergreen Conference persuaded him to take a divergent path which necessarily excluded me because we were dating steadily. He went because of me. He wasn't going to go to the conference, even though a loved one of his said they were going and wanted him to go with them. I would rather lose him to other philosophies than keep him out of total ignorance of them, so I told him so and suggested that it is better to have been there, to have heard the things said and have a personal response to them, than to refuse to even hear them, especially when discussing the ideas with his loved one. He agreed with that idea and decided to go.

I had reason to believe he was confident in his decision to date me and was quite comfortably and confidently on a different path than Evergreen taught. I knew certain people close to him, including the one going to the conference, were already suspicious of me as an influence in his life, which is why I told him I was going to hang back and not be in touch for the two days of the conference so as to not interfere and let him just soak it in and process it initially without my skeptical influence. I figured he'd have some questions, some ah-ha moments as I had, and have felt some tinge of desire to try the Evergreen way: working towards a temple marriage with a woman in a therapy- and gospel-centered way. I figured we'd talk about it, and he'd talk about it with his loved one, and he'd sort a few things out.

I was wrong. We said goodbye over the phone the night the Conference ended. That was it. No questions. No thoughts to bounce around. No more openness. Commitment of the sort Evergreen teaches often requires cutting out influences which don't fully support it and closing one's ears to contrary arguments because those distract from the goals. If you're going to commit, you must eliminate distractions and commit 100%, and immediately, while the resolve is fresh, like an alcoholic cleansing his house of all triggers and substances before he starts to rationalize keeping that one bottle just in case... Maybe I should have known. Maybe I suspected but didn't want to face it.

Maybe I should stop trying to articulate both sides of every issue and start trying to persuade people more. While I am trying so carefully to allow each person their autonomy by sharing my thoughts, as asked, while acknowledging opposing views and without trying to persuade them (especially when I see they are impressionable), I know the folks at Evergreen or Affirmation or political activist organizations are not going to be so gentle with them but will instead insist, testify, and persuade with all the fervor they have. And they will tell them that in order to make a change, you must surround yourself with the right influences and eliminate the destructive or wishy-washy ones. As such, they are at war, and it's only a matter of who gets to people first and demands the most discipleship, surrounds them with the most community and social support or shelter, gives them the greatest sense of mission and purpose, or exercises the most dominion and social sanctions for non-compliance.

Meanwhile, the quiet, measured, rationally moderate voices encouraging critical exploration of both sides are lost in the din and posturing of would-be mentors and saviors, all of whom believe their cause to be the righteous, correct, joy-offering cause, and all of whom can reasonably claim that to make effective changes, one must make hard decisions and commit to a process of some sort. Sometimes, the would-be mentors maintain a quieter profile, not loudly shouting on street corners but nonetheless using persuasive rhetoric in quiet conversations, based on their conviction of paths they believe are correct. You can hardly fault someone for sharing what's made them happy with those who seem interested, even when those people take away someone dear to you...but that doesn't stop me from feeling a marked tension with such friends.

I'm tired of feeling like I have to either join the more polarized ranks or have people I care about led away by them. I guess I want to be with someone who has seen both sides, who has listened to people from Evergreen, Sunstone, Affirmation, the Gay Christian Network, etc and opted for a moderate, personally-determined course while maintaining judeo-christian values and principles without the need for institutional or social approbation. Good luck, right? Maybe I want someone like that in the way conflicted, misbehaving LDS boys want friends who "know what they want" and are committed to church living: to find in someone else what I secretly am afraid I can't be, myself. Maybe. But I just think it has more to do with wanting something sustainable.

And hey, maybe one such organization seeking souls to save is right, and I'm just the wishy washy appeaser, a mere pawn or distraction in the raging war between good and evil, right and wrong, wallowing in indecision and unmanly, lukewarm non-conviction. Damn it, there I go giving benefit of the doubt. But I'll tell you this much: it was much easier and cozier (and empowering) thinking I was fighting on "the right side" with my clan of like-minded. It has taken a whole lot of conviction, perseverance, strength, and courage to be this non-polarized and...apparently standing alone.

In this case, I knew I had an opportunity to poo-poo Evergreen, to expound on everything I heard and saw at the conferences I went to with which I disagree, stroked his ego to reassure him that he is an adult and doesn't have to bend to anyone's insistence that he go to some conference, to keep him from ideas I believe are, more often than not, half-truths and glossy whitewashes which are excused because the path they promote is the "righteous" one. I saw a possible opportunity to pull him closer to me and defend him from his loved ones. But if I were to be with someone, I'd want to be part of their circles of loved ones, too, and I knew how important his friends and family are to him, and I couldn't bring myself to selfishly seek my own happiness at the expense of his personal growth and truth-seeking, and I deeply cared about him and wanted him to have the confidence of knowing he was freely choosing his path in an informed way. I do wonder why it was so important to me that he specifically listen to Evergreen but not important if he never went to Affirmation or was a member of North Star, etc. Maybe I perceived that he might be susceptible to Evergreen's rhetoric and was afraid of losing him to it at some point and wanted to save myself the pain further down the road by getting to it now. Either way, I chose principles or truth (as I see it) over comfort, even though I knew very well it could end up hurting me a great deal, and I would do it again, and I hope to always do that.

Yet I feel almost dirty when friends who believe he made the right choice to call things off with me tell me that's something they really respect about me. I know in my mind it shouldn't bother me, but it does. And I just wonder how many times I'm going to shoot myself in the foot or have my efforts to "seek truth" backfire, in a way, and cause me pain (hopefully not partially out of some drive to be a martyr, a thought which has crossed my mind but which I don't think is more than a possible, small factor), or if/when I'll cave and start combating persuasion with persuasion more often.

Infiltrating Evergreen

Due primarily to not having much money to throw around, I didn't go to either the Affirmation or the Evergreen Conference this year, contrary to my whims of curiosity. At least, not exactly...

Saturday morning, I met up with an acquaintance visiting from out of town for breakfast. While he was waiting for me to arrive, he popped into the now-infamous Elder Hafen talk. I got a couple of entertaining text messages, such as, "I've heard the word 'struggle' five times in the three minutes I've been listening," and "He's preaching the gospel of reparative therapy."

My arrival saved--I mean, prevented--him from hearing more, and we went to grab breakfast at the Nauvoo Cafe in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. Ever had muffin tops there? Pretty decent, despite the unpleasant images the name conjures. As we sat outside talking, a small group of men with a video camera looked at us inquisitively, and I couldn't help but wonder if they were with Affirmation because they just...had that look. You know the look: gay face with religious bitterness, smugly and confidently superior in their embraced sexual identity. Hey, for all the crap Evergreeners get, don't even try to deny Affirmationers have a look, too. I decided to ignore their gaze and have a pleasant conversation with my breakfast date...er...non-date. After a good chat, he was off, and I realized I only had an hour and a half until Evergreen got out for lunch, so I loitered in the lobby of the Joseph Smith Memorial Building in front of the elevators to await the outpouring of Evergreenies beaming with newfound belonging and hurriedly hiding their incriminating name tags.

After greeting several acquaintances bouncing out of the elevators and meeting some new ones, I ran to grab some lunch to-go with some friends. At the Lion House Pantry, the cashier was a funny, somewhat bubbly girl who asked what everyone was dressed up for. I figured my friends didn't want me answering because I would've said something like, "We're attending a conference for LDS homosexuals who want to live church standards and maybe even marry and have families. Many of these guys would like to take a nice young woman such as yourself to the temple someday. I'm pretty sure nobody right here is quite ready for that, but you seem to be flirting a bit, so if you'd like to give my friend your number, he'll call when he's feeling hetero enough to give it a go." I silenced myself and stifled my grin as I looked to my friends to answer. One of them, who had been counseled by a church leader not to reveal this aspect of himself except as inspired, didn't feel so inspired and instead replied, "We're attending a conference." She asked what kind of conference. "Oh, it's a conference about different kinds of therapy." The girl didn't seem quite satisfied with that clarification but nodded politely and said, "Oh, that's cool." I must admit I rolled my eyes and smiled as we left the restaurant and headed back to the conference.

As we stepped off the elevator onto the conference floor, I remembered that when I first went to Evergreen three years ago, I hoped there would be armed guards at the doors to make sure only registered guests entered, so curious passers by couldn't infiltrate the conference and take notes on who was attending. You know, sinister henchmen building a database of repressed mormon homos to spy on, so they can reveal when they fall to temptation, thereby bolstering the "gay agenda's" assertion that gays trying to live heternormative lifestyles are fooling themselves. Well, there are no such guards, so I was able to visit with friends without anybody seemingly caring whether I was a registered guest or not. Although I have to admit I was tempted to bring in my camera with its telephoto lens and randomly take pictures of the most nervous-looking faces, write some notes on a piece of paper, declare, "Another suspected struggler confirmed!" and run away. But I refrained.

In the hallway on the way back to the conference, where the post-lunch session was about to being, I ran into the family of one of a friend I'd had a semi-fling with. "What in tarnations is a 'semi-fling'?" you ask? I guess I consider it something more than just friendship but which couldn't reasonably be called an actual relationship, and without sex in any form. It's different from a friend with benefits because there was a strong romantic/passionate component, and it needn't have "benefits" to be a semi-fling. Clear as mud? Good. Moving on. For a long time, I felt somewhat awkward talking to them because I was the guy who got sort of romantically involved for a month or so with their son while they were all just beginning to deal with all of this. I felt stupid for having done so, especially since he'd introduced me to his dad, while this was going on, as someone involved with North Star and I'd thought, "Oh man, don't set me up as...what the @#$% am I doing with you? I really should know better." But it was good to see his family (I really do like them) and not feel the awkwardness I used to feel. Hopefully it's all water under the bridge at this point.

While I waited for a friend, I picked up one of the books being sold in the entrance area that was apparently being highlighted and is an anthology of clinical, ecclesiastical, and personal perspectives on homosexuality in the Church. I thought it looked interesting and was glad to see "personal stories" included. I opened it up and, since I'm somewhat well-connected in the LDS "SSA" community, figured I might recognize at least one name. No such luck. Then it dawned on me. Were these real names? Any of them? I flipped to one of the stories and found an asterisk next to the author's name. I was informed, by the corresponding footnote, that this was not the author's real name. Apparently, the leading authors believe nobody should use their real name in connection with this issue. Presumably "for the children" or some such noble reason. Right, <sarcasm>because this issue needs to be made less personal, with fewer actual faces.</sarcasm> ...don't get me started on this kind of thinking. While I believe anonymity in each forum should be maintained or broken in each person's own time table and in wisdom and order, and I understand the ramifications "coming out" can potentially have on current or unforeseen future families, I believe in changing the playing field over time, which can only come from courageous pioneers willing to take risks, and I believe the staunch assertion that all should remain anonymous is destructive and sometimes a form of old-school information-control. If you don't have real people telling their stories, nobody can follow up after ten years to see how they're doing, and nobody can rely on them as authorities with real lives, leaving the "authority" to the "experts" with PhDs. But I may be a touch cynical towards certain "experts".

Since I was already at the conference lobby, and I'd been to two Evergreen conferences in the past, and I've been pretty involved with overlapping communities (North Star) quite a bit in the past, and I know I'm respectful, and I knew so many people there, and I really was curious to see the crowd this year, and some friends were singing a musical number in the next session, I decided to stay for the post-lunch session. I sat towards the front with a friend and scanned the crowd: buttoned-up conservative repressed types, flamboyant-haired pretty types, regular Joes and ...Janes? you'd probably never expect to be gay, let alone attending an EG conference, parents and siblings with and without their gay--I mean, SSA--family members, the clusters of age-grouped guys magnetized to each other, the familiar faces from years past I've only ever seen at Evergreen conferences... The session opened with a prayer and intro and musical number. The guys sang beautifully. I must say the song selection was pretty "gay": "Go The Distance" from Disney's Hercules, but it was good. But what moved me almost to tears was not the lyrics or the music but the tension of juxtaposing the uncertainty of whether our paths would eventually lead in the same direction or diverge with the strong love I felt for these good-hearted guys I counted as friends.



The presentation was by Nicolosi, and I have plenty to say about it, but I think I'll save it for another post. What I will say is that despite his air of apparent arrogance and his sometimes offensive sense of humor, he was pretty engaging and funny, he doesn't sugar-coat things (which can be alternately refreshing and abrasive), and hearing his theory out of his mouth was much better than reading it online or hearing it from antagonists. I almost questioned whether he might be on to something, though not on the absolute scale he asserts, once I shoved my emotional reactions, pride, and PC sensibilities aside long enough to actually fairly consider his theory and statistics.

After that, I was actually tempted to stay for more of the conference. I could stay for the Q&A panels or for Nicolosi's second presentation. I could stalk out Boskers and find out who he is and whether our mutual love of jazz and manflesh are the only things we have in common. I could go to the friends and family session and see the parents begin to understand, or cry, or pump each other up about educating themselves and their wards to try to make sure no gay kid feels rejected or alone enough to attempt suicide or run away from home. I might have overheard the parent telling my friend they wished their son were like him and how proud his parents must be that he's hanging in there, along with his stifled expression as he wanted to tell them their son probably wouldn't appreciate them expressing their pride to someone they just met and whose frailties they don't even know. I might have overheard a friend getting interrupted, upon mentioning North Star during one session, by a prominent LDS social work professor who apparently proclaimed something to the effect of Evergreen not supporting North Star, who was countered by a wife who defended North Star to her. What the professor may not have known is that the vast majority of session attendees were grateful members of North Star's discussion groups. Oops. Wrong crowd, ma'am. I would've liked to see that exchange. But I didn't because I decided to take a nap at a friend's house instead, from which I awoke feeling mighty good.

The rest of my contact with the conference was incidental and uneventful. I chatted with friends I hadn't talked to in quite a while. I incidentally observed the demeanor of a certain well-known, cantankerous therapist, whose biggest fan I am not, and found his interactions to be about as I'd expected, though I must admit to the possibility of confirmation bias, mustn't I? *tongue in cheek* I met some new acquaintances. I had a paradigm or two re-challenged. I wondered whether that guy just tried to hit on me outside the chapel...

Some people leave the conference feeling broken or self-loathing, others like the opportunity to hook up with impressionable, vulnerable guys, others only see awkwardness and hypocrisy, and others leave feeling uplifted and hopeful and full of insight and energy. I come away feeling glad to have spent time with some good people with good hearts, having heard different perspectives, considering the stuff that I can't refute, discarding the stuff I just don't buy, having enjoyed a laugh or two at the awkwardness of some attendees, and understanding that of course some guys will be playing footsie under the table or are not there for the reasons the organizers would hope, but recognizing that many are sincere and well-behaved. I think it, like most things, is what you make of it and what you let your bias or perspective tell you. Evergreen conference: it may not be your cup of tea, but it's not so bad.

Affirgreen Conference, Here I Come

I'm so tempted to attend two very... *ahem* ...different conferences concurrently this September in Salt Lake primarily to test my own emotional and intellectual reaction but also to compare their flavors back-to-back and, hey, just for the sheer giggle of the humorous duplicity. Could be fun. ...but expensive. Dang, I can think of a lot of fun or useful things I could spend $300 on. Hm, I'm going to have to think about this...



Ridiculously long P.S. -- Suggestion to Affirmation: get a new copy editor for your web sites. There's a handful of pretty dopey typos and grammatical foibles in your copy. Oh, and a little more substance to the conference might be nice. I mean, the shirtless missionary calendar guy? Really? Am I actually supposed to give a rat's rectum about his excommunication, especially when it's not like he was exactly lovin' the church anyway and basically flipped them off? And are you really going to try to convince me he had some noble mission in mind other than selling a tacky, controversially tongue-in-cheek skin calendar? Anyway, speaking of substance, Evergreen may have fringe psychologists with lots of theories and not that much in the way of statistically significant research studies to back them up, but at least they have Master's and PhD's. Of course, a play or film debut, those are cool, if they're at all good...that would really spice up the Evergreen Conference's dry, clinical and doctrinal approach that has me asking my neighbor to slap me to keep me awake, especially if he's cute. And lunch is covered? Nice. I had to buy my own lunches at the EG Conferences I went to. Although I must say the Saturday dinner banquet was quite nice both years. Oh, and to both organizations: we really need to talk about your web sites (although the Affirmation Conference's web site wins, aesthetically, from among anything those two organizations have put out). North Star's beta site is better than any of them. Of course, I may be biased...

Should Faithful LDS Refer to Themselves as "Gay"?

In an online discussion group I'm in, I mentioned that within LDS circles where homosexuality is being discussed (in this case, an online discussion group), faithful LDS people are sometimes (not always, but sometimes) criticized for referring to themselves as "gay" because of the baggage the term "gay" carries and the risk one runs of identifying with a culture that is not supportive of church standards. "George" and "Sasha" responded with reasonable arguments for why throwing around the word "gay" can be problematic. I wrote this response but refrained from posting it because it's long and distracted from the main topic of discussion. My response:


--------------------------
I didn't want to go into this. I am, in fact, tired of going over this, as George pointed out (like the slap of a glove to the face, the punk), but now I feel like my judgment has been challenged by unfortunately intelligent people (*sigh* harder to dismiss) as the result of an incidental mention (can I just go back and use a different example? No? Dang). Admittedly an emotional reaction on my part. So I'm gonna get all defensive here and explain my perspective. I don't do it to convince anyone to use my terminology but to offer perspective on where _I_ am coming from, in the offchance anyone is interested in understanding it a little better. And I figure for every 5-6 times I "just let it go", I'm allowed to spout off. So spout I will.


THEY'RE RIGHT, YADDA YADDA YADDA

I don't dispute the validity of the points George and Sasha made--they are, in fact, quite valid and important to consider and might go overlooked if I were the only person you talked to--even up to perceptions about the word "gay" not coming only from "provincial, conservative Utahns" (something I don't think I even implied and don't believe). George, I think you imply that if everyone were saying "gay this" "gay that", new members who hold very understandable prejudices towards the word would likely feel uncomfortable and leave unless someone took the time to explain to them that here, it doesn't mean "seeking same-sex partnership" or "defying church standards". I agree with that. It's much easier to not have to explain that to them, so we definitely have to be cautious of our wording to ensure that the tone of the community is appropriate to its mission and values. Sasha, I'll address some of your comments below as I go into the more personal aspects of my position.


CHALLENGING PARADIGMS WITH YOUR EXISTENCE

I believe some things are the way they are primarily because nobody has had the energy or desire to change the way they are, to stand up, be counted, and challenge paradigms by one's own existence. I know many active, faithful LDS who have no problem referring to themselves as "gay", except sometimes for the perception others will likely have, which will only ever change if people step forward and redefine it with their own lives.


LETTING IT BE

I just don't think that particular change is important to most people, so that's not a battle they choose to engage in with all the other more important efforts in their lives. So be it. I can respect that and let it be. So please lend me the same respect, and please don't tell me what I should or should not call myself. It pisses me off big time when I can't even mention it in passing without someone calling me on it and trying to prove their point, usually in a group setting where they want to make sure other impressionable people do not commit my same error. I fully understand the desire to be a voice of caution, and I also remind myself that this is simply the annoying risk I assume in choosing to refer to myself as "gay", so I generally try to get over my pissedoffness as quickly as possible, hope that one day things will be different, and move on.


FORMAL WRITING HAS DIFFERENT RULES

In formal writing, especially institutional, it is NOT direct, interpersonal communication with an individual whom people know personally and say, "I know you, and you're not what I think of when I hear 'gay', so I'm beginning to see that word in a different light." No, it's an impersonal forum or audience. I believe that unless you want to take a page to explain your use of the word "gay", the term should generally be avoided to avoid misunderstanding. Until a loaded word ceases to be loaded or cultural understanding of its meaning changes to the point where clarification wouldn't be necessary, an organization such as Evergreen or North Star is wise to avoid using that term where possible to avoid controversy and maintain credibility with those whose support is essential. I think that's why "gay" doesn't turn up much if you search for it on North Star, for example, except in reference to external articles or links.


DOES "GAY" MEAN LEAVING THE CHURCH? CAUSATION VS. CORRELATION

I mentioned that I know a few active, faithful LDS who refer to themselves as "gay" in casual conversation and in private heart-to-hearts (though they won't do so in a private conversation with someone they suspect will disapprove of their using the word "gay" to avoid the debate, myself included), and they have for some time. I've also known many guys who wouldn't call themselves "gay" who've secretly fooled around with men to an astonishing degree when not at church or who've had boyfriend after boyfriend but refused to call them boyfriends. Despite this, I agree--believe it or not--with Sasha's observation that those who retain the term "gay" often are on their way out of the church or are already out, and that those who remain faithful most often (not always) drop the term, at least for a time and often permanently. My experience over the last four years supports the correlation, but I don't believe it's a causation. I think most people, including SSA/gay people, don't look beyond the social stigmas of "gay" to see it as a simple adjective. BECAUSE they are just as steeped in loaded labels as the next person, IF they're calling themselves gay, it's BECAUSE they are beginning to identify with "gay culture", by which I mean nothing more than "those who are seeking or open to same-sex relationships". And IF someone drops the label because they're coming back to church, it's typically BECAUSE they don't care to risk people's judgement (yes, that's an accepted spelling and the one I prefer) or to expend energy or effort trying to redefine the term "gay" for every new acquaintance they make. They'd rather just leave "gay" to the people who fit the currently accepted perceptions and go on with their lives. And let's be honest, being the "gay" guy in the ward might dampen a guy's dating prospects if he hopes to fall in love with and marry a woman someday. So it's not worth it to many people. I think the choice of terminology is often an indicator of attitude but not an actual step in one direction or another.


NEWBIES SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS WITH THE G-WORD

I caution newbies (those recently facing or dealing with their homosexuality) about the ramifications of identifying as "gay" because of the company they're likely to attract or the identifications they may unintentionally make. Referring to myself as "gay" makes me feel no more connected with any particular "gay culture". It's an adjective, a simple descriptor, not a clan. BUT for people who are hungry for belonging, eager to have a group of people who really understand them (we all are to some extent, aren't we?), saying they are "gay" may, in fact, be a powerful alignment and identification with people who "get them". If that means their sense of belonging is found in a community that openly defies church standards, that's problematic for someone who wants to live by church standards. For someone to say they are lefthanded reminds them they are a part of a social minority who do things a little differently. To use more of a label beyond a simple adjective (I see "gay" as a simple adjective more than a cultural label, though I understand I'm probably in the minority), saying I am "LDS" reminds me I'm part of a large body of saints, a family of people who believe in or subscribe to similar doctrine and standards, and that reminder can make me accountable to act more "like a mormon" when I say I'm LDS to others. So I definitely see how the same could go for the word "gay" if the individual regards it as a cultural label.

But for someone with a strong sense of self and confidence in their own identity, and who disregards cultural associations of adjectives and is willing to let people judge them until they get to know them better (which took me a good three years or so to reach where the "gay" label was concerned), and to let those who never do learn better just go on misjudging to their own detriment, I think the situation is different. I support challenging perceptions in healthy or productive ways. To some, it IS worth it to initiate the change.


MATTERS TO SOME, NOT TO OTHERS

Maybe that's where we differ. I don't dispute whether "gay" is a loaded word carrying a lot of worldly baggage most people in the church would rather not have associated with them. But I am interested in changing perception, shifting paradigms bit by bit, by adding my face to the word. Maybe it just doesn't matter to most people if "gay" can include people who are happily married to someone of the opposite sex, or someone who is not open to a same-sex relationship. Maybe most are just happier letting "gay" be what most people think it is and use other terminology to refer to themselves. I totally get that. TOTALLY. I used to be there. Maybe one day, when I'm more faithful again, I'll re-adopt that attitude. It's possible. I don't have a sense of mission or crusade around insisting people call themselves "gay". I just love the fact that, among my friends, everyone knows they can use the word "gay" without it meaning I have sex with men. It's so nice that they don't have to walk on eggshells with me or carefully choose their words to avoid offending me or having me correct them. I believe it can be that way for more people.

Why do I even care about changing people's perceptions of the word "gay"? Is it convenience over saying "same-sex attracted"? Is it because I want to distance myself from the stigma around "SSA"? Is it because I don't want ANOTHER word to describe myself, like SSA, when there's already one I think is equal that more of society accepts and understands? Is it because I'm just plain stubborn? Probably all of the above.


THE STIGMA OF "SSA"

Heh, that said, I do have a bit of a negative gut reaction about referring to myself as "SGA" or even "SSA" because to a lot of people who have been around other "SSA" folks in the past, that means a really conflicted, awkward guy who won't fully admit his attractions because he wants to save face and find an unsuspecting girl he can marry to fulfill his sense of acceptable gender roles and get his ticket to the celestial kingdom to the poor girl's detriment, but in the meantime is "slipping up" with guys left and right, making him more promiscuous than many "gay" people they know. Which is poppycock. While there are some out there who fit that description to some extent, "SSA" doesn't mean that at all. But I still have that association to deal with. So I understand having a gut reaction against certain labels and having logical or cultural reasons for those reactions.

As I said, I also agree with George and Sasha that certain assumptions are also made about the word "gay" that may not be accurate to many or most of us, such as "dates members of the same sex". And there are many other mostly negative characteristics that may be associated with "gay", like promiscuity, substance abuse, lack of standards or morals, shallowness, materialism, etc.

I also recognize that "SSA" isn't the only alternative to "gay" but am using it as an example because I think it's the most-used alternative in LDS circles.


SUBTLETIES OF "SSA" VS "GAY"

I also remind myself that "SSA" (which you will not find in Merriam Webster's dictionary except in association with a shaky government agency) culturally implies someone who is attracted to people of their same sex but probably wishes not to pursue a relationship with such, and I try to get past the many cultural associations that come with it so maybe people will see that not all self-denying homos are neurotic messes like they inaccurately thought. I think to some people, SSA maybe even carries some nuance of a range of emotional and physical attractions subtly connected to the ideas of emotional needs unmet, etc, which play into theories of therapy for homosexuality, so perhaps SSA really is your more accurate choice if that's your perspective. To me, most of that nuance is fluff and isn't inherent or inextricably connected with the label, but to others, it's significant to their understanding and to framing things in a way that works for them in eschewing associations with certain behaviors or groups from which they need to distance themselves to focus on their goals.

"Gay", according to Merriam Webster, means: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. Pretty direct, even if it does use the word "sexual" as if it doesn't include other forms of desire or attraction. Culturally, it does traditionally imply one who is open to pursuing such feelings, but I shrug that off 'cause it's not the definition.

Though I generally choose "gay" in casual conversation, I don't correct people when they call me "SSA", though if they showed any hesitation in knowing how to refer to me, I'll sometimes say, "It's OK to use the word 'gay' with me." And I don't insist that those who prefer to call themselves "SSA" change to referring to themselves as "gay". I realize some do, but I do not.


CONCLUSION AND CONFESSION

Different people just see things differently, and sometimes it's not clearly right or wrong. Institutionally, I think "gay" carries too much baggage for an organization such as North Star or Evergreen to use the word. Individuals within the "LDS SSA" community, however, should use whatever term they feel most comfortable with to describe themselves and should respect other members' choices, which I think most already do. Those who do opt to refer to themselves as "gay" should be able to do so without being corrected or told that when they're more spiritually mature or more faithful, they'll stop using it. Those who refer to themselves as "SSA" should be able to do so without being called self-deceptive or homophobic or told that when they learn to really love themselves, they'll stop using it.

OK, you've heard far more than anyone would want from me by now. And let me be up front: I'm in a pretty questioning phase of life right now. If I were to end up leaving the church, that would confirm Sasha's observations with one more example. Keep that in mind. But I don't think it invalidates what I've said.

Moho Dating Site

You heard me. Saw me. Whatever. Yes, possibly my favorite Google search yet. Somebody recently found my blog by Googling "MOHO dating site," and I had a good chuckle about it. My roommate, the wise@#$ that he is, said, "Did you tell them it's called North Star?" Nice.

I can only imagine what a moho dating site would look like...and I'd rather not imagine it. Talk about awkward.

That's all.

Testing the "Coming Out" Waters at Work

So my female coworker was talking today about how her old boyfriend is getting married. Her first boyfriend, in fact. She paused with this inquisitively introspective expression and said, "My first boyfriend is getting married. And...I'm still unmarried." Her comparisons and reasons for finding this mildly galling and/or obfuscating are irrelevant. We're talking about me, here.

I saw this as an opportunity for a little fun. I quickly looked at her, shrugged and replied, "My first boyfriend's still unmarried." I nodded as I said so, being sure to appear candid and frank.

This frank proclamation, not secretly whispered, was quite audible to other coworkers busily clacking away at their keyboards. Not one flinched. They made every effort to be "minding their own business". Straight-faced (no pun intended), I grinned inside as I perceived their right-wing brains shifting gears wildly to process this bit of information into their slightly jolted conservative paradigms. I also found amusement in the imagined exchange of wagers upon my departure from the room.

She didn't miss a beat. She just nodded and said, "Right, but there's that whole geographical issue of having to move to another state for that. But for me..." I smiled wryly and said, "OK, so I've never had a boyfriend." She laughed (with that perfectly balanced expression that safely expressed both "I knew you were just joking" and "it's OK if you weren't joking") and went on with her story, and our other coworkers showed no sign of relief or skepticism. They were still minding their own business.

So I'm guessing she'd take the news in stride. Sometimes, it's just fun to test the waters to see how people might react. And sometimes, the funnest is when they hardly react at all.


Additional note: during a quarterly evaluation interview with my supervisor, she told me my teammates really seem to like me, and one of the girls thought I was just adorable. Then she said, "I know it's a personal question, but why aren't you married?" Scenarios blazed through my mind about how this could go. "What the @#$%, just tell her." "No, wait, you're in a cubicle, not an office. At least 3 other people will overhear, two of whom may not react well." "Oh, who cares? Just say it quietly." "And get into a conversation here and now? No, this is not the time or place. Besides, even though I'm not 'afraid' to tell her, it's really not her business." "Oh, but you could tell her now, and since she asked you in an interview, and you came out, they would certainly be hesitant to fire you over anything for fear of accusations of discrimination. Talk about job security!" "No, no, like I'd ever actually manipulate people that way. Besides, I don't need to." "OK, maybe a little bit." "No."

I didn't tell her. But I thought about sending her a link to North Star's web site afterwards. Just for kicks. Maybe one of these days.

"If they're so happy, why do they need support groups?"

*** Post begun 1 May 2008, finished 28 Oct 2010 ***

In a discussion forum I don't frequent but dropped in on recently, gay LDS and former LDS people were discussing ex-gay ministries or organizations, and someone mentioned a new organization called North Star. They said it seemed to be different from others because they focused less on change and carried a more positive message with less shame.

Someone piped in, mentioning that the pictures of people on the web site were all happy, smiling faces, and the person asked, "So why do they need North Star and its support groups if they're all so happy and confident about their lives?"

I had never thought of people looking at it that way. After getting over my initial surprise, I balked a bit and thought, "You might as well ask why Affirmation exists, or Pride Festivals." Even if you're happy in your path and confident you're following truth, there's benefit in being among others who believe similarly and will walk that path with you. And sometimes, doing the right thing isn't easy and requires some love and support and friendship to see you through. On top of that, when the thing you believe is not necessarily popular in some ways, it's nice to find others who are similarly different and can walk with and reinforce you in doing something you fully believe in but which isn't necessarily easy.

So Damned Self-Interested

I've had a realization, of sorts, that I've kind of known but haven't fully looked at: mohos are entirely too self-interested and self-absorbed. Unfortunately and uncomfortably, I include myself in that statement.

When I talk to friends, I'm used to talking about ideas, concepts, experiences, families, friends, events, music, etc. But it seems like I now live in a world where everyone wants to talk about their own life and has little interest in glimpsing into and understanding mine. Does anyone care what I did and felt today? Do my close friends really want to know about me, or do they just want the surface because that's all they care about or see? Am I doing the same to others?

Then another realization: my life is boring, so I most often don't feel there's much to share. There's nothing new happening. I'm not working towards any new goals whatsoever. I'm not volunteering. I'm working the same boring job with no real prospects of advancement. I'm not furthering my education. I'm not entering into any relationships. I'm not doing anything. I'm paralyzed by my own indecision. When did I become such a hollow shell of who I once was? When did I make stagnation my M.O.?

OK, so I'm totally self-absorbed because I'm trying to figure out what I want out of life, and wouldn't you know it, I haven't a clue. Maybe that's the crux of it right there: I'm self-absorbed because I can't figure out what I want out of life at all, so I'm constantly trying to figure out my conundra so I can move on, but moving on requires committing to one side or another, and I just don't feel ready to do that. Will I ever?

For example, one choice to make is what to do with this whole "gay" thing. Maybe I should just go off the deep end to experience what it's like to be a typical gay man without concerns of religion weighing on me all the time. Or maybe I should deny myself of all things homo and recommit to churchy life, returning to a monk-like state of devotion. But something tells me either way, even experiencing something won't be the end-all for me. My brain is too active and understands that even first-hand experience is limited in its scope and perspective because _I_ am limited in my scope and perspective. So maybe that particular type of commitment isn't what I, personally, need.

Maybe this is why I blog? I don't feel like I'm really doing anything productive with my life, so I write things to get people thinking and see what responses I get, so I can feel like I'm doing something without really living. Maybe my blog is just another way of masking the emptiness of my life.

I feel bad that every time I get together with my straight friends now, we always seem to end up talking about homosexuality. It seems like we can't just talk like "normal" people do. I have to expound on my ideas and try to "help them understand" what I'm going through. Maybe that's a large part of my hesitation to tell people. I don't want all of my associations to turn into this one-dimensional interaction.

Yet I think, "Why do I always talk about this? Why can't I just leave it alone?" Then I remember: most single people spend a lot of time talking about relationships, romantic interests, attractions...we all do it. But the difference is mine are not allowed to be pursued, so my talking about them isn't the usual, "So I went on a date with this girl the other night, and..." My discussion takes on a different form. Instead of being about the dating and the relationships, I then am left to talk about why I can't pursue any of it and why my same-gender attraction is an "issue", not a normal, healthy part of daily life.

But I'm not sure it has to be that way. I think it has to be possible to just live. To acknowledge the attractions and move on. To let go of the conundra for now and keep living. And this is where Phillip Brown's recent Community Voices essay on North Star comes to my mind. I love what he wrote, and I agree with it...intellectually. I don't think I've fully internalized those principles yet.

I feel foolish for the years I feel like I've wasted wallowing in a seemingly inescapable mire of conflicting desires, contradictory paths, and undefined goals. I feel foolish for spending so much of my energy consumed in the questions that plague me, the indecision and the ambiguity over what to do with same-gender attraction and what to do with my doubts about the church and its doctrine. Meanwhile, not only is life passing by at an alarming rate, but I'm also too damned (and I use that word quite literally as well as colorfully) busy being all-consumed in my own dilemas to notice the simple pain and suffering and needs in those around me: my friends, my family, my neighbors.

There is so much real turmoil and strife in the world. There are so many who feel utterly alone and unloved in ways I'll never understand. There are people dealing with challenges far more debilitating than my sexual frustration and romantic numbness. And there are simple, everyday nuisances I could help lighten with a listening ear and a supportive arm. And, more dramatically, while I'm busy fretting over the fact that I may never have an intimate partner the way I want one, someone's family is starving to death because they can't afford to eat. While I'm consumed in writing this very blog entry, a child is being violently beaten in her own home by the person who should protect and nurture her most in all the world. Granted, there's only so much I can personally do about certain things, but my point is: How selfish can I be to ignore the world around me because I'm too busy trying to decide what to do about the fact that I like boys?

And yet, even as I tell myself these things, I just want someone I love intimately to hold me tenderly as I fall asleep tonight, and I feel like crying at the prospect of never completely knowing that sweetness. I think I need a reality check.

In any case, I'm really tired, it's really late, and I really should sleep on this. But maybe getting the "raw" thoughts and emotions written is OK sometimes. So what the heck, I'll click that stupid "Publish" button...and then I'll fall asleep clutching a pillow I wish were living and breathing, and I'll try not to dwell on feeling indefinitely alone by remembering there are much bigger concerns to be thinking about in my life and the lives of those around me.