No Safe Investment

In The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis wrote, "There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket - safe, dark, motionless, airless - it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell. I believe that the most lawless and inordinate loves are less contrary to God’s will than a self-invited and self-protective lovelessness. ...We shall draw nearer to God, not by trying to avoid the sufferings inherent in all loves, but by accepting them and offering them to Him; throwing away all defensive armour. If our hearts need to be broken, and if He chooses this as a way in which they should break, so be it. What I know about love and believe about love and giving ones heart began in this."


I think this statement raises relevant questions of various sorts for all of us. There is likely nuance and context to this which I am overlooking, but it nonetheless provokes many thoughts for me, especially around the need for vulnerability. It doesn't come naturally to me. And an experiment or two in vulnerability were badly chosen and therefore ended poorly, but I think it's important enough to bite the bullet and try it more. There's truly liveliness to be found in real love.

To Whore Or Not To Whore

When I've felt the desire for more physical intimacy, and have lamented that I probably won't have it the way I want it, friends have either tried to console me or to stop my whining by saying it's not for lack of opportunity. I could have my pick from one of many, they say, so who am I to complain?

First of all, I don't think it's entirely true that I could have anyone. But hey, if Brad Pitt is interested, then alright. Yet I'm so thoroughly, completely inexperienced (just trust me on this one--I don't care to expound on how inexperienced I am) that even if I were to start lip-slutting around, I'm sure word of my inadequacy in this department would circulate fast enough to kill any such prospects. My attempts would surely be condescendingly "cute" in comparison to the much more experienced maker-outers out there.

But that's all beside the point. The point is that despite my desires for that kind of physical intimacy, I don't have someone with whom I would feel sincere in being physically affectionate at that romantic level. And as appealing as the idea of having a hot and heavy make-out may be on certain lonely nights, I just can't see myself being that affectionate without feeling real connection, and I don't come by that kind of connection easily, being the heady cold fish that I am. So in those moments when the slut in me is raging, I either want to feel attracted more often or want to abandon my reservation about physical expression because, hey, it's nice to be physically close to someone. But go fig, I don't think I would want to bring myself to make out just because it's fun or feels "nice".

I'm not trying to be preachy here. Most people I know, including some I love dearly and respect a lot, have gone through make-out sprees (or other sprees) once they discovered the joy of smooching (or other...things). Gay adolescence brings out the eager teenager in most of us, in some way or another. I've been through a "yay for cuddling" phase myself.

But now, I'm a bit gun-shy about being physically affectionate at all, due to realizing I've either given an occasional person the wrong impression with casual cuddling, or I've ascribed more meaning and depth to a relationship than there was partially because of physical affection, and I felt ridiculous afterwards for my foolishness. But c'est la vie. I've been burned by being a little slutty (letting physical affectionate go beyond the nature of the friendship), and apparently, it doesn't take much for me to learn that kind of lesson and clam up again. Maybe that's because I'm just ultra-righteous and have a more active conscience than the next person. OR maybe I'm just an emotionally delicate, defensive prude with trust issues. Or something.

In any case, I don't worry that nobody could find me desirable. I mean hey, just look at this. A veritable paragon of masculine beauty. Wait, OK, so it's not because I think I'm hot stuff but because experience indicates it wouldn't be hard for anyone to find someone who'd be up for a little makey outy, and let's be honest, guys are easy.

But I'm discovering a phenomenon I don't think most guys experience but with which most girls are probably all too familiar: the question of WHY I'd be desirable. Is it because they think they can get some action? Is it because they're physically attracted? Is it because I'm fresh meat? The next new thing? An option for some fun? Forget all that! That means nothing to me, so to encourage me by telling me I could find anyone I want to make out with is akin to saying I can find a dog who will hump my leg. Sure, it's a given, and the dog's probably going to enjoy it, but thinking, "I might as well be a pillow or a blow up doll" just isn't my idea of a good time. Even with a really good-looking dog.

I've never had this issue with girls. With women, I somehow have more confidence that they're interested in me personally, in who I am. I don't doubt they would consider it a bonus to find me physically attractive and fun. But I also don't doubt they are usually drawn mostly to me, to my mind, to my personality, as cliche as it may sound to say so. And I don't doubt they're less likely to get bored and move on to the next guy who comes along, maybe because they've invested, or maybe because they just choose more consciously, or maybe because they're just more insecure...who knows, right?

But guys? Guys are a different ballgame. Hot guys who may think you're fun and intriguing (for now) but who are mostly interested in getting off on you and moving on to the next best thing are a dime a dozen. An acquaintance who was, in the past, sexually promiscuous, attested that many of his anonymous encounters were surprisingly all-American jock types. He's bisexual, he said, but it was simply always easier to find guys who were up for a quick way to climax and be on their way without needing to know their partner's name than it was to find girls for the same. I've found the moho world to operate on a similar vein, though obviously not at the same level.

Now, before you start ranting about how you're not like that or how I'm overgeneralizing (which, duh, is what you do on a blog), please understand that I'm not saying cuddle-slutting around or having random NCMOs is akin to that kind of let's-meet-in-the-restroom sexual promiscuity, and I'm not saying all mohos are sluts. Yet I've never known so many lip whores (and I use that term affectionately, at least in this one instance) in my circles of friends as I have since I broke into the moho world. I just think the motives are similar. It's about you. It's about your pleasure. It's about fun. It's about ignoring the emotional consequences and disregarding the feelings of the other person because it feels so good to have you very own "live porn"--physical/sexual pleasure without the reality of commitment or real relationship. And hey, it's not sex, and straight people are allowed to do it without people making a big deal, so why not you? All I have to say to that is, if you want to be as slutty as the average straight person, that's your business, but slutty is slutty, toots.

But maybe I'm just "making too big a deal" out of this. Maybe I'm personalizing it too much. Maybe most people just enjoy a little recreational make-out here and there, like you might enjoy a casual conversation or flirtation, and it's no big deal. And maybe if you're not one of those people, you need to grow up and join the real world and stop making it all emotional and meaningful when it's not and move on. Maybe.

And I guess most social groups have their networks of non-committal make-outs and quick flings, and people deal with it all the time. But I have never been personally affected by that until I started experiencing attraction the way I've felt it the past couple of years, and a difference here is that the moho world is so small, that your friends are all flinging with each other. And it's really disgusting after a while to know where everyone's hands and lips have been. Ew.

I'm not exempting myself from this. I've cuddle-slutted around at times. "Hey, we're just barely getting to know each other, but here, I'll give you a foot rub, and let's spoon!" What is that?!! Have I become....a typical guy? Wait, no, maybe typical isn't the right word...

So now I have to remind myself, when I see an attractive guy, "Wait, yes it's nice to look at, but does it have a soul? If so, does he have a personality? Is he sincere? Is he kind and sensitive and intelligent and selfless? Do you want a relationship? If so, there's a lot that needs to come before physical intimacy. And if not, just enjoy the view and let go of the rest." Why does it take effort to remember I'm dealing with a human being? Oh! This is why guys in high school were bumbling idiots and insensitive jackasses with girls.

So now, when I have those moments when all I want is to participate in a little physical fun, I do have an impulse to grab the most attractive thing nearby, but damn my puritanical sensibilities, I just can't feel good about doing it without a sincere relationship. So I'm occasionally left stewing in the lovesac alone as I watch the crystal-clear tender or passionate embraces on our large-screen HDTV, wanting some action but knowing I don't really want it without a relationship and simultaneously cursing my lack of sluttiness.

...then I wrestle my roommate for a bit and wear myself out, and I'm OK for the night.

Since My Candidate Is Gone...

If the race ends up being between Obama and Romney, I'd be interested in and open to either candidate.

Between Clinton and Romney, I'd probably go for Romney.

Between Obama and McCain, I may go for Obama.

Between Clinton and McCain, I'm moving to Canada for four years. I'll send postcards to the rest of you suckas.

Pressure Cooker?

A concerned blog-community friend contacted me about the recent tone of my blog entries. Reading between the lines, he expressed concern about any inner turmoil I may have been experiencing and just touched on his own experience in thinking he was "handling" things but later realizing it was building up in unhealthy ways.

So am I somewhat of a pressure cooker on the verge of exploding all over the moho scene, catalyzing the next blast in an extensive, almost legendary network of drama? My response was as follows:

----------------------------
Thanks for the concern.

My blog may sound more angsty than I actually feel. I just kind of get tired of people shrugging off my questioning as if it's a phase I'm going through simply to justify entertaining desires I'd like to act on. There's more to it than that.

I don't feel much intense turmoil. I'm processing things and making decisions that aren't easy and trying, in some way, to convey that process in writing. I do not deny that I often feel torn, stuck between a rock and a hard place on occasion, but most of the time, I simply am just trying to sort out what I really believe and living in accordance with what I do. I have few regrets.

In any case, thanks for letting me know you're available. I do talk with quite a few close, trusted friends and family about everything. I don't keep much bottled up these days. By the time I post something on my blog, I've usually discussed it, to some extent, with a few different people, and by the time a post is published, it's usually been in the works for a while. I actually consider myself to be in a pretty good place, albeit tentative in some ways, and I'm a bit perplexed by these guys who claim to be so sure of things but whose behavior is all over the place. And they are making out with and dating boys one day and then preaching the virtues of anti-gaydom the next day. It doesn't make any sense to me, but hey, my way probably doesn't make sense to them, either. I just don't want to shy away from admitting why sometimes it's hard to just "accept and move on".

I hope things are going well for you, too. I'll catch you later.
--------------

So, for any of the rest of you (all 8 who regularly visit my blog) who may be similarly concerned, that's what I have to say on the matter.

Goodbye, Ol' Chap

I just watched Gordon B. Hinckley's funeral service, broadcast from the Conference Center in Salt Lake City, and at the end, I was touched by the image of his family and his brethren in the church's leadership lining the exit as his casket was quietly wheeled out to the peaceful tune of "God Be With You Til We Meet Again". I wept as I watched him exit, one last time, from that building in which I have, many times, seen him speak with such love, sincerity, and plainness and then humbly and spunkily walk out, waving his cane, maybe tapping someone here and there. Then I smiled through the tears at the thought that maybe he was, in spirit, joining his family and friends in the Conference Center, lined up for his body's exit, and that maybe, with a charming gleam in his eye, he tapped his spiritual cane on his casket as it passed by and said some clever quip.

I'm going to miss him.

Can You Stay In Middle Ground?

*** Published on 27 Oct 2010 ***
*** This and other posts were not published when written, partially because I wasn't sure if I was articulating what I wanted to get across and largely because I didn't feel comfortable expressing doubt or conflict beyond a certain degree. I think the statute of limitations on that concern has run out. ***


On Young Stranger's blog, he posted a thoughtful essay on living in the "middle ground". As indicated by my blog posts, some of these ideas have been on my mind a lot lately.

I've never really felt "angry" at the church in the way many do. In fact, what bitterness I have felt has been directed not even at the doctrines but at the members and their complacency, venomous or ignorant as it may be. I've thought about that whole idea of going to church without being in full fellowship, and I suppose I could do that. It has taken some adjustment to shift from being the "go-to" man in my wards to the unknown face in the back, but I've refused to let ego have heavy bearing on my decisions.

I just can't, yet, imagine having a burning testimony of the "restored gospel" and NOT sacrificing my dissident beliefs and practices, even if church policies were to later change, because isn't it worth it if it's true? Isn't making excruciating sacrifices a remarkably purifying process? It has felt that way for me in the past, when I've been sure of my reason for sacrificing, even if I wasn't sure what I was being asked to sacrifice was entirely reasonable (e.g. a few select mission rules). I usually later discovered it was worth it. And sometimes I just shrugged and said, "not sure if it did any good, but at least I know my motivations are pure".

I realize sacrificing the company of your beloved companion is a far greater issue than not listening to my favorite singer's music for two years, though. But then, didn't Joseph Smith say we would all be tested as Abraham was? How much am I willing to lay on the altar? How much will I refuse and withhold when the Lord's servants ask it of me? Or does it matter, if I don't feel the Lord, himself, has asked it of me? And then, Abraham's hand was stayed, yet mine surely would not be when letting go of a beloved companion. ...or could it be? How can I know until I am willing to give it up?

Maybe it's the jump between knowing that the Lord's servants are asking me to give up companionship in this life (or find it in another form with a woman), and the confidence that the Lord, himself, is truly asking it of me. Maybe this is dependent on my understanding and belief of what a prophet really is and how "inspired" his words are?

It's hard, when I read conference talks and Doctrine and Covenants passages, to believe the gospel leaves room for ignorance of "certain" commandments just because I felt miserable or depressed when I was following them. This is not perfectionism. It is a large network of principles laid out in scripture about least degree of allowance and prophets never leading us astray and sacrificing all things (not just the moderately hard stuff) for building the kingdom. It only makes sense to me if I look at it and say, "I may have been obeying, but my heart was in a different place and not in-line how it needed to be, so of course I was depressed because my eye wasn't quite single, even if my behavior was compliant. Maybe this time will be different." Don't we do that with every other aspect of life? "I'll try again, because a lot has changed, and maybe this time will be different."

We certainly seem willing to do so in relationships with other people when our hearts and groins are aflame. Or maybe, "Yes, I am depressed. Yes, I feel a void. Yes, I hate surveying the dreariness of the rest of my life facing the probability that I never again will know the tender embrace of a romantic partner. But 10 years down the line, or 20, when my heart has had time to heal and strengthen and find peace in the Lord, when I have learned to develop a network of intimate friendships and love of the Lord, when I am finally accustomed to the purifying fire and the incredible strength that has come from faithful (not blind) obedience and painful sacrifice, THEN I will realize that my happiness is deeper and more abiding than any human relationship can provide." Maybe. But I'd probably have to have more confidence and "faith" than I currently have to be ready to say that again.

I mean, when I hear people say they believe the gospel but simply can't fully comply with church standards and practice and believe that to be justified on the grounds that they need to be true to "themselves", I see a potential for impure motives under the guise of nobility: self-gratification masked by selfless love of partner, need-fulfillment stubbornly exercised my way and not the church's masked by "the Lord knows I'm different", refusal to sacrifice masked by the proclaimed haziness of doctrine being interpreted according to cultural construct. Yet, I understand, to some extent, the philosophy, or at least the desire for the "middle ground".

I understand the middle ground on a temporary level, but there has to be some awareness that if not today, then one day, another step will be required, whatever that step may be. I cannot pick one aspect of my life and, unyielding, insist that it is my exemption card. But I can maybe say, "I realize the church leaders have counseled me to leave this, and I will keep that in mind, but for now, until the Lord himself touches my heart with that counsel, I have other things to work on. I have other things to do. And maybe, someday, when I am ready, I'll give that counsel another try and give it a chance to bless my life." Not in a token way. Not by way of dismissal or indefinite procrastination. But by way of humble acceptance that perhaps my ways are not the Lord's, and that he will show me how to integrate this counsel into my life when I am ready to take another step to demonstrate my willingness to humbly lay all things on the altar of his love.

...if you believe in God and you believe that's how he works. But maybe, when I read the scriptures and the teachings of modern prophets, and I expound on them as I have here, I'm unwittingly doing my own fair amount of interpretation, too. Maybe I don't understand.