I think one of the greatest spoken oppositions to same-sex adoption revolves around the "need" for children to be raised by both a mother and a father. Some studies seem to indicate that children raised by a mother and father fair better, overall and generally, than children raised any other way. I'm not sure if polygamous households are included in those studies (are children raised by 4 mothers and 1 father even better off?), but the claim seems to be that a male and female parent, whether biological parents or not, make the ideal parenting pair. Some studies seem to indicate that children raised by two parents fair better, overall and generally, than children raised by one, and additionally that parental sex/gender is almost if not completely irrelevant. But despite the touting of studies, I don't think research or statistics are the reasons most people determine their position on same-sex adoption. And I think most opponents, including many gay dudes I've spoken with, oppose it partially because of supposed future teasing and discomfort of children (you know, like Mormons adopting in Mormon-unfriendly areas or inter-ethnic adoption) but even more because they know how much they loved their mothers and the softness and warmth they brought to their lives, and they hate the idea of denying that to a child. And I won't lie: it tugs at my heartstrings, too.
The softness of a mother. The way she smells so nice and looks so pretty. The quiet lullabies in soothing, motherly tones. The soft, gentle touch on the cheek. The building and management of a clean and organized home, a comforting shelter, a cooperative micro-community. The tenderness, the emotional expression, the mother bear protectiveness, the singing, the click clack of the heels, the hugs when you get a boo-boo, the gentle way she cleans up scrapes...
I don't know that I can say anything or any figure can fully replace a mother, or--maybe more accurately--nothing and no one could replace mine. I wouldn't trade her for any.
Dads are awesome, too. The providence, the strength, the discipline, the example, the humor, the slightly awkward but meaningful arms around you, the musky smell of cologne, the shoe shining, the ability to objectively assess a situation and help you work through it without getting overly emotionally involved or blinded. Mom could teach aspects of manhood to me, but she couldn't personally model it like he could and did. How could you deny that to a child, either?
But then I pause and can't keep certain thoughts and memories at bay. I can't quite get away with overlaying them with popularly favored binary gender roles without something inside of me resonating with a "wait just a moment".
I have memories of tender moments with my father. Sometimes, I was sure if we had an intruder, my mother would be the one to beat the crap out of them. Sometimes, my father was the one more concerned with fashion sense. My dad was rough getting splinters out, but he also taught peaceful resolution through quiet strength rather than combative conflict born of insecurity masquerading as fierceness. My mom got overly emotional sometimes, but she also taught us to play sports and speak up for ourselves. Dad sang to us, even if in occasionally grating tones, and cooked and cleaned. Mom fixed stuff and worked and handled the finances. I wasn't raised by completely stereotypical, binary gender roles. I was raised by a mother and father who taught me different, same, and overlapping or complementary things. Neither is replaceable because they are my parents, and they are what I know, not because one is a woman and the other is a man.
Don't get me wrong: I don't deny having a male and female role model and caretaker was beneficial and even integral for certain aspects of development of my identity. I believe it was and is for most children. In fact, I still suspect that, all else being equal, having a mother and father may be _generally_ ideal, the easiest solution to gender identity development for most children. And gender is a pretty undeniably core aspect of identity and psychological and social development and adaptation. Ethnicity is another aspect of identity that some adoptive parents simply cannot model for their children, and some dismiss the value or impact of ethnic background while others try to connect their adopted children with strong role models or family who can be a resource to them. If I ever have a daughter, I really do hope she has a close female role model, someone who can not only explain the realities of becoming an adult woman, physiologically, psychologically, socially, etc, which I could probably do pretty well at, but who actually understands it firsthand and can identify with her about it on a firsthand, "I get it" level. I won't be able to do that. If I have a son, I will teach him about becoming a man, but I would like him to have a meaningful female role model in his life who shows him, rather than just abstractly telling him, what qualities to look for in a potential future spouse, assuming he's heterosexual, which he most likely would be. And there might come a time when talking with his dads about his dating life starts to feel a bit off, like there's a disconnect. Because there very well may be: dating guys as a guy is not the same as dating girls as a guy. But building a good, stable relationship with communication and respect and healthy choices...that carries over pretty well, in my experience, and I hope to know a thing or two about that to pass on to my children.
I had to figure out the whole gay thing on my own. I had to seek out my own role models, people to identify with, people to sort it all out with. I didn't have role models at all for same-sex partnership. But I did have role models for partnership. It would be easier in many ways if I continued to just live within the bounds set before me: I know what "husband and wife" is supposed to look like and have had excellent role models for it. But this whole boyfriend and boyfriend thing has aspects about it that I'm not sure translate directly from my parental role models. So I recognize that if I raise heterosexual children, which is the highest likelihood, they may be in a somewhat similar position. I would hope that their grandparents, aunts and uncles, and our married friends will be all around them as models and will hopefully be people they can talk to. I plan to not raise my children in a gay vacuum, or a white vacuum, or a Mormon vacuum, or an agnostic vacuum, or a male vacuum, or a Utah vacuum, or a middle class vacuum.
I guess that's where it really started to break down for me. I cherish the softness of a mother and benefited from the discipline of a father, but let's be honest, there's enough fierceness, tenderness, protectiveness, singing, emotional expression, cool objectivity, and other traits to go around in my current relationship, and they're not contrived or unnatural: they're just us. Neither of us has soft shoulders to snuggle into, it's true. Neither of us has long, silky hair or wears perfume and heels. If we had children, our children would miss out on that from their parents. Some kids don't have physically active parents, or parents who communicate well, or educated parents, or emotionally stable parents, or funny parents, or socially connected parents, or principled parents, or culturally aware parents, or parents who respect individuality as well as social integration, or good-looking parents, or healthy parents, or rich parents, or politically powerful parents, or parents who care about cultural heritage, or parents who can take them all over the world, or parents of their ethnicity... We probably couldn't give a child all of those things, and we couldn't give a child a mother, but we could give a child many of the positive traits, attention, behaviors, and lessons a typical mother offers as well as a good number of things an orphan might hope for, and we could give love from parents who went to great lengths and expense to bring that child into our family to be our son or daughter.
For me, the single biggest hesitation in feeling comfortable with going ahead with adoption has been the realization that though my child would definitely have a father, I would be, in a way, deliberately denying a child the exact kinds of motherly memories I treasured. And that's not something to be casually shrugged off. My mom is certainly irreplaceable, and there are memories of her I just couldn't duplicate with my children. I would just try to make sure they have them as similarly as we can, or in a different but significant form, or with trusted and present, if not parental, loved ones. Ultimately, I can only hope that if I ever did have children with a male partner that they would grow up as happy, productive, and fulfilled as any, that they would one day reflect back and find that though another parent or a mother might have offered something we couldn't, they can't imagine having to choose one of their irreplaceable dads to deny their children of.
Showing posts with label Straight Men. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Straight Men. Show all posts
13 May 2013
28 January 2011
Heteros do it too (and what I really think about most therapy of homosexuality), Part 6 of 6
Back to Part 5...
All else being equal, I would like to marry a man and raise children with him. But as much as I'd like to believe future generations won't have to face the choices or prejudices I have or that the dynamics and aspects of a male-male partnership and parenthood were exactly the same as those of male-female pairings, all else is just not equal, due to religion, social dynamics, biology, and legal ramifications, to name a few. Maybe same-sex couples aren't the first to wonder if society would ever accept them, but until things change, it's going to remain a big deal.
I also understand, firsthand, the reality of facing an apparent choice or tension between fighting for what the future can potentially be and saving myself the stress by living the best I can within the current bounds. Perhaps not everyone had the tenacity, energy, personal fortitude, or vision to be among the first inter-ethnic couples before society figured out such relationships can work, that accompanying differences of perspective can be beautifully and ably navigated for the personal growth of both parties, and that children raised by such couples are more stressed because of society's lack of understanding and acceptance of the couples. Perhaps not everyone can or even should be a social pioneer. So I reiterate that if certain practices work to make a same-sex attracted man's future marriage to a woman possible or current marriage better, and that's the option someone wants to pursue, as long as they're being honest and open and not hurting anyone, I want to support them in seeking happiness.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Yes, I wonder whether gay guys experience being "in love" as intensely or in as soul-animating a way with women as with guys (in at least 98.702% of cases, which statistic is great for those who find the right woman but not great for the rest), and I do think there are probably inherent, very personal and unique difficulties built into mixed-orientation marriages on top of the usual issues. But the more I expound on these ideas, the more I think it may sound like I'm saying my mixed-sex-married gay/SSA friends are living a lie for religious or social convenience, which is not what I mean to say. When it comes to people I know and love, I'm not comfortable making that assertion for their very personal, very sacred relationships. Let me be clear: I do not think my married friends are secretly unhappy or unfulfilled or fooling themselves about truly loving their spouses, I don't think their decision to marry a straight spouse is an inherently selfish decision, and I fully respect the straight spouse's right to choose. I believe that even the inherent additional challenges are often mitigated, if they've approached the marriage wisely, by an unusual level of communication and openness going into the marriage.
So I have this dilemma: I support and am happy for my friends who are married and having children as I've always dreamed of doing, and I believe they are genuinely happy, yet I believe that in most cases, were it not for religious and social paradigms which will likely change over hundreds of years, they would have chosen to be with someone of their same sex, but things haven't changed, or they do believe it's not allowed, or they did want biological children with a spouse of the opposite sex, so they had to act within their belief, and even if they wouldn't have chosen their spouse if same-sex relationships were an option, that doesn't detract from the fact that they're glad they did, and they wouldn't trade what they have for anything, and their spouses feel the same way...
I do think they're not "straight" or even, in any cases I personally know, truly 'bisexual', but since their sexual energy is now directed exclusively at their spouse of the opposite sex, and their thought processes on sexuality are far healthier than they used to be, I respect their right to reject labels which would downplay or distract from that focused love and whole-hearted dedication. I even think they are often more self-accepting than ever, which is something I think most anti-reparative people don't even recognize, let alone understand.
I fully hope for the success of my mixed-orientation married friends. In the cases of friends whose marriages are in challenging or rocky positions, especially where they have children, I fully hope they'll be able to work things out and have confidence that they can, in most cases, if they work at it and find the right ideas and support systems. Heteros have to weather tough times, too. The idea of having a wife of 6 years and two or three kids sounds pretty nice sometimes compared to facing a possible life of bachelorhood, I gotta be honest. So to my happily married friends, I say you have a beautiful, wonderful thing, and it may well be far better than anything you would have had either alone or with another man (or woman), and I hope it always remains so.
Marriage aside, though I think reparative theory is mostly bollocks, I still support my friends in doing what they believe works for their happiness, and I think some of the methods and practices can be very useful to many people in helping them identify and improve communication, cognition, and relationship skills and tools, in order to function as they wish to. I also think there are other ways to learn the same valuable lessons without the money, or the emotional baggage of theories of which I'm very skeptical, or the substitutes for cuddling explained as healing touch, or contrived "masculinity" (incidentally, some of my favorite decidedly hetero, self-assured, intelligent, and engaging friends are lacking popularly 'masculine' traits and don't seem bothered by it).
Did I think he was the smartest person I'd ever met? Nope. The most physically attractive? Nope. The funniest? Bah. The most accomplished? Who're we kidding? The most popular, athletic, confident, kind, refined, world-wise, happiest, or most creative and artistic? None of the above in the superlative, not even while I was the most emotionally invested, but all of the above to some degree or another in a combination I considered myself completely fortunate to find, and more than I felt I could ask for. He was (and, I imagine, very much is, in the most important ways) a great guy. I loved him because of who he was, even if a touch idealized, like heteros do.
But here's the real kicker, which probably requires more explanation than I have time to give right now (I know, why stop now, right?): I still consider, from time to time, going through reparative therapy or Journey Into Manhood. It's not because I actually think the theories are sound, it's not just to quell the "he hasn't even tried it himself" arguments (especially since I'd have to try 100% for at least 3 years to be considered a valid effort), and it's not just in case that whole eternal marriage thing is true. It's because if it could at least work to bring myself to a place where I'm more ready to consider or open to a heterosexual relationship, maybe it's worth wading through the muck to find the truths if it will open me up to more opportunities for happiness.
I don't know who else besides reparative types are willing to help a gay guy prepare for the challenges and dynamics of a relationship with a woman should that option become available and desirable. After all, if I can have a life without the social conflicts, denied rights, and inability to reproduce currently attached to same-sex pairings, maybe it's worth exploring the theories firsthand, giving them a real chance, and seeing if they apply more to my life than I ever realized while analyzing them from a bit of distance. Or maybe I just feel that broken, with nothing to lose...is that how they get us? Well, shoot...maybe I'm more free to 'be gotten', having gotten all of this off of my chest. Or maybe I have finally understood "desperation". Maybe I'm tired of defending myself and others and just want to quietly live my happy life...like heteros do...
Fin
All else being equal, I would like to marry a man and raise children with him. But as much as I'd like to believe future generations won't have to face the choices or prejudices I have or that the dynamics and aspects of a male-male partnership and parenthood were exactly the same as those of male-female pairings, all else is just not equal, due to religion, social dynamics, biology, and legal ramifications, to name a few. Maybe same-sex couples aren't the first to wonder if society would ever accept them, but until things change, it's going to remain a big deal.
I also understand, firsthand, the reality of facing an apparent choice or tension between fighting for what the future can potentially be and saving myself the stress by living the best I can within the current bounds. Perhaps not everyone had the tenacity, energy, personal fortitude, or vision to be among the first inter-ethnic couples before society figured out such relationships can work, that accompanying differences of perspective can be beautifully and ably navigated for the personal growth of both parties, and that children raised by such couples are more stressed because of society's lack of understanding and acceptance of the couples. Perhaps not everyone can or even should be a social pioneer. So I reiterate that if certain practices work to make a same-sex attracted man's future marriage to a woman possible or current marriage better, and that's the option someone wants to pursue, as long as they're being honest and open and not hurting anyone, I want to support them in seeking happiness.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Yes, I wonder whether gay guys experience being "in love" as intensely or in as soul-animating a way with women as with guys (in at least 98.702% of cases, which statistic is great for those who find the right woman but not great for the rest), and I do think there are probably inherent, very personal and unique difficulties built into mixed-orientation marriages on top of the usual issues. But the more I expound on these ideas, the more I think it may sound like I'm saying my mixed-sex-married gay/SSA friends are living a lie for religious or social convenience, which is not what I mean to say. When it comes to people I know and love, I'm not comfortable making that assertion for their very personal, very sacred relationships. Let me be clear: I do not think my married friends are secretly unhappy or unfulfilled or fooling themselves about truly loving their spouses, I don't think their decision to marry a straight spouse is an inherently selfish decision, and I fully respect the straight spouse's right to choose. I believe that even the inherent additional challenges are often mitigated, if they've approached the marriage wisely, by an unusual level of communication and openness going into the marriage.
So I have this dilemma: I support and am happy for my friends who are married and having children as I've always dreamed of doing, and I believe they are genuinely happy, yet I believe that in most cases, were it not for religious and social paradigms which will likely change over hundreds of years, they would have chosen to be with someone of their same sex, but things haven't changed, or they do believe it's not allowed, or they did want biological children with a spouse of the opposite sex, so they had to act within their belief, and even if they wouldn't have chosen their spouse if same-sex relationships were an option, that doesn't detract from the fact that they're glad they did, and they wouldn't trade what they have for anything, and their spouses feel the same way...
I do think they're not "straight" or even, in any cases I personally know, truly 'bisexual', but since their sexual energy is now directed exclusively at their spouse of the opposite sex, and their thought processes on sexuality are far healthier than they used to be, I respect their right to reject labels which would downplay or distract from that focused love and whole-hearted dedication. I even think they are often more self-accepting than ever, which is something I think most anti-reparative people don't even recognize, let alone understand.
I fully hope for the success of my mixed-orientation married friends. In the cases of friends whose marriages are in challenging or rocky positions, especially where they have children, I fully hope they'll be able to work things out and have confidence that they can, in most cases, if they work at it and find the right ideas and support systems. Heteros have to weather tough times, too. The idea of having a wife of 6 years and two or three kids sounds pretty nice sometimes compared to facing a possible life of bachelorhood, I gotta be honest. So to my happily married friends, I say you have a beautiful, wonderful thing, and it may well be far better than anything you would have had either alone or with another man (or woman), and I hope it always remains so.
Marriage aside, though I think reparative theory is mostly bollocks, I still support my friends in doing what they believe works for their happiness, and I think some of the methods and practices can be very useful to many people in helping them identify and improve communication, cognition, and relationship skills and tools, in order to function as they wish to. I also think there are other ways to learn the same valuable lessons without the money, or the emotional baggage of theories of which I'm very skeptical, or the substitutes for cuddling explained as healing touch, or contrived "masculinity" (incidentally, some of my favorite decidedly hetero, self-assured, intelligent, and engaging friends are lacking popularly 'masculine' traits and don't seem bothered by it).
Did I think he was the smartest person I'd ever met? Nope. The most physically attractive? Nope. The funniest? Bah. The most accomplished? Who're we kidding? The most popular, athletic, confident, kind, refined, world-wise, happiest, or most creative and artistic? None of the above in the superlative, not even while I was the most emotionally invested, but all of the above to some degree or another in a combination I considered myself completely fortunate to find, and more than I felt I could ask for. He was (and, I imagine, very much is, in the most important ways) a great guy. I loved him because of who he was, even if a touch idealized, like heteros do.
But here's the real kicker, which probably requires more explanation than I have time to give right now (I know, why stop now, right?): I still consider, from time to time, going through reparative therapy or Journey Into Manhood. It's not because I actually think the theories are sound, it's not just to quell the "he hasn't even tried it himself" arguments (especially since I'd have to try 100% for at least 3 years to be considered a valid effort), and it's not just in case that whole eternal marriage thing is true. It's because if it could at least work to bring myself to a place where I'm more ready to consider or open to a heterosexual relationship, maybe it's worth wading through the muck to find the truths if it will open me up to more opportunities for happiness.
I don't know who else besides reparative types are willing to help a gay guy prepare for the challenges and dynamics of a relationship with a woman should that option become available and desirable. After all, if I can have a life without the social conflicts, denied rights, and inability to reproduce currently attached to same-sex pairings, maybe it's worth exploring the theories firsthand, giving them a real chance, and seeing if they apply more to my life than I ever realized while analyzing them from a bit of distance. Or maybe I just feel that broken, with nothing to lose...is that how they get us? Well, shoot...maybe I'm more free to 'be gotten', having gotten all of this off of my chest. Or maybe I have finally understood "desperation". Maybe I'm tired of defending myself and others and just want to quietly live my happy life...like heteros do...
Fin
23 January 2011
Heteros do it too (and what I really think about most therapy of homosexuality), Part 4
Back to Part 3
As for gay guys who "experience a decrease in homosexuality" after therapy, I know a lot of straight guys who had naive, unhealthy, or oversexualized attraction to women until they did this amazing thing as life, time, and experience taught them to do: mature. I imagine feeling like you wanna jump on every hot guy you see is downright troublesome at times. Tempering the overpowering sexual appetite aspect of attraction, or realizing that not every hottie is the one you want to be with forever, is refreshing and liberating. But I'm not sure it's that different from what straight men go through in their sexual and personal development.
Oh, and then there's that pesky issue of age. Funny how many guys I've known have experienced "diminished homosexuality" after their mid-twenties. Go fig, right? I wonder how my straight friends would feel about me calling their diminished sex drives and more mature perspectives on attraction and relationships "diminished heterosexuality"?
I wonder what straight men would think if you tried to tell them they fall for women because they want to internalize their traits, and that if they'd only become more sensitive and nurturing, learn to decorate and bake, and maybe even wear make-up once in a while, they'd feel a diminished attraction to women, having assumed those qualities for themselves and therefore not needing to seek them in sexual gratification.
Maybe they just need some healthy, non-sexual touch with mother-figure women (some who are young and very attractive) in a safely monitored environment, to get the intimacy they really want, and it's OK to get an erection as long as they don't use it and that they'll eventually get erect less and less as they practice this holding therapy more often, and the healing influence starts to hold sway. Maybe they'll never stop going to holding therapy, but as long as it still feels centering and grounding to them, and nothing sexual happens, it's all good. Don't let them think it's just about connecting on a trusting level with another human being. It's about healing wounds.
And they need to learn to overcome their nervousness in women's lockerrooms by going and just talking (without flirting) with the women in the lockerroom. If you straight men will approach a woman as a friend, constantly downplaying the perverse sexual attraction and reminding yourself that she's a daughter of God and a fellow human being not to be objectified, the sexual tension is diminished, and you'll find that she is a person you can relate to and be friends with rather than some Venus you want to possess.
Actually, there might be more healthy mixed-sex relationships if more men thought like that. Of course, if healthy mixed-sex relationships were viewed as wrong, we'd need more than that healthier approach to relationships to quell them and open straight men up to same-sex pairing because unless the woman he becomes friends with is a lesbian, one or the other of them is likely to crack and get all romantic at some point. So we should encourage friendships with lesbians, ideally. But for some reason, most straight men undergoing this therapy prefer straight women. We can deal with that, maybe.
Perhaps if they go shopping with women and do womanly things, they will learn to relate to women on a more natural, personal level rather than objectifying them as sexual idols. I'd bet certain men going through such programs would proclaim a "diminishment" of their heterosexual attraction as they learned to identify with rather than seek to possess women. Maybe they'd even experience an increased curiosity in men if you could raise them since birth in a world in which the bulk of society were built around facilitating and nurturing monogamous same-sex partnerships as favorable over other relationships. And if their family disapproved of them dating women, and laws didn't protect mixed-sex relationships, and some people got beat up or killed for being heterosexual, that might help motivate them to develop same-sex feelings even further. Tah-dah! They're changed to homosexual! Some of them, anyway. ...Or at least adapting consciously and behaviorally to what works best for their situation, upbringing, social and family life, legal status, and sense of security, even if it's not what they would have chosen had things been different.
And for those straight men who were able to find happiness in same-sex partnerships, why should they have to call that anything other than the hard-earned change it was? Why should they be blamed for the straights who couldn't go gay? Sure, there are many who get over their "experiment", realize they've been heterosexual all along and were just convincing themselves, and it breaks homes and tears apart (adopted) families, but their failures or self-deceptions are not the problem of the still-happily-married-to-a-man formerly-straight man who has shed the label "straight" because it doesn't seem appropriate for a guy who deeply loves his husband and is living a gay lifestyle and wouldn't have it any other way after 15 years of commitment, investment, intimacy, and happy memories. Ha, taking it too far? OK, retreating from the completely abstractly theoretical...
I think we're generally or often attracted to people whose traits complement and fulfill ours. I think that's why an "effeminate" (exhibits an unusual abundance of traits and/or behaviors/expressions more commonly exhibited by females of the species) but straight man is better off marrying a more "masculine" woman than trying to act more like other men and finding the ideal "feminine" wife to make himself feel more "masculine". One relationship is built on frank assessment of strengths and complementarity, while the other is built on creating a contrived persona and finding a complement to that facade. Yes, I said contrived because even though I do believe we can each develop certain traits and strengthen our weaknesses and adapt our behaviors, I do think there's something "right" about identifying one's core personality and innate (not needing constant effort and refinement) strengths and finding someone who complements THOSE. In that way, both people are reinforced in the best way, finding a true complement to their weaknesses and building and balancing each other accordingly. But maybe not everyone can afford that. Maybe I can't. Maybe there aren't enough people in the world who truly complement me, so I can either hold out for what I want and die single defending that conviction or put on the appearance of strengths and, as Tim Gunn says, "make it work", and see if a masterpiece doesn't come of it.
I guess part of what I'm getting at is that there are many gay men who, when they hear the prepackaged explanations about how gay men are attracted to men because of their ideal masculine traits, think, "Oh my gosh! That's so me! I do that! I've always felt like I lacked confidence, so I've idolized guys who had it! I've never been good at sports, so I've been attracted to athletic guys!" Well aside from those kinds of traits being generally attractive to most people, male or female, gay or straight, there's something very natural about being attracted to someone with traits that complement yours or might help you strengthen weaker aspects of your personality. Abundant romantic versions of this dynamic aside, there's no shortage of movies about the small, wimpy nerd befriending the strong, popular guy and learning from him while discovering he has a thing or two to teach him as well, and they become best friends because they grow from that friendship. I think your average therapy client regards that as how it should be, with his attraction being a perversion of that desire, and I think that's bullcrap. A lot of gay guys experience it because a lot of guys in general experience it. Same with the daddy issues. The gay guys just also had all this other stuff mixed in, not because it was the result of it but because it's just how it was. I guess it's a chicken and egg scenario, and everyone has to decide for himself whether he believes his homosexuality was really born of masculine detachment or whether he was experiencing a very normal growing pain with the added element of homosexuality from the beginning, exacerbating the feelings of being different, and not the other way around.
Continue to Part 5...
As for gay guys who "experience a decrease in homosexuality" after therapy, I know a lot of straight guys who had naive, unhealthy, or oversexualized attraction to women until they did this amazing thing as life, time, and experience taught them to do: mature. I imagine feeling like you wanna jump on every hot guy you see is downright troublesome at times. Tempering the overpowering sexual appetite aspect of attraction, or realizing that not every hottie is the one you want to be with forever, is refreshing and liberating. But I'm not sure it's that different from what straight men go through in their sexual and personal development.
Oh, and then there's that pesky issue of age. Funny how many guys I've known have experienced "diminished homosexuality" after their mid-twenties. Go fig, right? I wonder how my straight friends would feel about me calling their diminished sex drives and more mature perspectives on attraction and relationships "diminished heterosexuality"?
I wonder what straight men would think if you tried to tell them they fall for women because they want to internalize their traits, and that if they'd only become more sensitive and nurturing, learn to decorate and bake, and maybe even wear make-up once in a while, they'd feel a diminished attraction to women, having assumed those qualities for themselves and therefore not needing to seek them in sexual gratification.
Maybe they just need some healthy, non-sexual touch with mother-figure women (some who are young and very attractive) in a safely monitored environment, to get the intimacy they really want, and it's OK to get an erection as long as they don't use it and that they'll eventually get erect less and less as they practice this holding therapy more often, and the healing influence starts to hold sway. Maybe they'll never stop going to holding therapy, but as long as it still feels centering and grounding to them, and nothing sexual happens, it's all good. Don't let them think it's just about connecting on a trusting level with another human being. It's about healing wounds.
And they need to learn to overcome their nervousness in women's lockerrooms by going and just talking (without flirting) with the women in the lockerroom. If you straight men will approach a woman as a friend, constantly downplaying the perverse sexual attraction and reminding yourself that she's a daughter of God and a fellow human being not to be objectified, the sexual tension is diminished, and you'll find that she is a person you can relate to and be friends with rather than some Venus you want to possess.
Actually, there might be more healthy mixed-sex relationships if more men thought like that. Of course, if healthy mixed-sex relationships were viewed as wrong, we'd need more than that healthier approach to relationships to quell them and open straight men up to same-sex pairing because unless the woman he becomes friends with is a lesbian, one or the other of them is likely to crack and get all romantic at some point. So we should encourage friendships with lesbians, ideally. But for some reason, most straight men undergoing this therapy prefer straight women. We can deal with that, maybe.
Perhaps if they go shopping with women and do womanly things, they will learn to relate to women on a more natural, personal level rather than objectifying them as sexual idols. I'd bet certain men going through such programs would proclaim a "diminishment" of their heterosexual attraction as they learned to identify with rather than seek to possess women. Maybe they'd even experience an increased curiosity in men if you could raise them since birth in a world in which the bulk of society were built around facilitating and nurturing monogamous same-sex partnerships as favorable over other relationships. And if their family disapproved of them dating women, and laws didn't protect mixed-sex relationships, and some people got beat up or killed for being heterosexual, that might help motivate them to develop same-sex feelings even further. Tah-dah! They're changed to homosexual! Some of them, anyway. ...Or at least adapting consciously and behaviorally to what works best for their situation, upbringing, social and family life, legal status, and sense of security, even if it's not what they would have chosen had things been different.
And for those straight men who were able to find happiness in same-sex partnerships, why should they have to call that anything other than the hard-earned change it was? Why should they be blamed for the straights who couldn't go gay? Sure, there are many who get over their "experiment", realize they've been heterosexual all along and were just convincing themselves, and it breaks homes and tears apart (adopted) families, but their failures or self-deceptions are not the problem of the still-happily-married-to-a-man formerly-straight man who has shed the label "straight" because it doesn't seem appropriate for a guy who deeply loves his husband and is living a gay lifestyle and wouldn't have it any other way after 15 years of commitment, investment, intimacy, and happy memories. Ha, taking it too far? OK, retreating from the completely abstractly theoretical...
I think we're generally or often attracted to people whose traits complement and fulfill ours. I think that's why an "effeminate" (exhibits an unusual abundance of traits and/or behaviors/expressions more commonly exhibited by females of the species) but straight man is better off marrying a more "masculine" woman than trying to act more like other men and finding the ideal "feminine" wife to make himself feel more "masculine". One relationship is built on frank assessment of strengths and complementarity, while the other is built on creating a contrived persona and finding a complement to that facade. Yes, I said contrived because even though I do believe we can each develop certain traits and strengthen our weaknesses and adapt our behaviors, I do think there's something "right" about identifying one's core personality and innate (not needing constant effort and refinement) strengths and finding someone who complements THOSE. In that way, both people are reinforced in the best way, finding a true complement to their weaknesses and building and balancing each other accordingly. But maybe not everyone can afford that. Maybe I can't. Maybe there aren't enough people in the world who truly complement me, so I can either hold out for what I want and die single defending that conviction or put on the appearance of strengths and, as Tim Gunn says, "make it work", and see if a masterpiece doesn't come of it.
I guess part of what I'm getting at is that there are many gay men who, when they hear the prepackaged explanations about how gay men are attracted to men because of their ideal masculine traits, think, "Oh my gosh! That's so me! I do that! I've always felt like I lacked confidence, so I've idolized guys who had it! I've never been good at sports, so I've been attracted to athletic guys!" Well aside from those kinds of traits being generally attractive to most people, male or female, gay or straight, there's something very natural about being attracted to someone with traits that complement yours or might help you strengthen weaker aspects of your personality. Abundant romantic versions of this dynamic aside, there's no shortage of movies about the small, wimpy nerd befriending the strong, popular guy and learning from him while discovering he has a thing or two to teach him as well, and they become best friends because they grow from that friendship. I think your average therapy client regards that as how it should be, with his attraction being a perversion of that desire, and I think that's bullcrap. A lot of gay guys experience it because a lot of guys in general experience it. Same with the daddy issues. The gay guys just also had all this other stuff mixed in, not because it was the result of it but because it's just how it was. I guess it's a chicken and egg scenario, and everyone has to decide for himself whether he believes his homosexuality was really born of masculine detachment or whether he was experiencing a very normal growing pain with the added element of homosexuality from the beginning, exacerbating the feelings of being different, and not the other way around.
Continue to Part 5...
Heteros do it too (and what I really think about most therapy of homosexuality), Part 3
Back to Part 2.
I'd guess some same-sex spouses or partners experience a lack of infatuation to an extent, too, maybe even fully. Would gay activists decry that relationship just as much as a mixed-orientation relationship based on a lack of euphoria, intense but unearned trust, and/or the feeling of walking on clouds and feeling deliriously happy? Would they decry it if the partners had to work on the sexual aspect of their relationship? Might they just as well have married people of the opposite sex if they were going to forgo the whole "euphoria" thing anyway? Or is that a specious question because gay men still experience infatuation even with their wives? Or is it possible to be "in love" in a way unique to pair-bonding without anything like the infatuation or euphoric feeling? Is that all just insignificant, doped up brain chemistry in the end? Is being in a committed, fulfilling relationship really not even about being in love? All else being equal, if you knew you could choose to have a committed, fulfilling relationship with or without being "in love" in this euphoric or deeply emotional sense, would you choose to go without? To you straight people who tell me it's not that important anyway, would you have married your spouse if it hadn't been for those feelings? Whether or not you think you should have, would you have? What stopped you from marrying your opposite-sex best friend for whom you had no such feelings? Shouldn't you have done that?
I think straight people generally do have the "in love" feelings, at least in the beginning of their relationship, and throughout, if they work to maintain them. I also think they take them for granted, and it does wane with time, although some brain activity research indicates that long-term couples tend to still dope up each other's brains quite nicely. Is a chemical reaction in the brain something to base a lifetime decision on? No, I don't think it is. Is it something to reject just because it's chemical, even when other important factors line up? I think you'd be a fool to. If the match is a good one, and the values and commitment line up, then that doped up brain is a total bonus, and who wouldn't want that?! I believe rejecting the euphoria as if it's proof of shallowness of affection is what many gay men are doing when they "explain away" their attractions to other men. Whether acting on those attractions lines up with their values and beliefs is another question: I just wish more such men would call a spade a spade, admit the authenticity of the experience, and see that they needn't decimate their concept and experience of being in love in order to justify their decision to live an alternative lifestyle and seek love in a form more compliant with their beliefs.
Mind you, I think many gay men do idolize the "objects" of their attraction, thinking them to be everything they'd want in a man...or, as the reparatives narrate it, everything they wish to be. I think many straight men "idolize" the women they're attracted to, as well, seeing the ideal feminine (often rooted in evolutionarily biological preferences reinforced by societal norms and structure) in them even well beyond reality until something snaps sense into them, often well after it's likely to make any difference in their love. I wish there were an accurate way to get into the mind of any given gay man and see his attractions for men, and the traits he finds attractive, and then get into the mind of a straight man and his attractions for women and see if they're patently differently motivated in a quantifiable way.
Let's pretend, for a nutty moment, that some people are truly, physiologically wired, for whatever reasons (environmental, genetic, whatever the triggers for that wiring) to fall for people of the same sex. Now, why wouldn't a guy be attracted to guys who represent ideal men? Why wouldn't any given same-sex-wired guy be attracted to guys similar to those hetero women are attracted to? And why wouldn't a guy who is truly primarily attracted on a personal, not romantic or sexual, level of admiration or aspiration to a guy who also happens to be physically attractive find it difficult to sort out which kind of attraction he's dealing with? Don't hetero girls also have a tendency to think they're in love with the "perfect guy" when in reality they just really look up to them but wouldn't necessarily pair well with him or would realize, if they started dating him, that they're not actually that interested after all but were idealizing him based on admirable hobby traits? I know many women who have gone through that. If certain parts of gay guys' inner workings resemble the inner workings of the average female of the species, as some brain structure research suggests on at least some level, wouldn't it make sense for them to experience some similar processes?
Continue to Part 4...
I'd guess some same-sex spouses or partners experience a lack of infatuation to an extent, too, maybe even fully. Would gay activists decry that relationship just as much as a mixed-orientation relationship based on a lack of euphoria, intense but unearned trust, and/or the feeling of walking on clouds and feeling deliriously happy? Would they decry it if the partners had to work on the sexual aspect of their relationship? Might they just as well have married people of the opposite sex if they were going to forgo the whole "euphoria" thing anyway? Or is that a specious question because gay men still experience infatuation even with their wives? Or is it possible to be "in love" in a way unique to pair-bonding without anything like the infatuation or euphoric feeling? Is that all just insignificant, doped up brain chemistry in the end? Is being in a committed, fulfilling relationship really not even about being in love? All else being equal, if you knew you could choose to have a committed, fulfilling relationship with or without being "in love" in this euphoric or deeply emotional sense, would you choose to go without? To you straight people who tell me it's not that important anyway, would you have married your spouse if it hadn't been for those feelings? Whether or not you think you should have, would you have? What stopped you from marrying your opposite-sex best friend for whom you had no such feelings? Shouldn't you have done that?
I think straight people generally do have the "in love" feelings, at least in the beginning of their relationship, and throughout, if they work to maintain them. I also think they take them for granted, and it does wane with time, although some brain activity research indicates that long-term couples tend to still dope up each other's brains quite nicely. Is a chemical reaction in the brain something to base a lifetime decision on? No, I don't think it is. Is it something to reject just because it's chemical, even when other important factors line up? I think you'd be a fool to. If the match is a good one, and the values and commitment line up, then that doped up brain is a total bonus, and who wouldn't want that?! I believe rejecting the euphoria as if it's proof of shallowness of affection is what many gay men are doing when they "explain away" their attractions to other men. Whether acting on those attractions lines up with their values and beliefs is another question: I just wish more such men would call a spade a spade, admit the authenticity of the experience, and see that they needn't decimate their concept and experience of being in love in order to justify their decision to live an alternative lifestyle and seek love in a form more compliant with their beliefs.
Mind you, I think many gay men do idolize the "objects" of their attraction, thinking them to be everything they'd want in a man...or, as the reparatives narrate it, everything they wish to be. I think many straight men "idolize" the women they're attracted to, as well, seeing the ideal feminine (often rooted in evolutionarily biological preferences reinforced by societal norms and structure) in them even well beyond reality until something snaps sense into them, often well after it's likely to make any difference in their love. I wish there were an accurate way to get into the mind of any given gay man and see his attractions for men, and the traits he finds attractive, and then get into the mind of a straight man and his attractions for women and see if they're patently differently motivated in a quantifiable way.
Let's pretend, for a nutty moment, that some people are truly, physiologically wired, for whatever reasons (environmental, genetic, whatever the triggers for that wiring) to fall for people of the same sex. Now, why wouldn't a guy be attracted to guys who represent ideal men? Why wouldn't any given same-sex-wired guy be attracted to guys similar to those hetero women are attracted to? And why wouldn't a guy who is truly primarily attracted on a personal, not romantic or sexual, level of admiration or aspiration to a guy who also happens to be physically attractive find it difficult to sort out which kind of attraction he's dealing with? Don't hetero girls also have a tendency to think they're in love with the "perfect guy" when in reality they just really look up to them but wouldn't necessarily pair well with him or would realize, if they started dating him, that they're not actually that interested after all but were idealizing him based on admirable hobby traits? I know many women who have gone through that. If certain parts of gay guys' inner workings resemble the inner workings of the average female of the species, as some brain structure research suggests on at least some level, wouldn't it make sense for them to experience some similar processes?
Continue to Part 4...
22 January 2011
Heteros do it too (and what I really think about most therapy of homosexuality), Part 2
Back to Part 1.
That "in love" feeling is proclaimed by some to be unimportant in a "real" relationship since it eventually fades anyway, which is actually a pretty key thing for a woman-marrying gay man to accept because as I understand it, in most cases, a gay man isn't going to have the same euphoric "in love" phenomenon with a woman as he likely would with a man of equal caliber and compatibility. That's not to downplay such a relationship: whatever I may think "most" relationships have or start with, I know at least one or two happily married, completely hetero couples in which at least one partner confesses to never having had the butterflies they thought you're supposed to have, but that it's always been something more. Maybe that means they didn't have the "in love" feeling, or maybe it means they just describe it differently, or kept it in check differently, or something.
As I write this, something's dawned on me that I'd forgotten. I actually wondered, from very early while we were dating, if I was maybe not as giddy as he might be, not quite as carried away, in a sense, as one might expect. Of course, there were also times early on when I actually thought he was disinterested and "over it" when I knew very well I was not. I just knew I was experiencing something different from what I'd felt with other guys, something more like a mix of them and what I'd felt with a couple of girls...and I feared that he was only experiencing...his first reciprocated crush. I didn't long to have him with me every moment we were apart. Instead, I looked forward to seeing him again but carried on with my daily life as usual. As time went on, and we grew closer, I felt him with me rather than feeling a void when he wasn't around. Even now, I feel like a part of me went with him in a way, and the space was filled with something he gave me, or something our relationship gave me. How corny is that? I didn't fantasize and daydream like a Disney princess; I took it a day at a time. I did just about collapse on buckling knees and shout for joy when he called me asking to officially "date" me, feeling like a new sun was igniting inside of me. I remember thinking, in that moment, that there was no way to describe in words what I was feeling or how beautiful and powerful it was, that it was like the entire cosmos was tuned to animate my soul. So yeah, that might be carried away, especially after only a month or so of friendship. And once, in an intimate and admittedly sort of 'passionate' moment (in a totally PG-rated way for you folks trying to spice this up to quell your "excessive gushing" gag reflex), an admission which concedes the possibility of influential chemistry, there was a pause and tender moment in which we looked into each other's eyes, and tears unexpectedly fell from my eyes in a happy moment because of the exquisite joy of the mere idea of our relationship, with all of its quirks and qualities, lasting indefinitely colliding with the exquisite sorrow at the probability that he would not be ready to pursue that, and I would have to let him go without finding out where it could lead. That emotion may have been as much about a formerly abstract concept really becoming a present reality for the first time as it was about him personally, and I knew it. But I also saw him as a beautiful person, the kind of person I'd want to be with, possibly the person I wanted to be with, and I was torn to tears by the tension between wanting to give myself over in a freefall to find out but believing it wouldn't be fair to him, and realizing I was afraid to take that risk but knew I was on the brink. He asked me, in that moment, to let him in, to share what I was thinking, as he gently combed my hair with his fingers, pulling me in with that familiar, encompassing, gravitational gaze. I loved him the more for it and told him, "Someday, but not now." Well! *shaking head vigorously* How's that for a tangent? Where was I? Right: But I didn't walk on air every time we spent time together. I did after the first night, but it quickly became...something more steady, more filling, more secure, more meaningful than twitterpation.
So is that what they're talking about when they say they didn't have all the giddiness and butterflies? Because if that's it, wow, it makes complete sense! ...I have no way of knowing, since I can't experience what someone else has. And then there's the question: "How authentic could all of those feelings have been after only a couple of months of friendship and dating? Clearly, it was more emotional than rational." Maybe so. But had we stayed together and proven those feelings, that wouldn't be in question. Had we been a straight couple who became sealed together for time and all eternity, those moments would be considered beautiful testaments of our love and dedication for each other, seeds we planted and nourished by dedication, commitment, and mutual respect and appreciation.
Well, whatever the "butterflies" are, and whether infatuation is present early on in most relationships, "most" relationships fail, butterflies or not, and arranged marriages in some cultures have incredible endurance rates, with many couples in arranged marriages saying they're fully happy and don't believe in the necessity of all of this western romanticizing we do. Either way, there's something beautiful about choosing to be with someone even without the euphoria, or the butterflies, or infatuation "stage" because in that case, it's clearly not just a hormonal insanity, and more likely a real connection, appreciation, and attraction of a more enduring kind. But all else being equal, if I can choose to have that real connection along with what I felt for him or instead with what I've felt for those to whom I wasn't romantically attracted but with whom I've had enduring friendships, I know which one I would choose. That's if that's actually an option.
Continue to Part 3...
That "in love" feeling is proclaimed by some to be unimportant in a "real" relationship since it eventually fades anyway, which is actually a pretty key thing for a woman-marrying gay man to accept because as I understand it, in most cases, a gay man isn't going to have the same euphoric "in love" phenomenon with a woman as he likely would with a man of equal caliber and compatibility. That's not to downplay such a relationship: whatever I may think "most" relationships have or start with, I know at least one or two happily married, completely hetero couples in which at least one partner confesses to never having had the butterflies they thought you're supposed to have, but that it's always been something more. Maybe that means they didn't have the "in love" feeling, or maybe it means they just describe it differently, or kept it in check differently, or something.
As I write this, something's dawned on me that I'd forgotten. I actually wondered, from very early while we were dating, if I was maybe not as giddy as he might be, not quite as carried away, in a sense, as one might expect. Of course, there were also times early on when I actually thought he was disinterested and "over it" when I knew very well I was not. I just knew I was experiencing something different from what I'd felt with other guys, something more like a mix of them and what I'd felt with a couple of girls...and I feared that he was only experiencing...his first reciprocated crush. I didn't long to have him with me every moment we were apart. Instead, I looked forward to seeing him again but carried on with my daily life as usual. As time went on, and we grew closer, I felt him with me rather than feeling a void when he wasn't around. Even now, I feel like a part of me went with him in a way, and the space was filled with something he gave me, or something our relationship gave me. How corny is that? I didn't fantasize and daydream like a Disney princess; I took it a day at a time. I did just about collapse on buckling knees and shout for joy when he called me asking to officially "date" me, feeling like a new sun was igniting inside of me. I remember thinking, in that moment, that there was no way to describe in words what I was feeling or how beautiful and powerful it was, that it was like the entire cosmos was tuned to animate my soul. So yeah, that might be carried away, especially after only a month or so of friendship. And once, in an intimate and admittedly sort of 'passionate' moment (in a totally PG-rated way for you folks trying to spice this up to quell your "excessive gushing" gag reflex), an admission which concedes the possibility of influential chemistry, there was a pause and tender moment in which we looked into each other's eyes, and tears unexpectedly fell from my eyes in a happy moment because of the exquisite joy of the mere idea of our relationship, with all of its quirks and qualities, lasting indefinitely colliding with the exquisite sorrow at the probability that he would not be ready to pursue that, and I would have to let him go without finding out where it could lead. That emotion may have been as much about a formerly abstract concept really becoming a present reality for the first time as it was about him personally, and I knew it. But I also saw him as a beautiful person, the kind of person I'd want to be with, possibly the person I wanted to be with, and I was torn to tears by the tension between wanting to give myself over in a freefall to find out but believing it wouldn't be fair to him, and realizing I was afraid to take that risk but knew I was on the brink. He asked me, in that moment, to let him in, to share what I was thinking, as he gently combed my hair with his fingers, pulling me in with that familiar, encompassing, gravitational gaze. I loved him the more for it and told him, "Someday, but not now." Well! *shaking head vigorously* How's that for a tangent? Where was I? Right: But I didn't walk on air every time we spent time together. I did after the first night, but it quickly became...something more steady, more filling, more secure, more meaningful than twitterpation.
So is that what they're talking about when they say they didn't have all the giddiness and butterflies? Because if that's it, wow, it makes complete sense! ...I have no way of knowing, since I can't experience what someone else has. And then there's the question: "How authentic could all of those feelings have been after only a couple of months of friendship and dating? Clearly, it was more emotional than rational." Maybe so. But had we stayed together and proven those feelings, that wouldn't be in question. Had we been a straight couple who became sealed together for time and all eternity, those moments would be considered beautiful testaments of our love and dedication for each other, seeds we planted and nourished by dedication, commitment, and mutual respect and appreciation.
Well, whatever the "butterflies" are, and whether infatuation is present early on in most relationships, "most" relationships fail, butterflies or not, and arranged marriages in some cultures have incredible endurance rates, with many couples in arranged marriages saying they're fully happy and don't believe in the necessity of all of this western romanticizing we do. Either way, there's something beautiful about choosing to be with someone even without the euphoria, or the butterflies, or infatuation "stage" because in that case, it's clearly not just a hormonal insanity, and more likely a real connection, appreciation, and attraction of a more enduring kind. But all else being equal, if I can choose to have that real connection along with what I felt for him or instead with what I've felt for those to whom I wasn't romantically attracted but with whom I've had enduring friendships, I know which one I would choose. That's if that's actually an option.
Continue to Part 3...
21 January 2011
Heteros do it too (and what I really think about most therapy of homosexuality), Part 1
I loved him. I did not idolize him. But I may have idealized certain traits in my mind. This probable idealization or possible misperception of his traits which never had a chance to be validated or debunked does not mean my love was only a symptom of an inferior and illusory infatuation due to some developmental hiccup. I don't believe it was the result of the sexualization of masculine traits I wanted to possess for myself but wasn't manning up enough to acquire but instead lusted after through a copout sexual desire. I think it means I was...um...falling in love. And I knew it. And I knew the risks. And I'm certain nobody would question what I felt and expressed had he been a woman and I a straight dude. I'm pretty sure I saw him for who he was and was willing to explore "us", including the bumps I saw in the road ahead. Maybe I was nothing but a mirage to him, a symptom of a "problem", but he was much more to me: awkward at times, naive sometimes, inexperienced in certain ways, rebellious in others, yes, and other things which weren't entirely attractive, but so much more importantly, he was kind, sincere, fun, silly, sensitive, sweet, thoughtful, attentive, open-minded, humble, happy, bright-eyed, curious, playful, responsible, loving, family-oriented, affectionate, communicative, respectful, honest...not perfectly so on any of these, but a beautiful combination of them. Maybe I even idealized some of that, but I am so grateful to have had even a short time with him in that kind of relationship.
Having blinders or rose-colored glasses is a very real, explainable phenomenon associated with physiology like dopamine in the brain. Healthy hetero people have to keep it in check just like gay people, but when it's happening in a gay man, he's told by some that it's a symptom of detached masculinity or some horse manure along those lines primarily because it's directed at the wrong gender. I suspect most of those who buy into this idea find it easy to do so because they're still in their gay adolescence, learning the ins and outs of that kind of relationship far later than most people have. It's pretty easy to dismiss your first crush or fling as something silly, especially if you've never given it a chance to mature because you believed it shouldn't be allowed to in the first place, somewhat like neglecting a plant and then calling it weak because it dies.
Heteros have fumbling, unsatisfying, disappointing, or romanticized relationships too. They just usually get much of it out of the way and learn to identify them in actual adolescence. Yay for them. Head start. Those of us who say, "Oh crap, it's not a phase," in our mid-to-late twenties are starting a bit late, even if we've had relationships with members of the opposite sex in the past. I can't speak for anyone else, but even though my relationships with girls have often turned out to be meaningful for longer-term (probably partially because it's easier to maintain a friendship when one or the other isn't emotionally vulnerable, partially because I'm more often adept at choosing matching character when my hormones don't get in the way, partially because women are, I think, and for whatever reason, often better at the kind of intimacy I value), the vulnerability and emotional dynamic with guys has been a completely different ballgame, something much more intense, animating, and satisfying in additional ways, rather than friendly and respectfully attracted with flirtation and a hint of romantic affection.
Continue to Part 2...
Having blinders or rose-colored glasses is a very real, explainable phenomenon associated with physiology like dopamine in the brain. Healthy hetero people have to keep it in check just like gay people, but when it's happening in a gay man, he's told by some that it's a symptom of detached masculinity or some horse manure along those lines primarily because it's directed at the wrong gender. I suspect most of those who buy into this idea find it easy to do so because they're still in their gay adolescence, learning the ins and outs of that kind of relationship far later than most people have. It's pretty easy to dismiss your first crush or fling as something silly, especially if you've never given it a chance to mature because you believed it shouldn't be allowed to in the first place, somewhat like neglecting a plant and then calling it weak because it dies.
Heteros have fumbling, unsatisfying, disappointing, or romanticized relationships too. They just usually get much of it out of the way and learn to identify them in actual adolescence. Yay for them. Head start. Those of us who say, "Oh crap, it's not a phase," in our mid-to-late twenties are starting a bit late, even if we've had relationships with members of the opposite sex in the past. I can't speak for anyone else, but even though my relationships with girls have often turned out to be meaningful for longer-term (probably partially because it's easier to maintain a friendship when one or the other isn't emotionally vulnerable, partially because I'm more often adept at choosing matching character when my hormones don't get in the way, partially because women are, I think, and for whatever reason, often better at the kind of intimacy I value), the vulnerability and emotional dynamic with guys has been a completely different ballgame, something much more intense, animating, and satisfying in additional ways, rather than friendly and respectfully attracted with flirtation and a hint of romantic affection.
Continue to Part 2...
05 October 2010
A straight guy says, "It gets better"
I appreciate the following video made in response to Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" campaign in response to gay teens facing bullying and ostracizing to let them know that there is joy ahead for them. I've heard/seen Dan Savage online before, and he's an engaging and frank speaker/columnist on issues of queer life and relationships and sexuality who sometimes impresses me with his candor and practical wisdom and sometimes...yes...upsets my more conservative sensibilities or personal standards or makes statements I think are not completely thought through. I believe this campaign is a good-hearted effort to reach out.
To be honest, I feel a little discouraged by some of the videos people have personally made in response to the call to testify "it gets better" on YouTube and other social media because I can't relate or hope I don't become an awkward old queen or a slimy, shirtless manslut. Yes, I'm judging, don't judge. *momentary "wait, what did I just say?" expression* But some I relate to. And I think that's part of the beauty of the campaign: many different faces and voices piping in to say, "Hey, it may suck for a while, but it gets better, even better than we could have imagined. We promise. We're glad we stuck around to find that out and hope you'll do the same."
It may be hard for people in other belief systems to understand, but most young LDS gay guys and gals, along with those in similarly homosexuality-eschewing belief systems, aren't going to find much comfort in this campaign. It's full of people who are "happily" living with their same-sex partners or as out, single gay adults who have become comfortable with their sexual orientation. In a way, it could make it worse: "Oh great, so it gets better, but only if you're living a sinful lifestyle, which I won't do, so what about for me? Does it get better for people like me?" So far, I haven't seen the faces of those who are saying, "Hey, you're torn right now, but don't worry: life gets better as a faithful, single member of the church." I may not agree that same-sex relationships are clearly and inherently contrary to the will of whatever deity may exist, so in one way, I don't want organizations out there sending that message because I struggle to believe it leads to happiness for most who pursue it, but I also know many for whom it is their only option (in their minds) and seems to have led to happiness as they've done it wisely rather than white-knuckling. And I also remember that as an LDS youth, it would have been meaningful to have found video messages of that sort, to see faces and voices of people setting aside doctrinal expositions and assertions of "change" to simply say, "Hey, it gets better."
So whether or not an organization like North Star pipes in with their own version of "It Gets Better" videos, in the meantime, I appreciate videos like this one from a straight guy who can relate on some level to the bullying and "being different", even if not in the same exact way:
PSA from the campaign:
To be honest, I feel a little discouraged by some of the videos people have personally made in response to the call to testify "it gets better" on YouTube and other social media because I can't relate or hope I don't become an awkward old queen or a slimy, shirtless manslut. Yes, I'm judging, don't judge. *momentary "wait, what did I just say?" expression* But some I relate to. And I think that's part of the beauty of the campaign: many different faces and voices piping in to say, "Hey, it may suck for a while, but it gets better, even better than we could have imagined. We promise. We're glad we stuck around to find that out and hope you'll do the same."
It may be hard for people in other belief systems to understand, but most young LDS gay guys and gals, along with those in similarly homosexuality-eschewing belief systems, aren't going to find much comfort in this campaign. It's full of people who are "happily" living with their same-sex partners or as out, single gay adults who have become comfortable with their sexual orientation. In a way, it could make it worse: "Oh great, so it gets better, but only if you're living a sinful lifestyle, which I won't do, so what about for me? Does it get better for people like me?" So far, I haven't seen the faces of those who are saying, "Hey, you're torn right now, but don't worry: life gets better as a faithful, single member of the church." I may not agree that same-sex relationships are clearly and inherently contrary to the will of whatever deity may exist, so in one way, I don't want organizations out there sending that message because I struggle to believe it leads to happiness for most who pursue it, but I also know many for whom it is their only option (in their minds) and seems to have led to happiness as they've done it wisely rather than white-knuckling. And I also remember that as an LDS youth, it would have been meaningful to have found video messages of that sort, to see faces and voices of people setting aside doctrinal expositions and assertions of "change" to simply say, "Hey, it gets better."
So whether or not an organization like North Star pipes in with their own version of "It Gets Better" videos, in the meantime, I appreciate videos like this one from a straight guy who can relate on some level to the bullying and "being different", even if not in the same exact way:
PSA from the campaign:
05 June 2008
Lofty Ambitions
I had another dream involving Max Power. What is this?! He haunts me. But this time, he was incidental to the central plot, not the main character making unwanted advances.
In this one, I was outside of a high school with Tito, Max Power, and Max Power's straight friend who had no name but had a beautiful face with an excellent jaw line and a tall, tanned, lean, California-boy body with perfect skin. It was a hot day, so of course MP's friend was shirtless. Thank-you, Max Power, for sharing the glory with us. We were there with a tow truck to tow a car that had broken down. I think it was Danish Boy's car, and he came out of the high school to join us as we rigged it up. Whether he was a student there or not, I don't really know. I mean, he's young, but he's not THAT young.
We all hopped in the tow truck, Tito driving with MP and DB in the front seat. Apparently, the front seat was wide enough to seat three. I mention this as noteworthy because wouldn't you know it--the back seat was only wide enough for one. Gee. That's too bad for hottie California boy and me.
Well, you gotta do what you gotta do. I straddled Cali-boy from behind. We started driving, and it was, as I already mentioned, a really hot day. I was sweating, so it became expedient for me to remove my shirt. Yes, with hottie straighty leaning back against my torso. The sacrifices we make for comfort...
Pause. In reality, if someone who looked like me straddled me and took off his shirt, I would probably snicker and think, "dude, go hit the weights for a year and come back and try that again, and I'll still scoff at the lameness but at least be semi-impressed by the physique. Who do you think you are?" But this was my dream, and in my dream, I get to be as hot and as tempting as I want. OK, resume...
At first, straighty Cali-boy sort of leaned aside and forward a little to keep a healthy distance from my scantily clad, homoerotic self. But as we rode further on, he feigned oblivion as he pretended to forget about it and gradually became more relaxed and less distant. Before long, he still carried a hint of readiness to explain away his actions at the first accusation but was resting his head on my shoulder and very much enjoying the experience as my arms gradually wrapped around him.
I had only semi-intentionally wooed the hot straighty. Not an unpleasant surprise, to say the least. This was going well...and then I think my roommate made a noise, and I watched the scene dissolve away from me. Grasp as I might, it was not coming back. Dang. I need my own room.
Who knew I was into nabbing straighties? I certainly didn't. But hey, we all have our hidden goals and ambitions, I guess.
...and is it unusual that my hot dreams are almost always about nobody I actually know or have seen? Why is that? They're, at best, conglomerates of bits and pieces of people I know or have seen around. I mean, it saves me a lot of potentially awkward mornings after, so I won't complain. I'm just sayin'...
In this one, I was outside of a high school with Tito, Max Power, and Max Power's straight friend who had no name but had a beautiful face with an excellent jaw line and a tall, tanned, lean, California-boy body with perfect skin. It was a hot day, so of course MP's friend was shirtless. Thank-you, Max Power, for sharing the glory with us. We were there with a tow truck to tow a car that had broken down. I think it was Danish Boy's car, and he came out of the high school to join us as we rigged it up. Whether he was a student there or not, I don't really know. I mean, he's young, but he's not THAT young.
We all hopped in the tow truck, Tito driving with MP and DB in the front seat. Apparently, the front seat was wide enough to seat three. I mention this as noteworthy because wouldn't you know it--the back seat was only wide enough for one. Gee. That's too bad for hottie California boy and me.
Well, you gotta do what you gotta do. I straddled Cali-boy from behind. We started driving, and it was, as I already mentioned, a really hot day. I was sweating, so it became expedient for me to remove my shirt. Yes, with hottie straighty leaning back against my torso. The sacrifices we make for comfort...
Pause. In reality, if someone who looked like me straddled me and took off his shirt, I would probably snicker and think, "dude, go hit the weights for a year and come back and try that again, and I'll still scoff at the lameness but at least be semi-impressed by the physique. Who do you think you are?" But this was my dream, and in my dream, I get to be as hot and as tempting as I want. OK, resume...
At first, straighty Cali-boy sort of leaned aside and forward a little to keep a healthy distance from my scantily clad, homoerotic self. But as we rode further on, he feigned oblivion as he pretended to forget about it and gradually became more relaxed and less distant. Before long, he still carried a hint of readiness to explain away his actions at the first accusation but was resting his head on my shoulder and very much enjoying the experience as my arms gradually wrapped around him.
I had only semi-intentionally wooed the hot straighty. Not an unpleasant surprise, to say the least. This was going well...and then I think my roommate made a noise, and I watched the scene dissolve away from me. Grasp as I might, it was not coming back. Dang. I need my own room.
Who knew I was into nabbing straighties? I certainly didn't. But hey, we all have our hidden goals and ambitions, I guess.
...and is it unusual that my hot dreams are almost always about nobody I actually know or have seen? Why is that? They're, at best, conglomerates of bits and pieces of people I know or have seen around. I mean, it saves me a lot of potentially awkward mornings after, so I won't complain. I'm just sayin'...
02 March 2008
Straight Mancrushes
I think a straight, married coworker of mine may have a mancrush on me. It's kind of cute. And fun. Because we can kind of sort of say flirty things occasionally without it meaning a darn thing. It makes our female coworkers raise an eyebrow, but I then remind them, "Hey, you make 'sexy' faces at each other, so don't go judging."
Now, a "mancrush" is not like a regular crush. Straight men can have mancrushes, as can gay ones. It's not necessarily sexual or romantic at all. It's like a "friend crush", as one female friend once put it. I've known a few straight friends who have had mancrushes. You can identify them by the almost giddy demeanor when they're around this (usually new) acquaintance and even the occasional remark or glance that could possibly be described as flirty, but not in the usual sexual way, or at least not in a way they'd actually ever consider following through on. Mancrushes don't always include flirtation, though. They may just seem extra happy to see you every time you show up, want to exchange numbers, talk to you a lot more than they talk to other male coworkers, etc.
But I actually enjoy straight guy mancrushes with the mild flirtation element 'cause you can sort of flirt in a completely benign way without worrying whether they will want to follow through with anything 'cause hey, they're straight, and you're not interested 'cause hey, they're straight.
Fun times.
Now, a "mancrush" is not like a regular crush. Straight men can have mancrushes, as can gay ones. It's not necessarily sexual or romantic at all. It's like a "friend crush", as one female friend once put it. I've known a few straight friends who have had mancrushes. You can identify them by the almost giddy demeanor when they're around this (usually new) acquaintance and even the occasional remark or glance that could possibly be described as flirty, but not in the usual sexual way, or at least not in a way they'd actually ever consider following through on. Mancrushes don't always include flirtation, though. They may just seem extra happy to see you every time you show up, want to exchange numbers, talk to you a lot more than they talk to other male coworkers, etc.
But I actually enjoy straight guy mancrushes with the mild flirtation element 'cause you can sort of flirt in a completely benign way without worrying whether they will want to follow through with anything 'cause hey, they're straight, and you're not interested 'cause hey, they're straight.
Fun times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)