How not to become the next boy-renting NARTH officer

Hey, listen, it's time to stop fooling yourself. When you're cuddling compulsively (e.g. you can't seem to get enough or are fighting a persistent urge to rip off clothing), that cuddling is most likely a substitute for sex. Sorry to break it to you, but when cuddling is about natural affection and trust in a secure friendship, it's not something you do in lieu of prohibited naked fun. And if you have a perma-stiffy, you might consider either going ahead and just making out (call a spade a spade) or stopping that particular cuddle session before it catches up with you. Blueballing is only one small probable negative consequence. Warping a relationship is another, especially when boundaries and meaning ascribed to the cuddling aren't clearly agreed upon between both parties. But what's most concerning me is learning to justify behavior in a way that masks underlying motives with idealized but inaccurate motives, a skill not smiled upon in politicians or ex-gay therapists caught in sex scandals.

"Well, who's to say one motive is stronger than another? You don't know me."

Come on. Be honest with yourself. You know the difference between cuddling with a child, for example, or a pet, or a friend of the opposite sex, or a friend of the same sex with whom the idea of sex is either comical or extremely awkward, and cuddling with someone you're physically attracted to.

"Well of course it's going to be different, especially if I have unmet emotional needs related to men and can find intimacy and connection in male friendships. Stop trying to sexualize everything. Besides, just because I might get aroused for a moment doesn't mean I actually wanna go at it."

Fair enough. Like I said, only you really know the difference. Just ask yourself: if you're so sure you're just sharing healthy affection with other men, do you have as strong a desire to share that healthy affection with men who are not your type whom you trust and feel close to?

"But what if that's part of my healing? What if I need affirmation from men I find attractive?"

Do you really believe that's what it's about?

"...I'd like to...maybe...OK, probably not."

Thought so.

"But it's really nice, and it's not just a substitute for sex."

No, it's not just a substitute for sex. But look, if you thought it was OK to make out, would you rather be doing that than only cuddling and caressing?

"...No, because I'd have to have a relationship with someone to do that. I've never even kissed someone."

Oh, that's right. Speaking of your incredible ability to not kiss someone even though you've cuddled with someone in nothing but your garment bottoms...

"Hey, how do you know...?"

Oh, honey, let's just say I know very well. It's maybe a little embarrassing, but it's OK. Mohos are amazing at pushing the envelope in creatively chaste ways. Anyway, that caressing business you do: I get that it's sometimes completely benign and purely affectionate (e.g. arms, hands, scalp massage, back tickling). But when you're caressing each other's inner thigh or bare chest and teasing the underwear waistband by slipping your fingers barely under the edge...well, let me just put it this way: would you do that to your female friend?

"Well, you can't honestly expect me to draw a direct comparison. There are things guys just 'get', and we know each other, and they don't have anything I don't. I mean, I wouldn't shower with my female friends, but that doesn't mean showering with my male friends is sexual."

OK, then maybe consider whether you'd be at all disturbed if you saw two brothers doing it? Anyway, here, let me show you what I know now with another four years of physical intimacy experience under my belt...eh, you know what I mean. OK, now you've kissed someone and all that jazz. What's your answer about whether you'd rather be making out if you thought it were OK?

"Hm...yeah, OK, when I'm honest with myself, I probably would want to make out with at least these two cuddle buddies..."

I'm not saying that any time you get briefly aroused, it means you're just after sex. And I'm not saying you should merely obey your body's lusts. I believe it's good and right to learn to rein your appetites. I believe that particular member sometimes briefly responds to stimuli in its own way. And I certainly don't believe every attraction or affection has a raging undercurrent of sexual desire. I'm just saying the next time you're being physically affectionate with someone you find attractive, consider thinking, "Hey, do we have a close enough friendship for this cuddling to be genuinely trust- and affection-based? If we thought it was OK, would we go for it? If you were absolutely not my type, would I still want to cuddle? Am I mostly kinda hot to trot, and your body feels nice against mine?" There's nothing wrong with admitting it's mostly a physical thing, but I think your cuddle partner should be on the same page to avoid probable messes...pardon the wording.

I'm just concerned that the longer you keep basically using cuddling as a substitute for 'more', the less likely you'll be to really, honestly identify your motives in potentially conflicting situations. I'm worried that some or much of your caressing and holding is an expression of your desire for romantic and sexual intimacy, but you're refusing to recognize that and masking it with an effort to revolutionize male intimacy. That's probably very true for certain of your friendships, but by projecting the innocence of some cases onto all, you may make abnormal behavior or behavior inconsistent with a relationship into something normal in your head, and that's troublesome territory.

I'm also afraid you run the risk of using cuddling and caressing in a way which isn't 'breaking any commandments' but mostly just puts off actually making a decision about what you're going to do with all of this homosexuality and religion conflict you have. It's like you're keeping the religion part and following the rules but in a way that is partially lust behind a mask of affection and intimacy, the exact opposite of what you actually think you're accomplishing.

Short version: I think you're becoming a cuddle slut.

"OK, OK, I see what you're getting at. I do generally want to cuddle the hottest guys the most, and if we both believed differently, I'd probably just wanna go at it sometimes, so I'll try to be more aware of that. But...I have some friends who are totally physically attractive, but I'm not at all attracted to them in 'that' way. Can I still cuddle them?"

Of course. I remember what it's like to believe you're never going to be allowed sexual 'fun' with another guy and how much that can affect your desire to have what physical affection you can, no matter how sexually repressed the motives. Besides...y'know...none of us is perfect.

"Wait...have you cuddled with someone you mainly wanted to get freaky with or didn't necessarily have reason to trust intimately?"

...Yeah, cuddle...um...we're not talking about me. We're talking about you.

If snails can do it...

I've realized that I'm just not convinced by the idea that theoretically perfected celestial beings with immortal, glorified bodies of light who are on a track to omniscient omnipotence still require a penis and a vagina to procreate new celestial or spiritual beings.

I mean, if that's the way it is, then that's the way it is. Maybe it's as simple as living within the constructs we're officially aware of. And if that assumption is made and decided on, then all of this hubbub over same-sex relationships is justified.

Maybe whether or not God could have done it another way, this life has a prescribed purpose, and procreation is central and essential to this life's purpose, and he set us up to need penes and vaginae to procreate, end of story. Naturally, God is a 'he', and a heavenly mother exists necessarily because God needs a heavenly female to complement his heavenly maleness in order to heavenly procreate spirit children. But we don't talk about God's wife...or wives...because she's...they're...so sacred, implying, of course, that God The Male Father is not as sacred because we talk about him all the time, but that implication is not sacrilegious because...well, they just have different roles, so they're equal but our mortal existence only deals with him...for some reason...maybe our heavenly moms needed a break after birthing so many billions of spirit children and they're off getting heavenly spa treatment on the other side of the galaxy... Where was I? Ah, right: So procreation (by divinely arbitrarily chosen method of the union of sperm from a male and egg from a female) and raising souls unto eternal glory is our primary source of purpose and joy, and therefore any deviation from that leads to only partial, or limited, joy and is therefore regarded as 'sin'...you know, for our own happiness.

And within this template, some of us are just tested to see if we'll abide by that system by choice, and in the next life, we'll all be all fixed up into proper, binary male-or-female fashion and rid of any messy wiring which had us attracted to the wrong sex. Maybe hermaphroditic humans are actually just tweaked telestial bodies of a fallen world housing sexually dichotomous 'spirit bodies' and will, in their perfected form, be changed to perfectly sexually differentiated resurrected souls with accompanying, perfectly differentiated and dichotomous gender traits. And we'll all be properly paired, penis-possessors with vagina-possessors (in a one-to-many ratio for maximized production volume, assuming there are that many more vagina-possessors in celestial glory than penis-possessors...perhaps God created more of the former or made them more celestial-prone for this very purpose).

I just find it hard to believe--pardon my skepticism--that if certain wrasses change sex depending on social triggers, and certain snails have mastered hermaphroditic sexual reproduction, gods still absolutely need a penis and a vagina to determine pairing and reproduction. It seems, to me, a touch...inelegant a solution.

But hey, rules is rules. If that's the way things is, then that's the way things is, and we'll be blessed for abiding by it and not rocking the boat to churn up the discontent of the masses even if I'm on to something, here. So we needn't ask questions like whether celestial animals will reproduce, and if so, whether celestial snails will therefore be made male and female in order to follow the "perfect" celestial order of things to match eternal 'gender' roles, or whether they just have their own perfect pattern not related to ours. ...And whether any of those poor, hermaphroditic snails who felt like a male trapped in a he-she snail body will--gotcha!--turn out to have been female spirit-snails all along! We mustn't wonder whether eternal sex, let alone gender, is much more nuanced and complex than some binary male-female physical/spiritual dichotomy or whether males can appropriately and divinely possess traits that happen to be more often found in females but aren't inherently 'feminine' in some eternal sense. That just gets all kinds of intellectually and emotionally messy. No, better to just play along and focus on other easier-to-digest things, like the ward chili cook-off!

What a hoot if we get to the other side, and God hugs us and says, "Hey, so...my first announcement for you newcomers: we're all hermaphrodites here, and gender is more about your traits and complementarity than your gonads. Sorry. I just didn't know how to tell you all in a way that wouldn't make your brains go mushy or throw your sense of gender identity all wonky, so we sort of enforced the whole male-female thing and had that same-sex marriage fiasco to deal with. What a mess, but hey, for your obedience, here you go: I've put a little extra joy in your heart. Doesn't that feel nice?"




Educational supplemental material

Warning: the following video depicts highly erotic sexual activity between hermaphrodites. Please click to acknowledge you are of age to view this material:

I understand and am of age

Gay sex less morally wrong?

One day, I was talking with an acquaintance I'll call W who was struggling with questions around the church and reconciling W's own behaviors with church standards. W had never been a floozy. W, a straighty, had apparently always reserved physical expressions of affection for relationships in which there was genuine affection, appreciation, respect, personal relationship, and exclusivity. Even kissing was not taken lightly. But W was now wrestling with the fact that sexual intercourse seemed an option which felt right and natural to pursue even without marriage, and was wrestling with what that meant for church membership were it to be pursued, etc. When I heard this, perceiving my expression, W asked me if I was bothered by it, if I had a moral opposition even in my agnosticism.

I admitted I did, in fact, feel a repulsion to the idea, a moral opposition, if you will. I said I didn't quite know why, whether I still had residual feelings about sex from my religious background (probably true), whether I was jealous (probably not), whether I had legitimate concerns (felt like I did). I said I did have a lot of trouble with people risking bringing a child into the world without a stable home in which to be raised and that it seemed selfish to knowingly take that risk. I said I think birth control is fine, but what about the exceptions where it doesn't work? I have strong feelings against abortion, particularly when it basically amounts to killing an accidental life because it's not as important as a night of fun was.

W insisted that sex would still only be for a relationship which could become a stable home if necessary, and abortion would never be an option, but W would take every precaution to make sure pregnancy was nothing but a remote possibility, like using both birth control pills and a condom. I retorted, "Then why not wait until the decision to make it a stable home has been made consciously, and the home established, rather than forced and rushed by an accident?" We explored these ideas.

I realized most of my feelings around the appropriateness of sex have to do with a couple of things, not necessarily in any order: 1) the possibility of making a baby, 2) the health risks, and 3) the emotional consequences of each party involved (which is directly connected to the actual intimacy, honesty, and commitment in the relationship, what other relationships each party is involved in, the chemical/hormonal physiology and emotional/mental responses during sex which lead to bonding, and the risks thereof, each person's perceptions of what sex is and what it "means" in their relationship, etc). I also realized that (2) and (3) apply to same-sex relationships as much as mixed-sex, though they may have different factors involved, and (1) is completely irrelevant in gay sex. I also realized that (1) is a really big factor in my views on sex.

I felt somewhat hypocritical for telling W to refrain when I felt less obligated to do so, all else being equal, given certain conditions such as intimacy, commitment, and clean test results. Then I realized a man and woman can pretty much do anything a man and a man could do, although they're somewhat limited in the roles they can take, but two guys or two girls can't really do that one thing a guy and a girl can do. So I felt less hypocritical and thought, "Hey, I may never do that, so you can certainly wait until marriage to do it and find other things to keep busy with in the meantime..." Then I chuckled to myself, shrugged, and carried on talking with W.

The lingering thought remained, "So wait...if a huge part of the morality of having sex is knowingly risking creating a child without having first built a stable parenthood for that child because two people wanted to get off more than they thought or cared about the possible life they might create...wouldn't that make gay sex actually less abominable than hetero sex? Or are there other reasons other than disgust for homosex being seen as so terribly awful by so many religious adherents? And you gotta admit, seeing gay sex as less morally wrong than hetero sex does seem a little convenient for a gay dude." With a smirk, I thought that yes, that was pretty convenient, but yes, I'm still a prude, so I'm tragically not enjoying the benefits of this convenience. And no, that's not an invitation. I like my prudity, thankyouverymuch.

Bridle, not extinguish

Sometimes I think many SSA folks give in to the fear that their homosexuality is a caged beast they'll be unable to control if they talk about it, interact with others who share their proclivities, or reveal its existence. Sometimes, they even cloak that fear as a great and faithful sacrifice as they sweep their inclinations deep under the rug, never to be seen or heard from again. Other times, it's a genuine effort to meekly bear their burden or just live the rest of their life without undue focus on that one aspect.

I've thought of sexual and romantic attraction, though, as "passion" rather than "temptation". Those attractions may sometimes be directed towards people with whom they shouldn't be exercised or pursued. That's true for anyone. But ever since I really looked at the scripture that counsels us to bridle our passions, I've loved that it doesn't say, "stamp out and extinguish your passions." Its says to bridle them, which makes me think of them as beautifully wild horses that you can either lock away out of fear or learn to tame and direct. I think this probably applies to other passions in life, too, and I actually know next to nothing about horses, but I'll stay on this homo horse and ride it out for the purposes of this post.

So unless you're thoroughly convinced God has specifically told you to keep your homosexuality a secret, or to stamp out the feelings it brings up, or to white-knuckle it as you try to kill it or ignore it, just consider the possibility that it wasn't meant to be ignored, or neglected, or shot on sight. Consider the possibility that you were meant to tame it. You can keep the wild horse locked up your whole life for fear of what it might do, or you can risk some scrapes and bruises in the adventure of learning to bridle and direct it.

Whether you believe the attractions themselves are the horse, and homosexuality is the horse's inclination to run off down dangerous or disallowed paths, or you believe straight people have one kind of wild horse and homosexual people have another, maybe with fabulous, colored hair and eye glitter, or you believe sexuality is basically the same for everyone, and some people's horses are prone to climb pillars of rock while others' are prone to charge into caves is your business. I haven't bothered to think the metaphor through to full conclusion or make it all profound 'n stuff. I mean, heck, wild horses are most beautiful and inspiring when they're running free within their realm. We only tame and bridle horses to make them useful to us, which limits their existence to our human constructs...gosh, that's kinda sad...but I guess if we have to choose between them dominating us or us dominating them, then that puts it into perspective. But who are "we" if not the conglomeration and interaction of all passions, intelligence,...OK, nevermind all of that for now.

Specifics aside, all I'm saying is maybe we're not meant to chain our horses up in dark stables to be released in shackles long enough to plow a field then locked away again until the next sowing. Maybe we're all supposed to bridle them, learning to live and love with passion. Maybe this life, even if you look at it from an LDS perspective, is neither merely a world full of "temptations" to be "overcome" or subdued nor a free-for-all grab-bag of pleasures but really is best learned from and appreciated as an adventurous experience full of interrelationships we're only beginning to understand. Eh, that's starting to sound all new-agey hippieish. Rein it in.

In other words: whatever the passions, I hope to bridle mine, in the sense of becoming one whole, rather than to be overridden by them or to stamp them out. And there's a vague sense in me that, similar to wild horses with life and adventure in their eyes, the strong drives to develop bonds and intimacy and partnership and, yes, even pleasure, with others are beautiful, not evil, even if they need a little guidance now and then to successfully function within certain constructs. I've found meaning, depth, beauty, and even increased passion in the self-mastery of bridling and directing passions, and there's just something in this idea of passions as wild horses which I suspect I've been slow to fully embrace and will benefit from exploring more.

The grandeur of celibacy

Note: These thoughts were sparked while reading an early post from a blog which sounds like me ten years ago (almost eerily so...I mean, if I were more articulate and more "SSA"-aware) but which I won't link to because its extremely quickly-booming popularity seems to reflect a desperate lust for somewhat simplistic, church-institution-affirming voices, which I think makes it unintentionally destructive. I imagine the author is a beautifully kind, intelligent, and LDS-faithful person who only wants to help, and I don't mean for my reaction to the blog to be at all personal. If anything, I imagine we might get along really well, differences in beliefs aside.



SHOWING THE LITTLE CAPTAIN WHO'S BOSS

I've done the ol' tricks to dominate my thoughts, not entertain certain attractions, etc. Frankly, I think almost every guy in existence has employed various techniques to keep the ol' captain below under control if he believes in sexual restraint. Every developing guy has a lot of thought control to deal with. I don't know what it's like to be a girl, and I know girls have sex drives, too, but I'll just speak from my experience as a guy. Teenage guys are horny bastages beyond, I think, most women's ability to comprehend. Granted, I thought of myself as pretty much asexual until well into my twenties because I didn't understand how guys could become bumbling idiots over a pretty face and a nice rack. I didn't pay attention to how much energy I exerted not to look when I'd see a hot shirtless guy. Even for a repressed guy like me, just the brush of an arm could set off a hormone red alarm. So already, I think most of them have shown remarkable restraint and conviction of purpose if they've kept themselves "sexually pure".


DIFFERENT FOR GAY GUYS?

I think it's maybe even a little extra-difficult for young gay guys. Those who are hiding their homosexuality can't even get caught glancing too long or looking up and down briefly, so even that has to be kept in check. But even for "out" guys who are "saving themselves", they have challenges most straight guys in our culture don't. Think about it: if you took a young, straight, LDS guy who has never engaged in sexual expression (AKA pent up), and his group of friends includes attractive girls (let's just say most of them are lesbians, but he keeps hoping maybe one or two might be attracted to guys) he can't even check out or date, let alone do anything with, and have him becoming friends with them one-on-one, rough-housing, sleeping over at each other's houses, watching movies on couches together, etc, how much of his time is he going to spend "controlling himself"? Think of a scripture and memorize it, repeat it, repeat it again. What if one of them seems to send really subtle signals that she might like guys, and she's sexually assertive? Sing a hymn, sing a hymn! Then, for the closeted ones, take away the lockerroom talk: he can't even talk about how hot this or that girl is or express any interest other than as friends to anyone. He has to keep it all to himself. Speaking of lockerrooms, tell a straight guy he has to use the women's locker rooms and shower in there. Wear a rubber band to snap your wrist every time you have an impure thought in the lockerroom!

Granted, I don't think you can directly compare them. There's something patently different about your buddies, even your gay buddies, that makes it hard to really compare it to a straight guy with any girls, let alone straight ones, and lockerrooms are not mere fleshfest smorgasbords to most well-adjusted gay guys I know. But it at least illustrates that to be celibate and gay perhaps adds some layers straight guys don't experience. Of course, I think this, as much as any masculinity issues, often compels gay guys to have lots of female friends (hellooooo, fewer temptations and confusing feelings!), but that's a post for another time.


CONFIDENCE FROM SELF MASTERY

Basically, I'm saying this is no small effort to keep one's sexual behaviors in check, let alone one's thoughts. And that's respectable because it reflects a desire to master one's self and hold to one's beliefs about something despite one's drives to defy those beliefs. Whether or not the underlying belief is correct, there's something significant about learning self mastery. If you can bridle or direct the most powerful of human drives, such as hunger or sexual drive, you become confident that you are no slave, and there is an empowering sense of choice.

Of course, just because you can learn great self mastery and dedicate yourself to God by not eating, that doesn't mean eating healthily is wrong, but you get the point, right? Strictures can "make something sacred", or remind you of the value either it intrinsically has or which you choose to place on it, or at least teach you something about yourself.

Other guys who don't have the same restrictive (even if in the ever-popular, positive-spin "kite string" sense so often discussed in LDS Sunday school lessons) regulations on sexuality but have been engaging in sexual behaviors like the rest of Creation, except generally more safely and less savagely than most creatures humankind tends to consider as "beneath" us, probably cannot know what it takes to dominate one's urges and haven't gained self mastery of that kind. They may have learned the confidence of self mastery in other ways, like controlling anger, eating healthily, or serving others when they didn't feel like it, but sex hasn't been one of those all-important methods of learning it.


WHY I TRY TO KEEP IT IN MY PANTS

Even independent of religious beliefs, I think there are reasons to limit sexual expression to committed, monogamous relationships, such as the complications of physiological/emotional bonding (whether a chemical/hormonal or 'spiritual' thing), health risks, pregnancy risk, development of trust and deeper emotional/intellectual intimacy, and--I'll be honest--focusing first on foreplay which will enhance sex if/when you get to it. I'm not sure I need more reasons than those to save sex for "special" relationships, or saving the most intimate sexual expressions for lifetime commitment.


MAKING IT MEANINGFUL

There have been times when I've held back because it felt like it would cheapen a relationship if we did too much too fast. I know that may seem like I'm just holding on to my mormon sensibilities, and maybe I am, but I think there's something to it. Maybe it goes back to the idea of refraining in order to make it more special because I want it to be, not because it inherently is or should be. Which leads me to the whole reason I started writing all of this: it's somewhat fascinating to me how much "meaning" and "purpose" some ascribe to their efforts to quell their sexual appetite or desires for romantic connection. I definitely know where they're coming from. I've been there, too.

In more sexually puritanical society, where even the awakening of sexual feelings is prohibited until marriage between a man and a woman (generally, their marriages don't have to be eternal or church-performed, just civil, which is a relatively new institution, but hey, we've gotta draw lines somewhere, so it's understandable), the strictures might be even greater.


MUCH MORE THAN THE LITTLE CAPTAIN'S FUN

In such a society, on top of the dynamics of just "keeping it in your pants until marriage", those who have never experienced with someone of the opposite sex an attraction they would feel right to build a marriage on are faced with a starker probability of lifelong singleness than the average hetero person. The average single, LDS straight guy or girl probably generally at least looks forward to eventually being able to find a companion in this life someday, even if the prospects look grim or they feel unlovable (a terrible feeling for sure). But a single, LDS gay/SSA person typically believes he/she must either marry someone of the opposite sex or remain celibate (in this case meaning "without romantic companionship" in addition to "without sex") until the next life, on top of the possible worries about prospects or feeling unlovable. He/she may have a vague notion that he/she could theoretically be attracted to someone of the opposite sex someday and get married, but it's a vague notion in which they have to exercise a lot of faith and which they often think is a long-shot, so they typically, at some point, confront the possibility of a life without romantic companionship of any allowable kind.

How else could you face something so difficult with happiness, other than to have a strongly motivational purpose and meaning behind it? LDS doctrine states that sex is beautiful and encouraged by God within the right bounds, that it's directly and inseparably connected to one of our main purposes for being here: bringing more spirit children to the earth to experience their mortal probation and gain a body. More progressive LDS also believe it's a God-given experience between husband and wife as part of a wholeness of intimacy to keep them bonded and dedicated to each other and together to raise their family, which is presumably why birth control isn't against official church policy, which only states it's a decision to be made between spouses and God. But with that perspective, that we are here to partner up, multiply and replenish the earth, procreate and raise children unto the Lord, etc, those who are single and unsure of whether they'll ever find someone, for whatever reason, can either focus on the fact that they may never be a part of the great plan of happiness in that central, pivotal way, or they can focus on finding meaning in the path they're on and frame "what they're missing out on" instead as "what they're dedicating to God".

I've known a lot of people, including those who view sexual intimacy as something to be restricted to being between husband and wife, who have decried the Catholic notion of celibacy as false doctrine, but as I understand it, nuns and priests consider celibacy to be a pinnacle of dedication of one's life to God and godly pursuits, a calling for which not all will or can be chosen but which is nonetheless a sanctifying dedication. I tend to see a lot of gay mormons sharing that kind of perspective, a sort of offering which makes their single status more meaningful, more dedicated, more rewarding. And why not? You've got to cope somehow, and that seems a pretty effective way.


YEAH YEAH, I'M A PARAGON OF VIRTUE, BLAH BLAH BLAH

In the past, when I've told people I'm gay but actively LDS and not dating men (back when I believed the doctrines and was not dating men), some have told me they didn't know how we mohos do it--here, some of them realize how a mind like mine might interpret their statement and clarify that they mean "deal with this challenge" by facing a life of probable singleness with such faith--I've felt like saying, "Yeah...but I mean...what choice do I have, here, really? I can either wallow in self-pity and pine away for what I might never have, focusing on the negative, and let that lead me to almost certain misery or apostasy, or I can have faith that it's all going to work out in the end because it's the Lord's plan, whether that means I find a wife or will be sustained by the Spirit in dedicating my single life to God and blessed in eternity with more joy than I possibly could have found in this life with a male partner!" Instead of saying that, I typically quietly nodded and smiled and said something like, "It's hard sometimes, sure, but everyone has their challenges." Cue the looks of sympathy and deep respect that I'm keeping my chin up with an eternal perspective.


O-MO, YOU'RE RAMBLING. ...AGAIN. 'GRANDEUR', 'CELIBACY', OK GO.

What's my point? Not sure. You think it's tedious reading this stuff? Try writing it. Oh, grandeur. About that, I guess I am saying that hearing some people talk about their faith in the eternal blessings for choosing to be single for life if they can't find a potential eternal companion reminds me that it seems like the grandeur we place on acts we do or refrain from doing often directly correlates to the perceived misery of doing or refraining. Alternatively, the need to explain it kind of dissolves if there's no grand "plan" or formula creating the strictures to begin with, so you're free to choose whatever seems best, and it becomes a task of figuring out what you want. But whether or not difficult acts are inherently "good" or "right", having an overarching, great and meaningful purpose for them, whatever that purpose is (I know many people with varying grand or practical visions of the universe or life in general), really does help get people make the best of otherwise tough situations, and often not in a trudging or slowly plodding way but even with vigorous purpose and energy. Even these people will have some "down" times until they're able to rediscover that purpose or find another and pick themselves up for another foray into purposefulness.

So seek truth, seek true principles, live by those principles for your own self respect and confidence. But through it all, when you're committed to doing something hard, and it begins to feel hopeless, find your meaning, find your purpose. I'm talking to myself there, FYI. Sorry, I should probably finish this conversation with myself offline. Could get awkward for all of you when I start exchanging expressions of affection using pet names with myself.


CABIN FEVER BE GONE

Yeah...I've been inside too long. Gym time, then TV night with friends it is. Goodbye, lovelies.

Losing It Late

Aw, crap. See, not only am I no Itzhak Perlman by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm in a demographic likely to experience sexual dysfunction later in life? Well, that's it. I give up. Lifelong virgin, that's it.




Warning: though this particular video is pretty tame, some of his other videos (which will likely be linked to at the end of this one), while refreshingly frank, use over-the-top language (in my opinion) and a notable...how to say this...lack of expressed support of sexual restraint or "the law of chastity".

Straight Men Getting It On With Men

When people say homosexuality is all about sex, I think they're actually talking about this (don't worry, it's nothing scandalous), which I don't think of as homosexuality but rather as simple, good old fashioned horniness. He asserts many points I think some scientists and psychologists will say are disputed and not quite as cut-and-dry as he (a gay psychologist) seems to believe, but the discussion is an interesting one, and he makes some good points, I think. But I guess, in the most literal sense of the word, this behavior is, in fact, homosexual but probably distinct from "being gay". Oh, the semantic journey of social and biblical questioning this could take me on... Nope, I'm going to the gym instead. Toodles!


Sidenote: I don't like that he brings "bromance" into that discussion because as I understand it, bromance is not at all sexual but is a type of friendship some people call "romantic" friendship, but not in the sense of wanting to be with in a conjugal or "romantic" relationship but more like a form of infatuation or a "friend crush"...OK, shutting up. Gym.

Lost That Lovin' Feeling

*** Published 27 Oct 2010 ***


It's been quite a while since I've had a consistent...drive. I suppose my experiences with a few confusing friendships and observations of the emotional weirdness and NCMO sluttiness around me may have had some influence on my eagerness to engage in such behavior, but I can't help but wonder if I'm just plain getting old. Maybe I'm depressed. Maybe I'm "maturing". BORING!

I kind of miss feeling an overflowing sexual energy.

Sluttiness is Sluttiness

*** Published 27 Oct 2010 ***


It becomes easy to forget that a slut is a slut, whether we're talking about sex, kissing, cuddling, whatever. One type of sluttiness probably has greater eternal consequences than another, but seriously, when physicality becomes a way to "get yours" rather than part of a connection with another person, I think that's unattractive to most healthy people, regardless of gender or orientation.

Big Bad Sexuality

***Posted 16 October - This post started as a comment on someone else's blog (I forget which, now), but I intended to round out and complete the post someday.***


Good thoughts.

I find your last statement, however, to be troublesome: "friends' faith is damaged by feelings of sexual attraction". This is an association two of my friends seem unable to let go of. I have another friend, a female, who has been so aggravated by the fact that sexuality seems to be the root of the downfall of people, societies, civilization as we know it. Maybe that's right, but I disagree and think it stems from not understanding it (both of you have expressed, extensively, your confusion over sexuality in general), so it's easy to go all scapegoat on its A.

I think you can make such an argument for rebellion in general: for lust and greed and hedonism in all its forms.

And aside from hedonistic distractions, people will often re-evaluate their beliefs in light of various additions to their experience and understanding which may, for better or worse, shake up their priorities and ability or desire to ignore already-existing questions and doubts which were previously easier to gloss over: academia, careers, traumatic events, or other pursuits are some such catalysts.

For those who still believe, when others decide they no longer do or never did, it's hard to accept as anything other than "falling away" or "denying their faith", because we are, again, looking at it through our own lens, our own current experience. But I accept that maybe, for some, they are actually discovering that they never believed as much as they thought they did. It was always easier for me to chalk it up to sinfulness or spiritual slothfulness leading to apostasy, but in some cases, I think it just amounts to realizations and integrity, in a strange way. I am simply not comfortable claiming to know how much someone believed or why they are deciding to choose another path. It's not mine to know. All I can do is focus on what I believe and what choices I am making.

It's the application and focus and priorities, not the thing itself, which is the cause for departure or re-evaluation of core beliefs and peripheral beliefs or concepts.

On what may be a tangent (though totally relevant to your blog), I think it's important to remember that lust is not unique to sexuality, and sexuality is not lust. Sexuality and romantic or physical attraction are not testimony-destroying monsters. They are, according to LDS doctrine, god-given drives to be directed within a gospel framework and are beautiful things when expressed meaningfully, ennobling relationships and increasing intimacy on all levels. They are part of the soul, the whole of body and spirit. As far as I understand our doctrine, this life is not a time to reject and eschew the physical as the burdensome "trial" it is but to join it, righteously, with the spiritual, as a whole being.

Sexuality, in our fallen world, may be misused, and it may be misguided, redirected, or lacking altogether, in certain individuals, due to whatever factors relating to the fact that we do not live in perfection. But sexuality itself is not the problem.

Sexuality is the root of all evil

*** Published 27 Oct 2010 ***
*** Presumably started as a comment on someone's blog entry, but I don't remember. ***

Hm...good thoughts.

Your last statement, however, is troublesome: "friends' faith is damaged by feelings of sexual attraction". This is an association two of my friends seem unable to let go of. I have another friend, a female, who has been so aggravated by the fact that sexuality seems to be the root of the downfall of people, societies, civilization as we know it. Maybe that's right, but I disagree and think it just stems from not understanding it (both of you have expressed, extensively, your confusion over how people can be so ga-ga over sexuality), so it's easy to go all scapegoat on its A. :-)

I think you can make such an argument for rebellion in general. For lust and greed and hedonism in all its forms. After all, lust is not unique to sexuality, and sexuality is not lust.

I've seen people leave the church in relation to sexual issues, for sure. Much of the time, they come back later when the embarrassment of their actions has worn off, or when they "get it out of their system" and decide that what they were chasing after wasn't as fulfilling as they thought it would be, and they reassess where their true happiness is found. Sometimes, they go through a period of disbelief but come back with renewed, stronger conviction. Sometimes, they still believe but do not return to activity because they don't feel able to "fit in". Sometimes, they stay away, wondering why they waited so long to leave. Sometimes, whether or not they feel they can "fit in", they have been grappling with doubts and questions their whole life, and now, they no longer see fit to set those doubts aside and decide, instead, to let go and admit that they just "can't buy it" anymore, especially in light of opportunities which they had never considered but which now seem viable and fulfilling, and they can't keep holding on to the cultural benefits and comfort of home for the sake of appearing faithful. There's a wide spectrum out there. And I just can't justifiably chalk it up to, "well, they chose sex over their faith". But for those who believe that their faith is concrete truth (as latter-day saints do), the only explanation is that the person abandoned truth for something they wanted more. So I get what you're saying from that standpoint.

But people do the same with academia, or careers, or other pursuits. It's the application and focus and priorities, not the thing itself, which is the cause for departure or re-evaluation of what are core beliefs and what are peripheral.

What's Wrong With a Little 'M'?

For those of you who don't know, in the online mormon discussion world, 'M' is the oft-used abbreviation for the all-too-fun-to-discuss topic of masturbation (AKA 'self abuse' in church manuals). I figured it was about time to 'go there' and bring this up when I was looking through some old discussion group posts and came across the following, which I wrote a couple of years ago:

----------------------------
I've been thinking for some time about it. I think a problem with masturbation is that it is...well...sort of akin to blasphemy...in a way. How to explain...? The power to procreate is magnificent and sacred, right? But we aren't 'procreating' when using birth control within marriage, so what of that? That's not condemned by church policy, right? Maybe there's another factor.

When you're making love with your spouse, what you are hopefully doing (yeah, I'm inexperienced and idealistic...bear with me) is giving yourself completely to him or her. You are sharing the most vulnerable parts of you, emotionally and physically, with the purpose of helping them achieve, with you, an intensity of emotional and physical and spiritual feeling and intimacy that the two of you can share as a precious and deeply personal experience that brings you together in a way completely unique to your relationship.

Intercourse is meant to be selfless and aimed at pleasing your spouse...as well as being highly pleasurable, no? So taking that and saying, "Forget commitment and focusing on her--I want to take that most special of experiences and keep it for myself. I want to focus on ME and pleasing ME." This self-satisfying, almost animalistic approach contributes to killing the sacredness of sexuality.

Now, stamping out the special nature of sex is done so relentlessly in every media form and in daily conversation that masturbation may seem just one small step...but it's an actual, voluntary, deliberate action, often mixed with "impure" thoughts and entertainment that degrades the beauty of humanity to base, spiritless lust, not just an off-color remark made in passing.

I guess I'll stop trying to expound. My main point is that I believe it IS, to some degree, wrong (no soap box--no pretense of perfection--just what I think). And no, I don't think we should feel immediately and irreparably hellbound for giving in to the natural, biological urges in us. But as with any impure action, one should tell him- or herself, "I will do better next time." ...and no, I don't mean 'do better' that way, sickos.

We pick ourselves up and move on, determined to eliminate impure and unholy practices from our lives, recognizing our imperfection and need for a Savior, and repenting by feeling the need to change, asking for help and forgiveness, and moving on. Our direction and attitude make all the difference, I think.

Yeah, it's probably not a holy practice. Yeah, you're probably not in the minority if you do it. I don't think anyone should be too hard on themselves over it (I tried to think of a better way to word that--work with me, here). But it's most often the subtle things that slowly lead us into places and attitudes we otherwise would not have approached. And I just wouldn't want to be controlled by it or let it foul my perspective on what it means to 'make love.'
----------------------------

Addendum:

I originally had some other thoughts but decided not to make this post longer. However, in response to a comment on this by iwonder, I've decided to include those thoughts, plus some, tacked onto the end of this post:

Regarding the fact that I often post past thoughts, I do feel pretty much the same now on a lot of these things as I did then. It's just that since I've already written out a lot of these thoughts, rather than rehash by rewriting, I just repost what I've written, slightly edited.

I understand the feeling that those of us who hold little hope for future "appropriate expression" of sexuality can't reasonably be expected to abstain from this form of "self-expression", if you will.

And I think that in that sense, as long as it's not accompanied by pornography use or lustful fantasies, it's still best to avoid it but also to move on if you engage in it, without feeling guilt-ridden. Even if it's not good or ideal, it's not the sin next to murder, either, folks. And if your past indicates that you're less likely to go have sex with strangers if you take care of business by yourself at home, then by all means, use it as a stepping stone to a better place. Again, even if not ideal, it's a lot better than the alternative (e.g. scratching your number into bathroom stalls or booty calling a Craig's List contact). Now, remember that you do, in fact, despite past experience, have free agency and need not always be a slave to your sexual appetite, so always have progression in mind.

In short, I'm a bit agnostic as to how bad simple self-stimulation, independent of degrading images or thoughts, is. We don't have ample doctrinal declarations or scriptural basis for such. Only sporadic mention. So that's why I didn't go in-depth into whether you should never engage in it but focused on the principles around the act I believe are helpful to keep in mind.

And in addition, I am not yet among those who holds no hope for a future marriage, so that affects my perspective, but I think I'll expound on that in another post.

-------------------------------------------

Addendum (2009-09-27): When I first wrote this, I avoided making comparisons with other habits for a reason, but I'll just say I might compare the severity of the simple act to something like using crude language. It's not exactly virtuous. It's crude. It's certainly not indicative of self-mastery (somewhat like eating too much junk food). And in the case of masturbation, it may in many cases or for many people equate to committing emotional adultery with yourself against your spouse or degrading another human being to nothing more than an object for your self-gratification, and while occasionally indulging in such to a small degree is probably not going to turn you into a sociopath or a black-hearted hedon, I think seeing or thinking of people as playthings rather than living souls or taking sexual energy away from a spouse are best avoided. But in moderation, you probably don't need to prostrate yourself in lowly repentance for an hour because you "took matters into your own hands" for a moment.

I do still think pornography and fantasizing are more troublesome issues, but perhaps that, too, is another post for another time. One of my bishops told the congregation that, in response to questions about when porn and masturbation become "a problem", he said if it's more than once a month, come see him. I thought that sounded pretty fair, and I eagerly went home marked the first day of every month on my calendar as the monthly "my bishop told me it's OK" day...