What if you were wrong about...?

A friend asked me over brunch one day some time ago, "What if, just imagining, what if after you die, you find that life continues--you continue--and you're led to someone who explains that he's the Savior? How would you react?" It was a question I already had asked and answered myself, checking in with myself periodically to see if the answer was still the same.  It was then, and it is now.

I explained that despite the guilt-inducing stories of my Mormon social upbringing in which some rebellious character gets to the other side and is too ashamed to look Christ in the face, I don't have the sense that that would be my experience. I acknowledge that could change, depending on what perspective might open up to me at some point, but actually living it has given me a different conception.  I've lived as honestly and sincerely as I know how, and I fought for years to hold on to what beliefs or "testimony" I could and give myself ample time to come back around before heading off in any direction other than the one that had, for years in the past, seemed so trustworthy.  I've acted and prayed carefully for years.  I don't feel "rebellion" in my path.

I will not always get it right, and I don't want to mislead anyone or miss opportunities to help someone in the best way when I could have done so. But when it comes right down to it, I hope I will always find a way to let go of my own pride about how right I've been or egocentric pride about what kind of "example" I'm being and will instead humbly, deliberately, and actively seek to embrace truth in front of me.

And for that reason, the short answer to that ultimate question is really just three words: I would kneel. I still get choked up saying that, but I don't see any other way. My friend said he somehow knew that would be my response. I took that as a compliment. Sure, I don't expect that is what will happen, but I don't think I have it in me to be totally dismissive about the possibility, it having meant so much to me for so long. And sure, if it does happen, I might wonder how I had lost sight of it or how many souls I could have brought to the greater truth during my time wandering.  And I might have questions to ask and critical thinking to incorporate into or balance with faith, but in the end, I believe what ultimately matters is that when truth presents itself, no matter how scary or unexpected, I embrace it and try to do the best I can with it.  After all, that's how I've found the peace and perspective I have today, and I'm not so proud as to assume I've got it all figured out now. For that reason, I believe I would kneel, and I would ask, "What now?"

Please do not hinge your hope on "change"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Ye of little faith

In some moments, I want to say to theists, especially the fundamentalist religious types, "You have so little faith in the unseen. You're so impatient and think you need all of the answers now..." Of course, I recognize that it's possibly precisely because it's been "used" against me in the past that I am inclined to use it in return. But I was reading a discussion about "miracles," and comments like, "Well, there's no better explanation, so it's clearly an [unnatural or supernatural or otherwise mystically-timed] act of God" had me a bit bewildered at how impatient some people are when it comes to not knowing the answers and having to explain it now however they can to make the world make sense again. And it clicked: I was thinking they lacked faith in truth itself. Bear with me while I explain in more long-winded manner (who, me?!):

The laws of nature are not fully understood. The relationships between particles, forces, or energies are not fully understood. We try to relate to the world and the universe through theoretical, measurable chunks. We create theoretical vacuums in which to understand principles of physics. We create simplified components of systems to understand the principles at work. We love stories with simplified characters because they make artificially clear the traits of heroism or evil. But reality--the real-world operations and interactions of things and people--rarely if ever operates in such stark simplicity but is instead a possibly infinitely complex conglomerate, series, or interaction of each of these simplified ideas. Our systems of scientific experimentation are often completely adequate in their estimates, but it is all still estimation, and the most minute anomaly can introduce unexpected influence and cause variation.

If I could precisely measure exactly the physical, atomic, and subatomic interplay between molecules and particles making up what we call "air", and I knew exactly the gravitational influences from the earth and nearby celestial bodies such as the moon, and I knew exactly every other action in the world which was to occur instantaneously at a given point in time which would, in turn, cause a reaction or interaction with incidental particles and people, and I knew exactly what decisions people were going to make to affect the world around them, and I knew what particles and debris would enter our atmosphere as the Earth sped through space, and could incorporate all of the abstractly simple and straightforward laws of physics into this complex understanding, then I could probably predict exactly where on the ground or on a person's shoulder a feather dropped from the Eiffel Tower would land or predict what the weather was going to be in Provo, UT next year at this time. But that dropped feather will behave in a seemingly unpredictable and chaotic way, changing direction with the slightest shift in the air, and hey, even what the weather will be tomorrow is a bit of a crap shoot for Utah's meteorologists.

The feather landing on someone's head might seem a miracle, especially if that person also happened to have asked God for a sign of peace in the last year, more so if they asked an hour prior. An unexpected downpour right onto one person's house might seem a sign of gloom and doom or might confirm to passersby that this person is, indeed, a bad neighbor as they had suspected. These are the cases where people say, "Well, you can't tell me it's a coincidence..." But how many people are just looking for anything to confirm what they hope or suspect? And of those, how many have these events occur? Many assume that, absent of a scientific explanation, their belief in the supernatural has been confirmed. Others persist, after increased knowledge and understanding explain how the incident occurred, in believing that the timing itself testifies of its miraculous nature. But when a "miracle" occurs which seems to defy their beliefs, it is quickly scoffed at or otherwise shrugged off as an "unknown", or a Satanic imitation, or someone trying too hard to look for signs.

Is it any wonder that on occasion, events may take place which meteorologists couldn't predict given their current understanding and measurements? Is it any wonder, with how little we yet know of the incredibly complex systems and interactions within the human body, not to mention the inability, logistically or financially, to measure every single function occurring in every single medical patient at all times, that people experience phenomena--from healing, to revitalization after clinical death (cells don't all cease functioning for quite a while), to utterly unexpected death--which medical knowledge "can't explain"?

And yet, despite this perspective, when I see what religious adherents might refer to as a "miracle", I'm not sure I'm any less in awe of it or grateful for it than they are, or than I was of similar events when I was religious. It's beautiful. I love that the universe still attests that there is a vastness of truth beyond anything I can comprehend, yet to be discovered and understood, and that we are players in an incredibly expansive reality. I'm in awe at the fortune of some to have their wishes fulfilled, to have a loved one brought back as they may have teetered on the point of despair or resignation or to stumble upon great fortune at a time of desperate need. I acknowledge it's impressive when a priesthood blessing seems to be fulfilled in miraculous manner. But I also know how many are not, and I know another family just lost their loved one unexpectedly despite the strongest of faith, and I know it sometimes rains on temple dedications, and I know children praying for families or health may never find them. That doesn't mean there's no God or that God isn't personified and willful and allowing each person to learn in different ways and on different timelines. But...there comes a point where you have to acknowledge that religious explanations typically seem awfully 'convenient' to the adherents' paradigms and context. But hey, I know what it's like to think, "Well, I know it might seem convenient, but if it's true, then of course it's going to make sense within the doctrine. Of course it's going to seem convenient: because it's the truth." That might seem circular, but as long as it's not being used to "prove" that the miracles are true, it's not circular, and you have to acknowledge...it's logical, assuming...

I used to reconcile things like seemingly unjust pain and death with the idea that because there's another life beyond this, even death isn't tragic if it's merely a passage into another, better stage of existence, and even those kids who grow up without families may have been given opportunities, through their coping, to learn and grow stronger which they might not have had if they had been placed. I used to figure some people were healed because someone needed the miracle or because the healed person had more to do on earth, while others weren't because someone needed the humility, or the deceased person was needed on the other side for some purpose.

Having thought that way, I may have a different take than most nontheists on the idea that scientific explanation necessarily negates the need for belief in or existence of deity. The mere notion that we may, one eon, if we last long enough as a species, discover all of the mechanisms and interactions in the universe--like where emotions come from and why some people have "near-death" or "out-of-body" experiences--does not guarantee that there aren't mechanisms by which more advanced beings couldn't be pulling some strings or manipulating events here and there. As I understand it, the LDS notion of God is compatible with this nearly sci-fi kind of outlook in which natural laws are completely preserved but operate on more planes of energy or perception than those of which we are now aware or which we're able to prove with current technology and measurement.

All of this comes back to my point that when I hear people say, "I believe God performed a miracle because there is no other explanation," I see a very weak reason to believe. Even though I'm skeptical, I think there are other reasons to believe than this sort of 'default', mostly deeply personal and mostly impossible to insert into someone else's psyche. When someone says, "I believe in God because the universe just doesn't make sense without him," I hear impatience and...a lack of faith, not to mention a sad lack of intellectual curiosity and engagement with the universe they're a part of. I see a lack of faith in what is yet to be seen, what is yet to be understood. How many times have I been taught and in turn taught others that we simply cannot and will not have all of the answers here and now, or in this life at all, and that a little faith is required to trust that it all makes sense somehow? You may not understand a trial or struggle now, but you can still trust that a reason exists and that it will be for your good somehow. You may not understand an unexplained phenomenon now, but you can still trust that an elegantly reasonable explanation exists for what it was or how it happened. Be not afraid.

Of course, when I ceased to need a "why" for everything because I no longer necessarily believed a conscious, willful being was in control of everything or "allowed" everything to happen, or chose to intervene in some cases (implicitly not in others), and I realized I believed it's never been about "why" but more about "how" and about what I'll make of it, many ideas started to click in a way they never had before.

Sometimes, the principle of faith--of not needing all the answers now--is used to browbeat those who do not believe in a God or in a religiously theistic outlook. But my paradigm shifted. I'm not sure when, and I might come up with any of a number of explanations for how or why, but it shifted. I still understand the principle, even from an LDS perspective. I still know that even if God is very real and present, I'm simply not going to understand the will and mind of an infinitely powerful and omniscient being for whom time may be irrelevant in order to make sense of things which don't make sense to my limited, mortal brain and perspective.

But atheists and nontheists have a faith, too, though maybe not the mystical kind the religious value more: a belief in or hope for truth which is as-of-yet not discovered or not proven, which may or may not have evidence. They trust that there's an explanation, even if we don't know it now, even when they are being told to stop looking for it and "have faith" that God is the explanation. They may even regard theists as being impatient and lacking trust or faith in ultimate truth, instead supplanting that quiet patience with notions of the unnatural or supernatural manipulation by invisible beings, sacrificing the search for truth and expansion or adjustment of perspective for a hasty embrace of a story which demotes truth by fitting the universe into one's already-existing perspective. This is probably similar to the way the religious view the non-, as "denying" religious truth to fit their limited, sensory, quantifiable perception and mere physical universe at the expense of the vast spiritual dimension of existence. I'm not sure how you bridge that gap of understanding.

But in my view, the intellectually, emotionally honest among us--theist and nontheist alike--are patiently waiting to find and receive the answers to the mysteries without jumping to conclusions, despite our respective hunches and personal experiences. That is, I think, largely the essence of my agnosticism: not only patience with but even a sort of reverence for the complexity and ambiguity of truth and the search for understanding.

I was told by someone in conflict, "I can't question everything my whole life. I need conviction." I was in no position to debate, but I wanted to say, "Show me conviction without questions. No, your view and mine are incompatible. I hope to never stop questioning. To do so would be a lack of faith."

The homely truth about O-Mo

There are a few things I think people sometimes misperceive about me and a few tidbits which seem to surprise people when they find them out. I've probably thought of some of these because of the new people I've been meeting and spending time with and the questions they come up with along the way. It makes me wonder what perceptions people have of me and when they'll see past their self-told stories about me based on initial impressions. So by way of clarification:

• I'm interesting and fun to certain people, but I'm often terribly boring to people who "like to have fun" in the dancing, partying sense or frustrating to those who are especially action-oriented or hardcore.
  
• I know a few people genuinely and deeply care about me and say they're glad to have me around, but I occasionally still feel completely useless to everyone, like my total absence wouldn't make any notable difference.
  
• While I sometimes let the previous feeling motivate me to want to live in a way that would be more impacting, I sometimes instead wish I could just vanish away to stop using up resources and people's energy for my piddly life and concerns.
  
• I am often confident about many things, but I'm also insecure sometimes about others. Being confident or having conviction about some things does not eliminate insecurities or uncertainty about others.
  
• I have an abundance of love and affection to offer, but I nevertheless often think that the strongest and most animating affection and love I have felt will be homeless, and I'll be better off alone or am unfit to really match up with anyone in a meaningful, lasting way unless I shut down significant parts of my personality and cognition which most people find difficult to deal with or share...
  
• I have a lot of beliefs and conviction, but those have been gained through or proven by questions and doubts.
  
• I want to make the most of my life and really contribute something but often move on to another idea or lose practical interest before the follow-through. It's not that I don't have ambition or don't care, it's that I may need external help to channel and invest and don't easily identify that help.
  
• I fall into intellectual laziness sometimes, failing to exercise my mental muscles or remember why I've incorporated certain principles, and emotional attachments or desires sneak in to draw me in directions I don't believe are ultimately best but which "feel good" at the time. Fortunately, I'm also slow to act, so I typically have time to realize my potential direction and remember the reasons before I've done anything "rash" (like going to church in a moment of wishing for the sense of community or simplicity of just playing along but without believing it, or fooling around with someone who's hot and seems willing but with whom I don't want a romantic relationship and whom I don't trust enough to know that they're disease-free or know for sure where they're coming from emotionally). This lends an air of stability which is pretty accurate but is not necessarily the whole story: there's still messiness behind the stability--it just typically gets processed internally.
  
• I'm intelligent but easily distracted from learning about things by shiny, newer things or old hobby interests.
  
• I like good books but rarely read because I'm a very slow reader and don't feel satisfied by skimming.
  
• I am once again without a job and am, in fact, looking for employment but not nearly to the degree I probably "should" be because I hate job-hunting and let myself get very easily distracted by...blogging, for example. Or dates. Or movie nights with the boys. Or a long, hot bath. Or working out. Or cleaning my room. Or manscaping. Or cooking. Or editing wedding photos I have to get done. ...and then I procrastinate the photo editing because once it's done, I know I'll be out of good excuses to put off job-hunting...crap...
  
• I chew the skin around my fingernails. A lot. Especially when I'm reading blogs and formulating my own entries. Then once I've done it a little, I have to keep going until there are no rough edges. This often means I've made a meal of my own skin after a couple of hours before I force myself to stop. It's pretty disgusting when I think about it. I don't consider it a "nervous habit", just a lost-in-thought one, but one I should probably kick nonetheless.
  
• I care about people's feelings, but I have a threshold to how much I can hear complaints about the same thing repeatedly, and I can become insensitive when I get especially pragmatic with other people's trials. This is 'ironical' because my journals and blogs show a pattern of talking about the same things many different ways...and sometimes the same ways...
  
• Even though I wish more people were more direct with me about what they perceive as my shortcomings (whether or not I'll agree), I'm also sometimes afraid to ask direct questions or realize I just don't care about someone's opinion on something.
  
• I feel a desire to be more, to do more, to contribute more, but I also value just enjoying the company of those I care about and making happy memories together from what we have, even if it's not much. Of course, I can't help but wonder if I am a slothful, apathetic person because I'm not so goal- and accomplishment-oriented as some of my friends. Part of me thinks there's more to it than that, that there's a fundamental personality difference that I have yet to tap into to find my place, but another part of me wonders if I really am just lazy, or if my priorities are not lined up for my happiness, even if I don't think they should be lined up the way others around me line theirs up...which I don't. *shrug*
  

Hey, the first step is admitting the problem, right? On the other hand, I didn't write these for y'all to confirm or deny them. Almost every time I write or say something like this, someone says something they think I meant, and I didn't, and I disagree, and then they think I'm just stubborn and rebellious for not agreeing with their own interpretation of or spin on what I said. Ha, whatev.

On a related note, there are those things which are, I believe, not so problematic (at least not anymore) but "just are":

• I rarely remember references or quotations, and I rarely repeat information or pretend to know something about something until it's been confirmed in some reliable way, or else I'll repeat it but make clear that I don't know its validity. I used to worry this made me sound less intelligent. I no longer worry about it, even if it's true.
  
• I'm a fairly good-looking guy, but I'm heavily acne-scarred on my face and shoulders and upper back, and it took me years to first get over the shame and then come to terms with it pretty thoroughly. I used to hate the thought of disgusting people with my ugly back and zit-covered face and couldn't keep from worrying about it in many situations. Now it rarely occurs to me, not because I'm naive to the fact that some people will be disgusted but because I no longer am. One step in that process was having someone I cared about and was attracted to look right at my acne-scarred shoulders, touch them, and even kiss them without apparent reservation years ago. I sometimes forget how meaningful that was to me at the time.
  
• I've been accused of being a bit of an exhibitionist in certain circles (only among trusted gay friends, really), but I was painfully modest for over a decade and was really uncomfortable about being seen shirtless, so it's possibly an overcompensation...though I'm really not a nekkidness freak or anything.
  
• I have what some might regard as a few refined tastes, but I also unabashedly like some things which seem to invite the response, "Really? I think I just lost a little respect for you." Like watching The Bachelor. *wink* I pay little attention to such juvenile judgments.
  
• I'm a jack of a few trades, master of none. I thought of myself as talentless for years. I now think of myself as having a talent or two, albeit very underdeveloped because I can't seem to maintain interest in one long enough to really excel. I'm no renaissance man compared to some I know, and I may be OK with that.
  
• I fart. A lot. No, seriously. Like, more than is probably healthy for any normal human. But I'm OK with it. It's everyone else who seems bent out of shape by it. Weird.
  

Somehow, I felt like this post was going to feel more...exposing than it does. But I guess it's nothing huge, just those things I've noticed people seem to overlook or be surprised by. I suppose my blog readership has a very different view of me than a person I met on a dating web site, so I'm probably misdirecting this energy, but ah, well. It's been an interesting exploration for me, at least. :-)

Bitchelorettes and my mission dynamics

Remember how I said, in the comments on my post, that I've known women who remind me of Michelle on The Bachelor, and I think she was intense and manipulative and got caught up in playing up the drama when interviewing but probably was hiding some insecurities and might actually be pretty lovable? Yeah...OK, so I didn't spell it all out, but that's what I've thought.

Part of me actually thought I might really like her and wanted to get past the exterior shell and defense mechanisms to see what was past those. I don't think her breakdown on this week's "The women tell all" episode was an act. And I think Jackie and Stacey (and maybe that blonde girl whose name I don't care to look up) are far more bitchy than Michelle ever was, and they always have been unapologetically so. I also think more people forgive their brand of bitchy because it's more socially standard. More people are like them than are like Michelle, so they get a free ride on the guilt of the masses. I can't stand their self-protective, superiority-grasping snarls and scoffs. Jackie wears a perma-sneer I've always wanted to slap right off of her face. I had a strongly negative impression of these girls from the first episode: yes, girls, not women. I had quick impressions of Michelle, too: high-maintenance, overbearing, but potentially very interesting because she immediately reminded me of a person or two I really like... As I see it, if anyone was putting on airs and being two-faced in classic mean-girl fashion, it was the girls attacking Michelle. The way they looked at each other to affirm each other in their attacks was obvious. The way they clearly criticized her in roundabout ways and tried to deny it was deceptive and hypocritical. Michelle was over-the-top aggressive and made biting comments, but she's not pointing the finger and kicking someone while she's down: they are.

But then...if I'm going to be fair in the way they refuse to be with Michelle, I have to acknowledge that they're probably operating from within their own limited paradigms, they don't understand what Michelle means when she says she's "easily misunderstood". They don't understand her particular brand of self-defense or coping mechanisms, so her tears don't make sense to them except as a ploy, and I saw in their faces a look that seemed sincerely flabbergasted that anyone was buying into her "sob story" or showing sympathy, maybe because they figured that's exactly her design. But I am open to the possibility, or probability, that she was very much genuine in that moment. Even if, mind you, it doesn't "make sense" rationally when you put everything externally observable together, it's the unseen, internal factors that may incite sincere and very real emotion in her and make sense of what she's trying to say. So even if she will look back five years from now and think, "Wow, I was kind of a mess and had some things to figure out, and I probably shouldn't have been so bent out of shape and shouldn't have said some of the things I said on the show," (incidentally, she already has admitted that much) that doesn't mean she was being fake. But I don't expect everyone to have known the people I've known and understand the same people I understand, so I have to acknowledge that these women's hard faces and defensive glares might be no more indicators of their badness than Michelle's comments on the show were of hers. Jackie's perma-sneer notwithstanding, she might be a very good person in many ways I don't readily perceive because I struggle to get past her prickly demeanor. And I must admit, she saved some face towards the end, when she backed off a bit...but she still had that blasted expression of false superiority...

Here's the thing: I identify with Michelle. That's probably no real shocker. Of course, I'm not aggressive in the way she is, but I just...I guess I'm just one of those who saw past her words to her, as she put it, dry, sarcastic sense of humor. I got a good laugh when others were gasping at some of the things she said. I imagined her smirking a bit inside as she said some of the things she said because she knew how intense they were but was hamming it up during the camera interviews. I got a kick out of the editing to ramp up the "stalker" factor with brief shots and creepy music. I figured, "OK, she might be a bit of a creeper, but I suspect she's just...a bit intense and coping in her own quirky way." When she didn't take the other women's bait to engage in a cat fight but briefly defended herself and apologized and broke down, I saw the side of her I suspected had always been there, not shocked as the host said.

On my mission, just a couple of missionaries seemed to "get me" in the sense that they saw past what I was only in the process of realizing were prickly personality traits and barriers I had up. In some ways, I was an a-hole to most companions and unnecessarily rigid, but I sincerely didn't mean to be unkind or dismissive of anyone as a person, and I didn't know how to be any different while upholding my standards and defending my values, and I wasn't acting out of spite for anyone but out of desire to maintain my own beliefs and principles above all else. I've never been just like everyone else, personality-wise, and learning to adapt and put people at ease or engage in certain arbitrary social tokens has always been a bit challenging or tiring for me, to be honest. I find directness so refreshing, but most people find it uncomfortable. I most often challenge my own ideas internally before vocalizing them, but when I challenge someone else's, even in what I think is a benign way in order to understand how they arrived at something, all they often hear is, "I disagree and think your ideas aren't worth accepting and would rather do it my way."

I suspect many missionaries believed that they "saw through" my poise and "quiet dignity" to a selfish a-hole who didn't give a rip about anyone else, believing my "righteousness" to be an act to save face or appear respectable and gain approval from authority. But some saw what I believe was my intent and seemed to love me despite my thorns, and even then, I had an inkling that there were things I'd need to learn if I was going to keep from alienating people my whole life, and I wanted to learn them but couldn't as long as people just pushed back against what they perceived as me being an a-hole rather than loving me and showing me by example or kindly offering constructive criticism in the right moments.

See? This is an example of the stuff that goes through my head while I'm watching The Bachelor. I know: kinda intense and analytical, hm? But that's me, baby. Of course, I also simply enjoy the train wreck factor and the melodrama sometimes. :-)

Contented Slovenliness, Broken Love, Fatherhood Fears, and other not-entirely-related things

Casual observation of the day: I find it easier not to care about dating, to be contentedly single, and to refrain from checking out hotties frivolously when I am letting myself go and grooming less. It's weird. But somehow makes sense.


...


On a related note: I've realized I'm probably scared to "not have an excuse" for never having had a serious relationship. What if the understandable conflicts around processing my homosexuality and religious background are gone, but I'm still floundering without an excuse for floundering because it's all I know how to do by now? What if I still choose to pursue people who aren't right for me, and I endlessly and senselessly play the martyr? What if I actually am terrible at romantically intimate relationships, and nobody can (or should have to) put up with me beyond about three months? What if I really am a "one-man guy"? Easier to let go and stop hoping, then. Is that how I've been happily single lately, or is there something more fulfilled in it?


...


On a related note: I must resist the tendency to live in a way which "explains" in my mind why I'm single or keeps me from hoping to find someone (being a bit slovenly, neglecting fitness, delaying professional development), and instead work to become the kind of person to whom the kind of person I want to be with would be attracted. That may mean risking losing any 'excuses' for being single in defiance of the aforementioned fear. I didn't take marriage prep and dating courses more than once for nothing. And all that listening to Dr. Laura and attending communication workshops and courses in college. And taking painful steps to improve relationships I could have abandoned. And going to college to educate myself. I need to improve myself personally, emotionally, financially, professionally, mentally...I have a lot of work to do. I've never been much of a pleaser, but I'm realizing I do want to minimize legitimate concerns a potential mate might have. But I want to do it for me, too...to build a life of my own. Surely it will be worth it, even if I live out my days as a bachelor. Life will be meaningful. The alternative is emptiness. I will contribute something. The alternative is being a leech worthy of non-existence. If I'm to resist the temptation to end it or lay it all down when I feel like a complete and total leech ultimately worth nothing to the world except occasional fun and distraction from 'what matters most' (which I did feel intensely not long ago), I have to find ways to contribute and make more of my life. I have to continually learn to live more selflessly, to be more open, to love more freely, to seek truth more humbly and earnestly, to laugh more purely.


...


On a related note: I'm simultaneously pushing away the urgent sense that it's a shame to let what little is left of my youthful beauty, my energy, and my abundant affection go to waste, unshared. Tragic, right? ...Or shared with flings. Hopefully, it doesn't all wane and wither before I meet the person I hope to spend the rest of my life with and look back fondly on our relative youth together.


...


On a related note: I've always wondered, at times, if my love was broken. I tell myself I "should" feel strong "love" for people I actually trust, who have earned that trust, who say they love me and want me around. But I don't "miss" them when we're apart, in most cases, and I don't have urges to give them hugs or offer other affection gestures. I don't long to be close to them, even geographically. I do, however, feel affectionate urges for some people who I don't "appreciate" as much as others but who are just somehow "squeezable" in a "cute" or "vulnerable" way, and admittedly most often males of a not completely unattractive variety, even if I feel absolutely no sexual desire for them at all and even shudder at the thought. Is that normal? Do other people experience that? And I miss and long to be close to those to whom I'm attracted in a romantic or even sexual sense, if there's an emotional connection there, too, even before we have a history for them to really earn that trust and affection. I keep it measured and rein it in to not get carried away, but the fact that I have to rein my affection in with them while I've felt something vaguely like mild indifference to people who have invested and sacrificed for me and who I know "matter" to me has made me wonder if I've mistreated and neglected those family and friends in some incredibly selfish way, by not returning some affection they might feel, and it's bothered me. The fact that I've felt my general love and affection magnified by many times when I was in love and loved in return makes me wish I didn't need to be in love to feel that way and wonder if I'm broken for not feeling that way normally. Or was I only full of love when loved romantically or by someone I wanted or needed to love me. I wonder if that's one reason the "love of Christ" idea worked for me, because I wanted and needed to be loved by deity who fully knew me, and I felt secure in that belief. Secure. Is it all about security? Did belief in the love of Christ patch an insecurity? Am I insecure after all? The suggestions I've heard from reparative types or pop psychologists only superficially or initially seem to make some sense or even address the questions I'm voicing here, so it's unresolved so far. Whatever the malfunction, if any, I keep established friends close, regardless of whether their friendship or love makes me feel somehow joyous or sunny, because I trust them, and we understand each other in ways which can't be easily replaced, and I figure my stability and happiness may depend on having them close or accessible someday if not today, as may theirs.


...


On a related note: I wonder if the same vague sort of indifference of affection I feel for people closest to me will eventually occur with my spouse and children as well, and it worries me. Sometimes it makes me feel like I shouldn't try and risk the damage. I hope I'm capable of keeping it. I admittedly fear this much, much less in the context of marrying a man, as I've personally envisioned, with at least one man, an endless, enduring path with ups and downs supported by an abiding, pure, invested, sacrificial love underlying us the whole way. I hope that vision was a reflection of truth.


...


On a related note: I fear that very affection and sunny feeling I've felt for those I've fallen for is "supposed" to completely go away after a few years, based on statements by people who have been married a long time and insist the "infatuation" wears off, leaving a deeper, more abiding love that is essentially just another form of familial love, or the love of Christ, or whatever language they use. I do imagine it will wane, but I can't shake the notion that there's something about the love of spouses "in love", even if "in love" requires work to maintain, that is patently different from the love you feel for a best friend. I have faith that "in love", as uniquely distinct from other love, is possible and preferable in a mature marriage. Call me nutty.


...


On a related note: I have had a few moments in recent years in which I felt a notable 'spark' with females and actually thought, "Wow, just for this brief moment, I feel like I could totally kiss you right now." Then there's the less "charged" but comforting moment of, "There's something that feels very right about having her on my arm and keeping her safe right now, more so than I've felt with a guy so far." I think I'm attracted to many of the same things in women as I am in guys, but if it's ever going to work with a woman, I may have nailed down some requirements, the common thread between these women: really skinny, short, playfully sassy, and seductive. Oh, and "liberal" as far as Mormons go. Bring on the skinny, liberalish, forward Mormon/ex-Mormon women!


...


On a related note: I've realized I'm mildly terrified of being responsible for anyone else's financial stability or shelter as a husband or father. One thing I loved about the couple of people I've fallen for was that I knew that if I failed, they'd pick up the slack. I believe the reverse to be true in other aspects of life, that I would make up for their shortcomings or priorities in other areas. But I would like to not have to rely on that. I have a goal to become capable of supporting someone besides myself, to position myself to be a father and partner, however I can be, should that opportunity present itself. Maybe it won't present itself until I take the steps to be ready for it. I'm finally beginning to take those steps. I need to take them faster, though. I'm nervous. But through confronting the nervousness I find confidence.


...


Here's to self-improvement apparently without immediate romantic or eternal religious incentive.


...


On a related note: this doesn't necessarily mean I'm "back". Maybe not. Maybe.

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.

I am not what I don't believe

Part of my distress lately has come from the nature of my focus. Triggered or exacerbated by some stressful conversations of harsh judgement or even slightly derisive bewilderment and very painful and sudden rejection of some I felt "safe" with, I've experienced some intense emotions, with a lot of feelings of pain, rejection, etc. I have allowed certain of people's reactions to my current decisions and perspectives, and my intense sense that previously abstract differences in ideology had become an extremely personal war, to derail my focus.

I had been confidently pursuing what I believed, had done the best I could with the revelations or realizations I've found, and tried to live a life consistent with the principles I believe and the values I hold. I knew many in my life couldn't fully accept it, but they didn't have to: I wasn't beholden to their perception of truth or my former perception of it. But after feeling rejected just a bit too much, I became defensive, hurt, and a bit defeated. I wondered if pursuing truth really was worth the strife and the worry others seemed to experience over it and the friction it brought into my relationships either due to their reactions to my beliefs or my reactions to their concern or withdrawal. I started to focus much less on what I believe and value and instead on what I don't believe, on what I don't share with so many in my life anymore, on the community I was no longer a part of.

Not only did this create a sense of warfare against potentially misleading and destructive philosophies I "didn't believe", but I let it get to me to such an extent that I started defining myself in "nots" when contrasted with those who believe in the LDS church doctrines: "I'm a non-believer, I'm a fallen Mormon, I'm the devil (in their eyes) who used to be a golden child, I'm not a theist, I don't pray, I don't go to church, I don't share their faith or their joy in those beliefs, I don't accept what the general authorities say over the pulpit as scripture or even inspired, I don't...I'm not...I'm non-..." I lost sight of my convictions by looking at myself through the eyes of my self ten years ago.

Because my beliefs aren't enough for some to be at ease with me, because some people I care about have shut me out or see me as fallen and are praying for me to correct my ways, because some have limited their contact with me to not be influenced by my ideas, and because I completely understand that in LDS doctrine as the vast majority understand it, it doesn't matter how "good" a person is if they don't believe in the atonement or in a real, literal "Father in Heaven" because that is the whole crux of our very existence and our divine destiny for all eternity, I subconsciously started seeing myself through the eyes of my own fears, and it was not uplifting.

At some point, even though I see value in at least remaining open to the possibility that the tenets I used to believe in are true after all, I have to stop listening to the shaming or fearful voices around me and especially from my own "corrective" voice echoing from years past, insisting I must be fooling myself if I think I'm happy now, that I'm pitiable and deceived, that I've not tried hard enough, that I'll be redeemed only once I come back to the fold, that I'm no longer welcome in the sanctuaries or inner circles of those I care so much about because we no longer share what used to be precious to me and still is to them. I could choose to listen to that voice, but...why? In case it's true that I'm deceived and fallen, even though it doesn't ring true, despite my letting it create distance between myself and a newly pushed-away "them"? Because it would make life easier for me to just throw my stressful friendships away and blame it on judgements they may or may not actually be making?

I'm remembering to define myself not by what I am not, or what I "don't believe". I also don't believe there are monsters under my bed or ghosts creating every unexplained noise in the house. I don't believe the Hindu gods exist in any literal sense. I don't believe there's a fabulous pink hippo sitting in the chair next to me. I don't believe Islam or Catholicism is the one true religion as millions and millions of people in the world do. If I were from a family devoted to Islam, my lack of belief in the writings in the Qur'an might be a great source of stress and alienation for me, but I'm not, and it isn't.

When certain beliefs began to unravel, I held on to what I still did "know" or believe. I figured there was no point in scratching the whole just because a part was not what it appeared, and I knew throwing the whole thing out would probably leave a huge void. Over time, many gaps were filled in nicely, and I reluctantly let go of some lingering but withered conceptions to see what would happen. I think I'm still in that process, though towards the later part of it.

I still believe in many principles. I still hold many values. I still recognize forces and influences greater than myself, whether or not they have any grand, mystical explanation or personification. I may not believe in all of the things most people really close to me believe are the most important things to believe, but I have to define myself by my own beliefs, not in a "my way not God's" attitude but in a "this is what I believe is true and right, and whatever I might be missing will hopefully come in time" attitude. I have to pursue my own path and my own convictions and identify my sources of comfort, joy, confidence, peace, and hope. I have them. I have to follow truth the best I can and not cling to the way I used to see things just because once upon a time, they were enough, and for many, they still are enough.

No matter where I am headed, I will bring with me a firm belief in the value of circumscribing all truth, a desire for and belief in true conviction, belief in the necessity of being teachable rather than stiff-necked in the face of truths which are difficult to accept, belief in the power of bowing in acknowledgment of the unknown, striving for the harmony of thinking critically and adhering to proven principles even while being fully broken and freshly malleable, the resolution and motivating force of freely offering and requesting forgiveness, the loving devotion of service, a recognition of the ennobling influence of "tough love", a belief in the absolute necessity of remembering to view others as an all-knowing, all-loving parent might see them, the energizing, cleansing effect of maintaining a universal perspective in the face of potential entrapment into self-pitying patterns, a belief in the power of faith in the unseen and surrender of the need to control what is not in your control, a belief in the empowerment of self-mastery, a belief that weaknesses can train and instruct us rather than simply limiting us, a belief in the necessity of speaking up and standing for something, and so, so much more.

I will bring beliefs and faith which theoretically, to most theists, shouldn't hold up without God's power and influence in my life, such as a reassurance that whether from God or from somewhere within me, I've found the strength to weather hard times and make weaknesses become strong and will be able to do so again. I (cautiously) hope to be continually tested and humbled enough to be compelled to find that strength when I forget to exercise it of my own accord.

I believe or suspect things which an average LDS person may not relate to or agree with. And though I may respond to a question here or there or attempt to articulate aspects of those perspectives, I am no more keen on "defending" my beliefs now than I was defending my LDS beliefs against other Christians. It's time to re-learn to not defensively justify my beliefs but to embrace truth as I understand it, acknowledge that not all things will be known to any of us in this life, to share what makes me happy and what seems true, to offer perspective and comfort when asked and request it when needed, and trust that "it will all work out in the end" if we're each doing our best and opening our hearts and minds.

I recognize that increasingly demarcated battle lines may sometimes necessitate looking across enemy lines into the eyes of people I love. It would be naive to think we can all hold hands and sing songs of peaceful unification. There will always be beliefs which impose upon the beliefs or behaviors of others, and there will always be differing ideas of what "freedom" means or what is true. There will always be those who seek a preemptive and overpowering offensive rather than placing trust in negotiation and reconciliation. There will always be those who feign peaceful, open approaches with underhanded designs to confirm that distrust. Distrust and the perception that beliefs are irreconcilable and must be fought over are self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating, but they're not about to magically dissolve. I don't know what to do about that except take up arms when forced and try not to let bitterness and hatred in, to show forth increasing love after the battle, whatever side I end up on.

Wherever my "path" leads, whatever I choose to believe and trust, whatever truths seem self-evident to me, I have to remember that I'm not defined by what I don't believe but by what I do believe. I am defined not by what I am not but by who I am, and who I am will be reflected in my decisions and relationships throughout my life, the influence I have and the legacy I leave, the lives touched for the better. This goes far beyond motivating a few people to toe the party line more closely, leaving a money-amassing corporate empire, or leaving fruitcake on doorsteps one month a year. If I get to the end of my life, and nobody can honestly say they are profoundly better because of my life, I don't know if it matters how many fun experiences I had, how many cookies I made for people, how "right" I was about my beliefs, or whether I ever got my dream job. I don't want it to be about having something to prove, though. I want to live the best I know how, seek out truth to the best of my ability, leave the world a little better than I found it, encourage and enable others to do the same, experience and benefit from the talents and contributions of others who have achieved excellence in art, science, engineering, design, philosophy, or other aspects of life, and make cherished, shared memories along the way.

The risks of questioning aloud

I think there are various reasons I've held back vocalizing certain things in such a "public" or diffuse way as blogging it here, particularly concerning reparative therapy and attempts to live a heterosexual lifestyle. I haven't wanted to "attack" things people close to me seem very sensitive about or make it seem like I'm directly criticizing their lives or relationships by asking questions. I haven't wanted to be lumped in with acerbic cynics and uninformed critics. I haven't wanted people who tend to selectively gather information to read my thoughts and take them quietly to those who profess healing through all things reparative and have their questions silently addressed behind closed doors, away from critical response or dynamic conversation where the discussion will be fair. I can hear the responses now, "O-Mo is bright, but he hasn't tried this, he doesn't know what he's talking about and can't speak from experience. I can. And you can't deny a personal story." I haven't wanted to seem confrontational. I haven't wanted to be just another non-professional voice speaking about theories which therapists have been refining for years.

And I think part of me would rather hit someone with certain ideas in private, teachable moments, when they seem open to questioning and really considering "another side", to increase the impact of the ideas and really try to get them across in a meaningful way. ...Which I guess is like addressing them behind closed doors, away from critical response. Aw, balls, I hate it when I turn stuff around on myself.

And to be honest, even though I do think I have a better-than-average grasp on a lot of the stuff I've held back, there's always a small fear that when I actually try to vocalize it, I will be challenged in a way which will make me look ignorant, or I'll find that I didn't understand as well as I thought I did. This has always been a factor for me in holding back questions. I probably would have learned more in school if it weren't for this hesitation. This is no exception.

But as I've noticed so few people discussing the topic in anything but combative or dismissive terms, I want to get some ideas a little more out in the open. I may address issues around these ideas more in upcoming posts because I'm ready to ask questions openly, to invite dialog, to see where I'm wrong or need to challenge my paradigms more, or to potentially challenge others' paradigms.

And to be somewhat painfully honest, part of me wants to believe I would be completely happy with a wife who complements and brings out the best in me and children we have together, in whom we see ourselves, free from the theoretically unnecessary but very real and present burdens of societal defiance, legal and procreative limitations, and lingering, back-of-the-mind questions or "what ifs" about what will become of our relationship if we continue after death. Despite feeling confidently ready to face whatever might come while I was dating a great guy, and believing we could do anything if we did it together, the loss of that relationship has revealed lingering or resurfacing "unresolved issues". So I'm not so very interested in pontificating or staging a witty "wise-guy" routine right now. I'm more interested in saying what I'm thinking, raising questions, sifting out emotional reactions from rational assessments, and inciting some critical thought in others and in myself.

But to those of you afraid of losing the more wry or clownish O-Mo (if any such people made it to this point of the post), fear not: dry snark and sassy smirks may not abound, but come on...it's me...they're not going away.

Wreck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Hey dude"

Dang it! I don't necessarily get a ton of messages on this site that's basically a gay Facebook, but I get enough that I'd rather focus on the ones from those who actually mention something specific from my profile or a common interest because that shows they at least looked beyond some picture or the fact that I'm a living, breathing male in deciding whether to message me and because that offers something to start a conversation from, which is in line with why I have a profile in the first place, not just flirtation and random dating.

So a request to those hotties on there who would, for whatever reason, message me: Please say something substantive or intelligent, or at least something you couldn't say to any and every bloke on the site. Please?

Incidentally, on an only loosely related note, I gotta be honest: I have a theory that there's a correlation between someone's ability to converse with people on a personalized, adaptive level and their ability to be physically intimate with people on a personalized, adaptive level. Unfortunately, this is not a theory I'm willing to test in a proper scientific way.

Anyway, I really would rather not want to ignore you because all you could muster was "hey dude", because you look like a nice guy, not to mention way cute. I mean, I've replied to those when I knew we had a connection of some sort worth bringing up, but I don't think I can bring myself to make an exception just because I think you're totally tappable (upon initial, shallow inspection) or because you have a pic with one of my celebrity crushes. ...but I might be able to because you're closer to my age and your tastes aren't uber campy and crappy pop-culture like so many other guys on the site. Shoot, I'm going to make an exception for you, aren't I? Dammit! So much for principles...

...don't even ask about the physically attractive guy I thought seemed full of himself and therefore tested his ability to take things in stride, which he really failed on a couple of levels and only confirmed my suspicions, which were admittedly strong, and I probably wasn't completely fair to him, but come on: all he can say in his "About Me" is "Probably not interested!"? Self-flattering much? Seriously, folks. Take your diva somewhere else; homey don't play that. I almost feel bad for not giving him much of a chance, especially since I admit my impressions could be totally off and he might be a really good, non-self-absorbed guy...but not enough to lose sleep over it.

I sound like a total biotch, don't I? I promise I'm not "picky" because I think I'm better than others but because I'm not there for a hot date or fooling around and because there are some games I just won't play, some scenes and immature levels of social interaction I'm just not interested in. Honestly, the guys I've most enjoyed my conversations with are often guys I don't find particularly attractive or who aren't "my type", so it's not that I'm not giving people a chance, here. It's just that I'm kind of over the whole, "Oh my gosh he's so cute and just talked to me I'm so flattered and want to flirt to see if he'll flirt with me so I can stroke my own ego and engage in lots of shallow interactions to prove how young and attractive I am and how well I can wield my sexuality to get some hot action to satisfy my need for physical intimacy as if it's worth the risks to use it to fill in for a lack of emotional intimacy within a quality relationship..." OK, so I do still relapse into that sometimes before catching and stopping myself. What can I say? I'm genetically flawed, AKA a human male.

...but seriously, guys, you gotta show more personal interest than "what's up?"

O-Mo Is Fake And Filtered

Filtered? Usually. Fake? No.

I do keep an unfiltered journal with more complete details of my more tentative and exploratory thoughts and reactions and details which affect other people's privacy and sensitivities and would therefore be completely self-serving and inappropriate to broadcast here.

I don't consciously "try" to project a particular image of myself here. Why would I? I don't know most of you people, and the ones I do know can come talk to me about this stuff rather than relying solely on my blog, and for those of you who know me personally, I don't think I could somehow fool you through my blog posts.

What some people regard as frustratingly "filtered" is often actually what I regard as my truest expression. I tend not to go off on the hyper-emotional rants most bloggers seem crazy for or seem to think is most "authentic". My passing emotional reactions are valid, to me, and are occasionally useful for others besides my trusted friends and family to read or hear, but are not the "truest" expression of how I think and feel about things: the truest are the lasting impressions and thoughts, after the reactions born of sensitivities, insecurities, defenses, etc have passed.

I think most people aren't used to...eh, nevermind. Maybe I'm just different from a lot of bloggers and blog-readers...and maybe most people...in some pretty fundamental ways. *shrug*

Constipated Again

So many thoughts, and so relatively few I feel ready to articulate here or think would be pertinent or of any use/interest to readers. I have dozens of drafts of posts where I start writing or at least write a title for an idea and save the draft because I don't have time (or interest) to hash it out. I guess I'm more interested in experiencing, processing, and figuring out than articulating right now. When I sit to write about additional questions people have asked me, I sigh, shrug, wonder what the @#$% good it'll do to write about it here anyway, and go back to perusing Facebook, reading news, watching clips from Ellen, reading blogs, researching Le Corbusier's love life or the history of the phrase "son of a gun" or organizations for agnostic people who desire principle- and value-based lives, paying bills, checking a dating site to see who they've matched me up with this time for the sheer curious heck of it (even though I've never used a dating site to contact anyone and don't intend to anytime soon), IMing with someone, looking into hobby-related things like how to sell photographs, seeing what's new on Netflix, seeking gainful employment, or looking into what kind of grad program I'd like to go into but getting frustrated that I don't know what I want to study and going back to Facebook, etc. When I start getting stuck in the cycle and realize I'm not going to do what I need to be doing anyway, I decide to get off my duff and go to Chopin performances or run errands or work out or meet friends for lunch and dinner and skiing and games and Utah-style cabaret instead because I might as well be doing something besides getting distracted. *smirk*

Yeah, I have trouble focusing sometimes. I wonder if I have a mild form of ADD? Or maybe I just completely lack self control in certain regards. Maybe I should care.

I also have 87 saved text messages to myself, most of which are random thoughts I have in the course of an average day and want to remember. Most of these will never make it to elaboration, let alone publishing. But I will look at them again at least once and very likely may at least transcribe them to an unpublished draft before deleting them from my phone.

I wish there were a way to pause time, so I could hash it all out, articulate it, and then go out to collect more data/experience, then come back and pause time again... I also wish I could download my brain and archive it for access and input by others, but I'll be taking most of this stuff to the grave, methinks. Of course, most of it wouldn't be useful to others who haven't experienced exactly what I have with exactly my perspective, anyway...so I guess it's no big loss. Mostly a lot of random, mundane experiences and "hm" thoughts with occasional profundity or paradigm shifting thrown in haphazardly.

Gosh, I must be on one again. Whole Foods produce guy was gorgeous. Seemed well groomed but not high maintenance. Tall, thin. Square jaw. Good hair. Beautiful face. Casual but engaged expression, not cocky or lazy. Nice eyes. And I mean "nice" as in "not mean", not "nice" as in "acceptably aesthetically pleasing". Then cashier-guy caught my eye, too, to a lesser degree. I checked their name tags. Produce guy has a more appealing name. But don't flatter yourself, D-Train. Who am I kidding, of course you're going to. And now the guy next to me in the library is quite the hottie, too. I'm too old for this crap, gawking at "hotties". OK, so I don't think I gawk or stare. But I do admire. But he did catch me looking. But it's OK, folks, I played the ol' "oh, I'm looking at the person next to you now, and now the next, because I'm just scanning the room casually..." card. ...I'm not getting blips on my 'dar, and I think he's studying engineering, which severely reduces gay potential. How many gay engineers have you met? I think they're few and far between. ...of course, most who are probably don't "act it": I think the vast majority of engineers come with one of three pre-packaged personalities, and "flamboyant" is certainly not one of them. Oh, he just left. Sad. Do you do that? Get disappointed when a hottie leaves even though there was never a chance you were going to do anything about it other than admire from afar? What am I, a teenage girl? Ew. I know, I know, "get a boyfriend already". Bah. I have a draft started about what I think of that advice. I may never finish it.

Yep, that thing that happens when I realize I'm being totally unproductive...yeah, just hit it. Time to go.

Not Reaching Out, Part Deux

After publishing my previous post, I pretty much expected the sort of comments I got. But as usual, being challenged has helped me think through things a bit more (stop rolling your eyes and saying, "Oh great, more thinking." It's what I do. Get used to it). :-)



This sounds like you analyze every relationship at every level as if it were a chess game.

Well it kinda does, doesn't it? But these scenarios I'm talking about amount to about half a dozen times in my adult life. Not a pervasive pattern, but a nuisance. Most of my friendships develop pretty naturally and organically. No, there's no "battle plan" or "model" I try to follow in relationships. People and interpersonal dynamics are too complex, too individual, and too dynamic to possibly hope to fully understand or write a definitive play book. But I try to identify my own patterns, which does help me with future relationships and communication...though it's admittedly sometimes more about trying to solve the puzzle for puzzle-solving's sake (now I'm thinking about the 3 episodes of House I watched last night...I think I may finally be hooked) but telling myself there's a practical application. Dang it.



If you want to reach out, but don't, please don't be mad at them for it.

True. So instead I'll just be mad at them for being jerks in the first place. ;-) OK OK, it's really about the dynamics of the relationship, not anybody's particular personality flaws, theirs or mine. I care about these cusses. I just don't want to give them the remote control to my emotions again.

Detached, carefree person + invested, sensitive person = messiness in many cases.

Unless I'm confident my vulnerability has waned, I worry about ending up in the same mess. I'm trying to learn to let go of that fear and manage the lingering caution. Just going along for the ride again, though, is not an option. What's that saying about insanity being expecting different outcomes from the same, repeated actions? Yeah...



Perhaps they are doing the same and both of you are denied some positive innocent friendly companionship as a result?

It's possible they're doing the same, but most of the people this has happened with are quite different, quite non-analytical. As for companionship, it's about weighing the emotional risks vs. the benefits. Friendship hardly seems productive when one person (*raises hand*) is dysfunctionally hurt-prone in that particular friendship, due to sensitivity and past heartache. I think sometimes it's best to move on rather than be that annoying, needy person in someone's life who just can't seem to let go after the friendship has outlived its usefulness. It's also not fair to contact them out of some thirst for affirmation when I don't really want friendship again. My motives matter, too. But yes, no matter what the trade-offs or benefits, we might be missing out on what could be positive friendship, which is what sometimes brings me back to test the waters.



I bet half the people you are wanting to connect with really don't think of things the way you've described them here.

If you mean they don't analyze things like I do, you're probably right. If you mean they don't see what they've done as manipulative, you're probably right. If you mean they might say, "I don't know what happened: everything was fine on my end," you're probably right.

I've been in that position, where I cared about friends and wanted their friendship but didn't return their feelings or desire for more time together or more emotional intimacy, or whatever. I was unintentionally insensitive to a couple of female friends who I think had feelings for me and didn't know what to do. I might have said, "I value our friendship, just potentially not as much as you do right now." But...ouch. I thought maybe they needed distance for their own sake, to detach a bit, but I wasn't about to ask for that because it might send a signal that I wasn't interested in friendship, when I was. I watched them go through inexplicable reactions to things I said or did and wondered why they were so emotional. It seemed, at times, like they were torturing themselves by continuing to spend time and keep contact with me, manifested by emotional reactions, including anger. Being friends almost became a chore, but I did want to prove I wanted their friendship, so I continued to deal with it and enjoyed the good times and endured the stressful times and repeated mini-DTRs. "Women," I'd grunt.

Then I later found myself on their side, and I understood a bit better where they were coming from. I had one guy friend (with whom I had a sort of romantic entanglement but who withdrew from the friendship more than I did once the romantic stuff was wearing off) later tell me he thought I was crazy-emotional over what happened between us, but he had since been in a relationship that put him on the other side, and he sympathized with me.

If you mean they're not doing anything manipulative, I disagree for the couple of cases I'm thinking of, though I'd be happy to be wrong. I'm not going to discuss the "evidence" here, but I'll just say I'm not just inventing to explain some puzzling behavior. I've observed their manipulative or selfish behavior with other people in addition to patterns with me, and I don't presume to be a special exception. But the kicker: I know I've behaved in ways that were emotionally manipulative without having intended them that way, usually due to some insecurity, and I'm glad my friends who struggled with their feelings for me stuck with it and kept coming back because some of those have become my most lasting friendships, even after their feelings subside and our mutual interest equalizes.

Though I don't think they mean to be malicious, the problem comes when I'm no longer emotionally equipped or interested enough to withstand or entertain their lashes. Maybe I'm weaker than those friends of mine who endured. Or maybe I'm just afraid and insecure and haven't learned to deal with that.



...reach out with the simple motivation of genuine concern and interest in them, no focus on yourself

I think I have done this, with the possible exception of letting down defenses I put up for a reason and believe must stay in place. However, something that's harder but I think is necessary is letting go of the fear of being hurt again. I suspect that fear only makes it that much more likely that it will happen again, a sort of self-fulfilling thing.



You think way too much. Just call. Or text. Or facebook message. Or don't. lol.

I think I get that. I mean, I almost did that the other day when I was thinking of someone I haven't talked to in a long time. But there are actually circumstances in some cases, in addition to the vulnerability thing, which I chose not to go into in the post which are relevant but...just not right to publish, I guess. And with that, I shall let this go, maintaining my throne as King Overanalysis. On the other hand, last night I did just say, "Screw it, I want to contact him, so I'm going to," and I sent a brief e-mail to check in.

I think I've learned a thing or two from all this and responding to your comments, so thanks! But it'll do no good if I sit here blogging all day and thinking about what I've thought about, now, will it? ;-)