I went to spend some time with friends one evening recently, and we were at the home of a middle-aged female relative of one of my friends. The home was, by all appearances, a fairly typical suburban, mormon home. Flowery decor, cute epithets in stitching on the walls, a piano with a little light atop it, doilies, the whole nine yards.
This lady isn't married, and I would guess she never has been, but I don't know that at all because I didn't ask my friend about it. She's a tough-looking woman with whom I'd rather not tangle but nonetheless seems warmly personable. And I thought, "OK, yes she's suspect, but regardless of the direction of her attractions, here's an older, single woman who has made a comfortable home into which she welcomes family and friends, and who obviously lends service to her community and seems to be living well." She had toys for visiting friends' and relatives' children. She had memorabilia from service she has given. She had a cheery and confident disposition. She had cross-stitches with hopeful messages designed to motivate on tougher days. Strangely, those things which most often seem trite or mundane to me took on a brighter glow.
It just sent my mind scanning over my years of life, so far, to all of the older, single people I've known and how much love they have offered to those around them, how much service they've rendered to their communities, and how meaningful they have made their time. Yes, there may be some component of "making up for" a deep deficit in their lives. Yes, they probably have hard, lonely nights in which they want nothing more than to hold someone they love or be held by a companion and protector. But notwithstanding, they move on. They live. They contribute. They offer and accept love in other ways in life. And in the process, they teach each of us to be more loving and open to those around us rather than limit our love and influence to only our supposedly self-contained families.
Sometimes, the thought of living "alone" for the rest of life is depressing, bleak, and completely draining. Other times, like when I see someone like this, I remember how it can be done and done well, and though it may not seem ideal, it doesn't seem so bad.
28 February 2008
Don't Fence Me In
***Posted 16 Oct 2010***
I disagree that sitting on the fence is always a bad thing, depending on what you mean by sitting on the fence. I hear so many people decrying the vice of fence-sitting, especially in a culture which preaches that hesitation amounts to laziness, slothfulness, and "serving two masters". And then there's the statement of President Bush that "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists". I understand that what he (hopefully) meant was that if you are not going to act to help us stop what is being done, then you are allowing their proliferation and success, so if you're not going to help us, you're helping them by your inactivity. But to insist that someone is decidedly on the side of the terrorists if they don't agree with how the situation is being handled and refuse to take part is, in my opinion, wrong.
If sitting on the fence means hesitating to act due to fear, yeah, that's probably not good for your progress or self-concept. If sitting on the fence means waiting for a "perfect" scenario before getting anything done, then yeah, you're probably never going to get anything done. If sitting on the fence is pretending a conflict doesn't exist and ignoring it as long as possible, also not good. But I just don't understand the concept of making a decision for the sake of making a decision. There are always going to be things in life that are conflicting or pull you in different directions, and sometimes, I think it's good to actually focus on other things in life, examine your options, come back to the perplexing issue enough to remember it's there but then move on with other things if you're not ready to make a call...
Sometimes, maybe the only thing you can do with any integrity is stand still on a certain issue until you gain a bit more clarity. Sometimes, you gain the clarity by simple acting and making a mistake. Other times, to act one way or another would be to betray personal principles, and until you find a way to act without compromising those principles, or until you realize some of those principles aren't as important as you thought, it may be totally appropriate to refrain from action. I think that exact struggle, wrestling with seeming contradictions or conflicting options and seeking greater fulfillment of the most principles is what leads to finding options previously ignored. By refusing to engage in the current, supposed dichotomous options, new ways are found, and reconciliation begins.
Certainly our culture frowns upon it, but our culture's version of decisiveness often seems asinine to me. But then, I'm supposedly on the fence, so what do I know about it?
I disagree that sitting on the fence is always a bad thing, depending on what you mean by sitting on the fence. I hear so many people decrying the vice of fence-sitting, especially in a culture which preaches that hesitation amounts to laziness, slothfulness, and "serving two masters". And then there's the statement of President Bush that "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists". I understand that what he (hopefully) meant was that if you are not going to act to help us stop what is being done, then you are allowing their proliferation and success, so if you're not going to help us, you're helping them by your inactivity. But to insist that someone is decidedly on the side of the terrorists if they don't agree with how the situation is being handled and refuse to take part is, in my opinion, wrong.
If sitting on the fence means hesitating to act due to fear, yeah, that's probably not good for your progress or self-concept. If sitting on the fence means waiting for a "perfect" scenario before getting anything done, then yeah, you're probably never going to get anything done. If sitting on the fence is pretending a conflict doesn't exist and ignoring it as long as possible, also not good. But I just don't understand the concept of making a decision for the sake of making a decision. There are always going to be things in life that are conflicting or pull you in different directions, and sometimes, I think it's good to actually focus on other things in life, examine your options, come back to the perplexing issue enough to remember it's there but then move on with other things if you're not ready to make a call...
Sometimes, maybe the only thing you can do with any integrity is stand still on a certain issue until you gain a bit more clarity. Sometimes, you gain the clarity by simple acting and making a mistake. Other times, to act one way or another would be to betray personal principles, and until you find a way to act without compromising those principles, or until you realize some of those principles aren't as important as you thought, it may be totally appropriate to refrain from action. I think that exact struggle, wrestling with seeming contradictions or conflicting options and seeking greater fulfillment of the most principles is what leads to finding options previously ignored. By refusing to engage in the current, supposed dichotomous options, new ways are found, and reconciliation begins.
Certainly our culture frowns upon it, but our culture's version of decisiveness often seems asinine to me. But then, I'm supposedly on the fence, so what do I know about it?
27 February 2008
Grocery Store Delight
I just have to say that shopping at Maceys is rarely devoid of sparkle. Almost every time, you'll see someone you know. Which is kind of interesting. But what's more--much more--there will always be at least one really good-looking guy. The kind you want to feel up apples next to and pick bananas with. Seriously. Every time. If there ever isn't one, I'm going to consider it an omen, put my groceries away and leave the store. I wasn't meant to shop that night.
Brother's Questions
Not long ago, I told my parents and one brother (and his wife) about my homoliciousness. Since then, we've spoken about it some, fairly openly, in fact. My older, married brother occasionally asks me questions. I had told them I don't want to talk incessantly about it but they were allowed two or three questions at a time. He's taken me up on that a few times, usually starting with something like, "OK, my first of my three allowed questions..." I thought I would share a small sampling of my brother's questions:
Question: Explain something to me: you've said you could see yourself making it work with a girl, even if it wouldn't be as fulfilling as it might be with a guy. But I can't even begin to think I could be with a guy romantically or sexually. It's just not in my comprehension. So how does that work?
Answer: Well, some people would probably argue everyone's meant to be heterosexual, so what I experience is a deviation from the norm and I therefore have remnants of normality. But I'd also argue that you'd definitely be able to imagine being with a guy if you grew up in a culture where homosexuality was the norm, and you spent most of your life looking forward to someday finding your partner but wondering why you just didn't seem to be as into guys as other guys and why girls caught your interest so much. Imagining being with a girl is certainly nothing new to me. I was raised to think that way.
Question: I think I have a pretty good gaydar, but you don't set off my gaydar, except knowing how little you've dated and how much opportunity you've had. Is it safe to assume there are a lot of people who are just not stereotypical who I just don't notice?
Answer: Yup. We're everywhere. At least a couple in every ward. Probably more in many wards. The guy who likes sports and seems almost comically homophobic might be. Male ward organists. A fair portion of the BYU Men's Chorus. Don't get me started on how I've heard of BYU Men's Chorus members making the rounds... Oh, and BYU Young Ambassadors (a ...flamboyant broadway-ish music/dance performing group)? Yeah, total red flag, even if they're not particularly femmy. Probably most of them are unusually fond of men. As for more stereotypical, that effeminate guy in the ward you've always thought would be gay if he weren't married: he's probably just gay AND married.
Question: That friend who picked you up at our house one time. Was he one of the two you mentioned as having been romantic?
Answer: Yeah, he was. But by then, we had already curbed the romantic side of things, but that may have been the first we'd seen each other since I moved away. So...yeah...there was probably some excitement to see each other again.
His Response:: Oh good! Our 'dars aren't totally broken. 'Cause I have to tell you, [Sister-in-law] and I both noticed something different there. When you left, I looked at her and asked, "Did they--"
She said, "Yup!"
"--seem like a couple to you?"
"Yup!"
Then we both shrugged it off.
My response: Yeah, I thought it was obvious. Good job on that one.
Question: How do you meet other guys who deal with this? Are you sitting in a PPI with your Elder's Quorum president, and just say, "Hey, you're neat..."?
Answer: Only once. ...No! Actually, it's mostly like, you meet one through some coincidence or an online group or something, and you just start meeting others. They come out of the woodwork. It's a big, homo snowball effect. In Utah, they're coming out of every nook and cranny. Seriously. They're everywhere. You have to watch where you step. Don't want homo on your shoe.
Question: OK, so look over here (points towards a very seductive-looking woman with long, reddish-brown hair and tight-fitting clothes on her trim, curvy figure which I'm sure should send me into a drooling stutter). Are you telling me that--(he points again emphatically)--that just doesn't do it for you?
Answer: I recognize she's a nice-looking woman, for sure. But see, here's the thing: when you asked me that, you distracted me from watching an attractive guy walk over that way.
His response: (hearty laughter)
Question: Explain something to me: you've said you could see yourself making it work with a girl, even if it wouldn't be as fulfilling as it might be with a guy. But I can't even begin to think I could be with a guy romantically or sexually. It's just not in my comprehension. So how does that work?
Answer: Well, some people would probably argue everyone's meant to be heterosexual, so what I experience is a deviation from the norm and I therefore have remnants of normality. But I'd also argue that you'd definitely be able to imagine being with a guy if you grew up in a culture where homosexuality was the norm, and you spent most of your life looking forward to someday finding your partner but wondering why you just didn't seem to be as into guys as other guys and why girls caught your interest so much. Imagining being with a girl is certainly nothing new to me. I was raised to think that way.
Question: I think I have a pretty good gaydar, but you don't set off my gaydar, except knowing how little you've dated and how much opportunity you've had. Is it safe to assume there are a lot of people who are just not stereotypical who I just don't notice?
Answer: Yup. We're everywhere. At least a couple in every ward. Probably more in many wards. The guy who likes sports and seems almost comically homophobic might be. Male ward organists. A fair portion of the BYU Men's Chorus. Don't get me started on how I've heard of BYU Men's Chorus members making the rounds... Oh, and BYU Young Ambassadors (a ...flamboyant broadway-ish music/dance performing group)? Yeah, total red flag, even if they're not particularly femmy. Probably most of them are unusually fond of men. As for more stereotypical, that effeminate guy in the ward you've always thought would be gay if he weren't married: he's probably just gay AND married.
Question: That friend who picked you up at our house one time. Was he one of the two you mentioned as having been romantic?
Answer: Yeah, he was. But by then, we had already curbed the romantic side of things, but that may have been the first we'd seen each other since I moved away. So...yeah...there was probably some excitement to see each other again.
His Response:: Oh good! Our 'dars aren't totally broken. 'Cause I have to tell you, [Sister-in-law] and I both noticed something different there. When you left, I looked at her and asked, "Did they--"
She said, "Yup!"
"--seem like a couple to you?"
"Yup!"
Then we both shrugged it off.
My response: Yeah, I thought it was obvious. Good job on that one.
Question: How do you meet other guys who deal with this? Are you sitting in a PPI with your Elder's Quorum president, and just say, "Hey, you're neat..."?
Answer: Only once. ...No! Actually, it's mostly like, you meet one through some coincidence or an online group or something, and you just start meeting others. They come out of the woodwork. It's a big, homo snowball effect. In Utah, they're coming out of every nook and cranny. Seriously. They're everywhere. You have to watch where you step. Don't want homo on your shoe.
Question: OK, so look over here (points towards a very seductive-looking woman with long, reddish-brown hair and tight-fitting clothes on her trim, curvy figure which I'm sure should send me into a drooling stutter). Are you telling me that--(he points again emphatically)--that just doesn't do it for you?
Answer: I recognize she's a nice-looking woman, for sure. But see, here's the thing: when you asked me that, you distracted me from watching an attractive guy walk over that way.
His response: (hearty laughter)
26 February 2008
Church-backed Legislation
There's a bit of buzz, right now, regarding a couple who withdrew their membership from the church due to their opposition to the church's position on gay marriage and supposedly to how their situation was handled by church leadership. I don't know this couple. I would guess, though, that their vocal opposition to gay marriage was just the tip of a very large iceberg and that their final parting with the church is about a lot more than this one issue. I'd guess gay marriage is a red herring, and a convenient one for gay-activism sympathizers. But like I said, I just don't know that; I can only go from other similar situations I've seen more closely.
That said, I have never, never been fully comfortable with the active involvement of the church, as an institution, in moral legislation, or especially with the leadership--at any level--urging that members vote a certain way (implied or explicit) or support specific legislation, whether prohibition or same-sex marriage, regarding morality. I wasn't fully comfortable with it even when I more ardently opposed legalized same-sex marriage and argued that it was necessary to defend the rights of children to have fair opportunity to be raised by a mother and father.
I could never fully subscribe to the argument that it's OK for the church to get so involved because the "prophets may see more potential consequences that the rest of us don't see, should certain legislation pass or fail." That's not to say I don't believe that could be true. It probably is, if they are oracles of the Lord. Regardless of whatever human shortcomings they may have, in their wisdom and experience and calling, they probably are bestowed with ample vision and inspiration on such matters. But when we begin gathering the troops to legally enforce our perspective with "morality" as our banner, it just conjures unsettling images of small steps towards a potentially overly-restrictive theocracy which limits the joy of knowing you've exercised free agency as we supposedly believe we came here to do. I understand even a theocracy can seem ideal to many people, especially if you subscribe fully to the doctrines promulgated by the leaders of such a government. But it is, nonetheless, a rather uncomfortable notion for me, and always has been, even though my behavior needn't be different. But I like to know that I made the choice. I chose to obey. I chose to live this way and believe what I do. There is joy and motivation in knowing that. And there is joy in allowing others the same privilege.
If we are to oppose legislation, shouldn't it be guided by our understanding of gospel principles and in defense of the rights and freedom of ourselves and others? Am I missing something, here?
I guess I'm just an intellectually apostate sucka, though, so what do I know about it?
That said, I have never, never been fully comfortable with the active involvement of the church, as an institution, in moral legislation, or especially with the leadership--at any level--urging that members vote a certain way (implied or explicit) or support specific legislation, whether prohibition or same-sex marriage, regarding morality. I wasn't fully comfortable with it even when I more ardently opposed legalized same-sex marriage and argued that it was necessary to defend the rights of children to have fair opportunity to be raised by a mother and father.
I could never fully subscribe to the argument that it's OK for the church to get so involved because the "prophets may see more potential consequences that the rest of us don't see, should certain legislation pass or fail." That's not to say I don't believe that could be true. It probably is, if they are oracles of the Lord. Regardless of whatever human shortcomings they may have, in their wisdom and experience and calling, they probably are bestowed with ample vision and inspiration on such matters. But when we begin gathering the troops to legally enforce our perspective with "morality" as our banner, it just conjures unsettling images of small steps towards a potentially overly-restrictive theocracy which limits the joy of knowing you've exercised free agency as we supposedly believe we came here to do. I understand even a theocracy can seem ideal to many people, especially if you subscribe fully to the doctrines promulgated by the leaders of such a government. But it is, nonetheless, a rather uncomfortable notion for me, and always has been, even though my behavior needn't be different. But I like to know that I made the choice. I chose to obey. I chose to live this way and believe what I do. There is joy and motivation in knowing that. And there is joy in allowing others the same privilege.
If we are to oppose legislation, shouldn't it be guided by our understanding of gospel principles and in defense of the rights and freedom of ourselves and others? Am I missing something, here?
I guess I'm just an intellectually apostate sucka, though, so what do I know about it?
25 February 2008
"Love Yourself" Balderdash
In response to a friend's blog entry, I wrote:
"I'm really glad to hear you've reached a degree of acceptance and love of yourself. I suppose it could be argued that the truly fulfilling sense of love comes from connection with deity and feeling that purest of all loves. But there's something to be said for finding it in yourself, as well."
I continued to write more but decided to post only the short version as a comment on his blog and use his entry as a catalyst for some related thoughts of my own. I think he's found a healthy self-acceptance, but I hear others adopting what I consider to be less helpful attitudes that are, in the long-run, probably self-destructive. I shall now expound. *big breath in*
I've always thought society's version of "love yourself" was actually misguided and often laughable in its shallow insignificance. I cringe when I hear people say, "I'm perfect just the way I am," or, "I'm beautiful just as I am and don't need to lose a pound." I cringe because the people I've heard saying those things on TV and elsewhere most often have lazy or abrasive personalities (which could be improved by considering adjusting habits or communication in consideration of other people), or put all kinds of terrible food in their body and don't exercise and then curse society for making them feel less than beautiful.
I am not calling these people fugly or crappy. It's just that it takes no particular degree of personal character to pretend you're perfect and insist everyone should love you and everything about you just as you are. Poppycock, I say to that. You're as imperfect as the next person, and there are things about you that are hard to love, and you're as responsible as anyone for putting some effort into improving some things about yourself. Face up to that fact, change what you can, and let go of what you can't. The stuff you can't change is not a reasonable measure for anyone to hold you up to anyway.
Neither am I saying society's standards of physical beauty are fair. They're not. They stem from a void of the idolization of airbrushed, hollow shells. So I fully respect efforts (such as Dove's campaign) to break down the unreasonable expectations paraded by pushers of soulless images.
It seems, to me, hugely healthier to be able to say, "I'm lovable just as I am, even though I have my shortcomings," or "I'm beautiful when I'm kind, loving, and I try to be a good friend and bring out the best in people around me, leaving every place better than I found it. My countenance can outshine any physical imperfections." I realize that sounds comically corny to say, but seriously, folks, a tight butt and perfect skin can not make up for an ugly personality. Not even close. Not for anyone whose opinion matters.
Anyone can be attracted to a tight body and a pretty face. It takes character to see through that to the personal qualities which actually make a person rather than mask them. Anyone can buy the right skin care products, get the right haircut, get plastic surgery, and spend money on perfectly-fitted clothing. Anyone. It only takes money and know-how, and not a bit of character. It may take time. But it requires no selflessness. We get so hung up on things anyone can do. But it takes true strength to put aside your own desire when you recognize someone else's need. It takes character to even notice the need. But maybe I'm digressing into another topic that's been annoying me lately: the nauseatingly singular focus on people with physical beauty, connections, and other self-serving reasons to be attracted or drawn to people. I'm sure I do it, too, and I disgust myself a bit when I catch myself doing it. But that's another discussion for another time.
Along the vein of focusing on strictly physical self-image, I'd say a healthy attitude is, "My body may not be society's ideal (which changes over time and cultures and individual preference), but I do my best to take care of this gift I've been given and use my body wisely. I could eat better, I could be more fit. If I expended all my energy on 'looking good', I could probably be hotter by today's Western standards, but though my body doesn't look like an Abercrombie model, I should do my best to take care of my health, and even if I'm never society's ideal, that doesn't matter in comparison to my overall health and effort. My genetics may only let me get so close to the ideal, but I can choose to be as healthy as I know how. Meanwhile, there's a lot more to me than whether Abercrombie would want to recruit me."
To me, recognizing my imperfections as imperfections and accepting my abnormalities (whether or not they are "imperfections") without duping myself into believing they're "normal" or insisting others adopt them as such is part of the process of truly accepting and loving myself as I am without denying myself the motivation to strive for improvement where improvement is possible or necessary. With that perspective, there may also be some things, normal or not, which I may believe to be outside of my control, of which I can let go and make the best. I don't even have to love everything I do and say, just like I don't love everything my dearest friends and family do or say, but why should I withhold acceptance of myself more than I withhold it from them? Unless, of course, I really am that judgemental and cold.
"I'm really glad to hear you've reached a degree of acceptance and love of yourself. I suppose it could be argued that the truly fulfilling sense of love comes from connection with deity and feeling that purest of all loves. But there's something to be said for finding it in yourself, as well."
I continued to write more but decided to post only the short version as a comment on his blog and use his entry as a catalyst for some related thoughts of my own. I think he's found a healthy self-acceptance, but I hear others adopting what I consider to be less helpful attitudes that are, in the long-run, probably self-destructive. I shall now expound. *big breath in*
I've always thought society's version of "love yourself" was actually misguided and often laughable in its shallow insignificance. I cringe when I hear people say, "I'm perfect just the way I am," or, "I'm beautiful just as I am and don't need to lose a pound." I cringe because the people I've heard saying those things on TV and elsewhere most often have lazy or abrasive personalities (which could be improved by considering adjusting habits or communication in consideration of other people), or put all kinds of terrible food in their body and don't exercise and then curse society for making them feel less than beautiful.
I am not calling these people fugly or crappy. It's just that it takes no particular degree of personal character to pretend you're perfect and insist everyone should love you and everything about you just as you are. Poppycock, I say to that. You're as imperfect as the next person, and there are things about you that are hard to love, and you're as responsible as anyone for putting some effort into improving some things about yourself. Face up to that fact, change what you can, and let go of what you can't. The stuff you can't change is not a reasonable measure for anyone to hold you up to anyway.
Neither am I saying society's standards of physical beauty are fair. They're not. They stem from a void of the idolization of airbrushed, hollow shells. So I fully respect efforts (such as Dove's campaign) to break down the unreasonable expectations paraded by pushers of soulless images.
It seems, to me, hugely healthier to be able to say, "I'm lovable just as I am, even though I have my shortcomings," or "I'm beautiful when I'm kind, loving, and I try to be a good friend and bring out the best in people around me, leaving every place better than I found it. My countenance can outshine any physical imperfections." I realize that sounds comically corny to say, but seriously, folks, a tight butt and perfect skin can not make up for an ugly personality. Not even close. Not for anyone whose opinion matters.
Anyone can be attracted to a tight body and a pretty face. It takes character to see through that to the personal qualities which actually make a person rather than mask them. Anyone can buy the right skin care products, get the right haircut, get plastic surgery, and spend money on perfectly-fitted clothing. Anyone. It only takes money and know-how, and not a bit of character. It may take time. But it requires no selflessness. We get so hung up on things anyone can do. But it takes true strength to put aside your own desire when you recognize someone else's need. It takes character to even notice the need. But maybe I'm digressing into another topic that's been annoying me lately: the nauseatingly singular focus on people with physical beauty, connections, and other self-serving reasons to be attracted or drawn to people. I'm sure I do it, too, and I disgust myself a bit when I catch myself doing it. But that's another discussion for another time.
Along the vein of focusing on strictly physical self-image, I'd say a healthy attitude is, "My body may not be society's ideal (which changes over time and cultures and individual preference), but I do my best to take care of this gift I've been given and use my body wisely. I could eat better, I could be more fit. If I expended all my energy on 'looking good', I could probably be hotter by today's Western standards, but though my body doesn't look like an Abercrombie model, I should do my best to take care of my health, and even if I'm never society's ideal, that doesn't matter in comparison to my overall health and effort. My genetics may only let me get so close to the ideal, but I can choose to be as healthy as I know how. Meanwhile, there's a lot more to me than whether Abercrombie would want to recruit me."
To me, recognizing my imperfections as imperfections and accepting my abnormalities (whether or not they are "imperfections") without duping myself into believing they're "normal" or insisting others adopt them as such is part of the process of truly accepting and loving myself as I am without denying myself the motivation to strive for improvement where improvement is possible or necessary. With that perspective, there may also be some things, normal or not, which I may believe to be outside of my control, of which I can let go and make the best. I don't even have to love everything I do and say, just like I don't love everything my dearest friends and family do or say, but why should I withhold acceptance of myself more than I withhold it from them? Unless, of course, I really am that judgemental and cold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)