Yeah, I "got the hell out". And then I got back in. First solid job offer was here, and I've been back for a few weeks now. So if you notice renewed angst and frustration in my posts, it's because I'm back in the land where it often seems like every gay man is either married to a woman (I see oblivious-looking pleasant women with detached-looking husbands every day), in a committed relationship (I suspect the good ones snatch each other up fast), cruising Craig's List (legitimate dating isn't really an option unless you live in certain pockets of Salt Lake and are clearly marked as "non-Mormon" [heathens acting like heathens is tolerated]), is a BYU student (which often includes one of the previous classifications as well), or is an otherwise perma-adolescent, mincing mess. Makes for blog fodder, though, doesn't it?
But there's something about this place, or the people, with which I identify. Despite rampant consumerism, there's a certain simplicity about people here. But dang it if that same simplicity isn't a total frustration in other ways. I think that's what I like about the northwest. People often "get it" up there in ways I appreciate, but they still have souls and appreciate the simpler things in life. I get the feeling many areas of Europe are like that, too. Anywhere else in the U.S. y'all recommend trying? Despite having good friends here, and really enjoying things like Sundance and An Evening With Sondheim and Zion Nat'l Park and the mountains and cheap skiing and...etc, I really am not wanting to put roots down here. Votes for my next stop, judging from what I've described?
31 January 2011
29 January 2011
Temptation and Cognitive Dissonance Revisited, Part 2
Back to Part 1
This is where I admit, to everyone's shock, I'm sure, that I parallel this idea of abstinence from sugar and carbs with emotional health and "rules" of healthy living. We may think we know exactly what's "good for" ourselves or anyone else, but most of the time, though it may generally be true, it's not always exactly as we think it is, no matter how well a certain "pattern" or "habit" has worked for any one person or general group. Often, a productive habit or practice carries accompanying destructive ideas or aspects, and only as we remain open to better solutions do we parse those apart and identify the underlying truths and principles and learn to apply them more personally, with more surgical accuracy. A medication that saves one person's life might kill another. Sometimes, "temptation" might not be just a personal flaw and weakness but may actually be your body's or soul's cry for what it truly needs. Sometimes, a craving isn't just a weakness or addiction to resist but is a sign of something which you maybe haven't learned to satisfy or fulfill except in ways which bring accompanying harm, and a little education will help you satisfy that need in ways which are healthy, rather than ignoring it as if it's only a test of your resolve. You needn't abandon certain practices entirely but learn to refine and incorporate positive principles.
Incidentally, I think JIM-dandies talk in related terms about paying attention to messages your emotions or body send you as real needs to be met, and I actually agree on much of the principle. But the way reparatives use this to describe homosexuality as a craving for intimacy that really just needs to be met non-romantically and non-sexually, like a craving for nutrition which people try to meet by eating junk food...we'll probably agree to disagree on the prepackaged application of that principle. Confession: I don't think it's true, in general, even for people who believe it's true for themselves, even when they honestly don't insist it's necessarily true for anyone else. Maybe I'm skeptical because I've talked with many guys who used to subscribe to those theories but have since found explanations which make more sense and brought more lasting happiness and personal growth. But since I can't know for sure, I acknowledge that it's not my decision to make, and it may be true for some, so I don't make judgments on an individual basis. How could I? But this is all a tangent, since I'm not just equating this with homosexuality...
There are even extreme cases which defy general dietary guidelines entirely. In most cases, empty calories or junk food are simply not a healthful choice except in small amounts. But for a diabetic in shock, a candy bar may save them: concern for whether it has nutritional value goes out the window. Maybe some would be tempted to explain the life-saving sugar scenario as only true in cases where a person has an unusual illness, and ideally, if they were in a perfected body, they would never need such a thing. They might relate that to 'spirituality' or moral issues. And in that case, it's no wonder that when I've felt conflicted over religious beliefs and what I regarded as 'temptations', I've found it hugely attractive to want to see myself as a paragon of emotional health, thereby not in need of 'sin' to fulfill me. Even if I was compassionate towards those who 'sinned', if I were to 'sin', it would only reveal to myself and others that I was spiritually/emotionally diabetic. This is only one "exception" scenario.
Admittedly, in the vast majority of cases, a candy bar is not going to do anything positive for your health except maybe some minimal effects of substances in cocoa or peanuts or something not nearly making up for the sugar and empty calories, but if it's enjoyable to eat, and/or it will improve your mood (and therefore your interactions) when you're hungry and crabby and don't have anything else, and/or you're going to run for half an hour to burn it off, and it's not going to lead to a candy bar binge...perhaps you have bigger priorities in life to spend your self-improvement energy on? Or maybe it's really not a problem at all anyway, especially if you only eat one candy bar per month? Should you beat yourself up for eating a candy bar every month? Should you admit that maybe you shouldn't be eating candy bars ever, at all, and admit that you only do it because you're weak, or should you just enjoy it and know that you're not going to go on a binge of any sort anyway, so it's OK?
In addition to this, remember that every one of us needs sugar and carbs to survive and thrive. To cut them out entirely because they're linked with obesity or other health concerns might seem rational but is unhealthful. Sometimes, being overzealous in what was a fine and positive endeavor can create unintended, destructive consequences, particularly when you haven't understood the reasons for the thing about which you were so zealous, such as complete elimination of sugars and carbs. The physical body is full of balances, counterbalances, and apparent paradoxes which only make sense as we learn more about how it all works and is interrelated. This is why I don't poo-poo scientific health advice when it seems to flip-flop, but I do expect it will always evolve and change now and then as they discover that they usually were right all along, just in different cases and at different levels. I experienced a major paradigm shift in my own life when this idea clicked into place beautifully in relation to moral rules.
Athletes need carb boosts to sustain energy levels the rest of us don't need to sustain. Most of us would be eating far too much if we tried to match certain Olympic swimmers. Fortunately, over time, we've learned better and worse ways of obtaining carbs. We've identified interplay between nutritional components and cellular processes in increasing levels of complexity, and we're always learning more about good, better, and best dietary choices to obtain the unique combination of vitamins, minerals, and other dietary considerations each one of us needs for our body, activity level, and other physical needs. On an emotional/moral level, there are people everywhere who think they've identified what "healthy" carbs are, or they insist carbs are carbs, no such thing as "healthy" or "unhealthy" carbs, and it's how they're ingested that matters... There are conflicting ideas about what are healthful means of getting carbs we need...and most of us just sort it out the best we can.
Many years ago, I would have responded to such an argument as I've just put forth with acknowledgment that you can't equate physical health with spiritual and that they operate under different laws. Later, I would have said it might apply in some way but that we fortunately have an all-knowing nutritionist who has laid out the complete diet, and the best health is found in following that diet completely to keep it all in balance, and that's the great quest of this life. I'd have said that even a healthy reduction of sugar may well involve temptation to eat sweets, and that only after I'd resisted sugar intake for a long time did I lose the desire for it, and I was healthier for it and glad I'd done it, difficult as it was. And I still see reason in that moderate approach.
The problem is that I'm not convinced every dietary rule we have is given by an all-knowing 'nutritionist'. I believe 'truth' exists and is waiting to be understood, but I believe most rules are given by well-positioned observers or spokespeople who have identified trends and feel strongly about certain guidelines, but that the underlying principles of those are still being learned and discovered, so the application of them necessarily varies. The trick is to remain focused on improvement and open to truth. As long as the prescribed diet seems to be working, as it may for many or most, there's seemingly no need to question any aspect of it, and it becomes easy to think that those for whom it doesn't work just didn't do it right. But when your body starts to wither and wear beyond what others have described when they've assured you they "went through some of that, too," it's time to re-examine the diet or, at the very least, your specific application of it. Is there far more to the true, full diet than you have yet understood?
I believe the rules should be generally respected as the positive general guidelines they are but can and should be adapted as each individual gains understanding of his or her own life and situation. That seems like real obedience: seeking out and living by true/proven principles rather than clinging to arbitrary rules. I think looking beyond the stark rules to the reasons they work is necessary if we are to truly put a full effort into understanding our own health and the workings of our unique bodies with unique needs.
I also believe there's clear danger in poo-pooing counsel to reduce sugar, especially for some people with certain conditions for whom it could mean death to take in too much sugar, and those are probably more common than the people who would be detrimentally affected by reducing their sugar intake.
But if the nutritionist spokespeople told us all to cut all carbs and sugars from our diets, and to cut all fat from toddlers' diets because fat is bad, and to run 3 hours a day because running is good for you, you bet your sweet bippy it's OK to take that counsel with a grain of salt and acknowledge the underlying principles while moderating the actual implementation, without an ounce of guilt for not being 'healthy' enough to run 3 hours a day without taking in any carbs. Even if some people can do that, they're odd anomalies, not you, and that doesn't mean theirs is a strength, as it probably comes with some serious drawbacks.
I think we all can and should prioritize our 'dietary considerations', not letting that be an excuse for laziness or disregard but actually compelling us to a more engaged, informed, discerning, intelligent approach to our health. Depending on where we get our information, or how we prioritize, we'll each find different balances in different ways at different times, and that's OK because we can teach and balance each other. I think the more we increase our own health, the more we encourage those around us to do the same. And to my chagrin, maybe even the extreme zealots have a role to play in that balance, illustrating for the rest of us the consequences of their extreme decisions, so the rest of us don't have to.
Fin.
This is where I admit, to everyone's shock, I'm sure, that I parallel this idea of abstinence from sugar and carbs with emotional health and "rules" of healthy living. We may think we know exactly what's "good for" ourselves or anyone else, but most of the time, though it may generally be true, it's not always exactly as we think it is, no matter how well a certain "pattern" or "habit" has worked for any one person or general group. Often, a productive habit or practice carries accompanying destructive ideas or aspects, and only as we remain open to better solutions do we parse those apart and identify the underlying truths and principles and learn to apply them more personally, with more surgical accuracy. A medication that saves one person's life might kill another. Sometimes, "temptation" might not be just a personal flaw and weakness but may actually be your body's or soul's cry for what it truly needs. Sometimes, a craving isn't just a weakness or addiction to resist but is a sign of something which you maybe haven't learned to satisfy or fulfill except in ways which bring accompanying harm, and a little education will help you satisfy that need in ways which are healthy, rather than ignoring it as if it's only a test of your resolve. You needn't abandon certain practices entirely but learn to refine and incorporate positive principles.
Incidentally, I think JIM-dandies talk in related terms about paying attention to messages your emotions or body send you as real needs to be met, and I actually agree on much of the principle. But the way reparatives use this to describe homosexuality as a craving for intimacy that really just needs to be met non-romantically and non-sexually, like a craving for nutrition which people try to meet by eating junk food...we'll probably agree to disagree on the prepackaged application of that principle. Confession: I don't think it's true, in general, even for people who believe it's true for themselves, even when they honestly don't insist it's necessarily true for anyone else. Maybe I'm skeptical because I've talked with many guys who used to subscribe to those theories but have since found explanations which make more sense and brought more lasting happiness and personal growth. But since I can't know for sure, I acknowledge that it's not my decision to make, and it may be true for some, so I don't make judgments on an individual basis. How could I? But this is all a tangent, since I'm not just equating this with homosexuality...
There are even extreme cases which defy general dietary guidelines entirely. In most cases, empty calories or junk food are simply not a healthful choice except in small amounts. But for a diabetic in shock, a candy bar may save them: concern for whether it has nutritional value goes out the window. Maybe some would be tempted to explain the life-saving sugar scenario as only true in cases where a person has an unusual illness, and ideally, if they were in a perfected body, they would never need such a thing. They might relate that to 'spirituality' or moral issues. And in that case, it's no wonder that when I've felt conflicted over religious beliefs and what I regarded as 'temptations', I've found it hugely attractive to want to see myself as a paragon of emotional health, thereby not in need of 'sin' to fulfill me. Even if I was compassionate towards those who 'sinned', if I were to 'sin', it would only reveal to myself and others that I was spiritually/emotionally diabetic. This is only one "exception" scenario.
Admittedly, in the vast majority of cases, a candy bar is not going to do anything positive for your health except maybe some minimal effects of substances in cocoa or peanuts or something not nearly making up for the sugar and empty calories, but if it's enjoyable to eat, and/or it will improve your mood (and therefore your interactions) when you're hungry and crabby and don't have anything else, and/or you're going to run for half an hour to burn it off, and it's not going to lead to a candy bar binge...perhaps you have bigger priorities in life to spend your self-improvement energy on? Or maybe it's really not a problem at all anyway, especially if you only eat one candy bar per month? Should you beat yourself up for eating a candy bar every month? Should you admit that maybe you shouldn't be eating candy bars ever, at all, and admit that you only do it because you're weak, or should you just enjoy it and know that you're not going to go on a binge of any sort anyway, so it's OK?
In addition to this, remember that every one of us needs sugar and carbs to survive and thrive. To cut them out entirely because they're linked with obesity or other health concerns might seem rational but is unhealthful. Sometimes, being overzealous in what was a fine and positive endeavor can create unintended, destructive consequences, particularly when you haven't understood the reasons for the thing about which you were so zealous, such as complete elimination of sugars and carbs. The physical body is full of balances, counterbalances, and apparent paradoxes which only make sense as we learn more about how it all works and is interrelated. This is why I don't poo-poo scientific health advice when it seems to flip-flop, but I do expect it will always evolve and change now and then as they discover that they usually were right all along, just in different cases and at different levels. I experienced a major paradigm shift in my own life when this idea clicked into place beautifully in relation to moral rules.
Athletes need carb boosts to sustain energy levels the rest of us don't need to sustain. Most of us would be eating far too much if we tried to match certain Olympic swimmers. Fortunately, over time, we've learned better and worse ways of obtaining carbs. We've identified interplay between nutritional components and cellular processes in increasing levels of complexity, and we're always learning more about good, better, and best dietary choices to obtain the unique combination of vitamins, minerals, and other dietary considerations each one of us needs for our body, activity level, and other physical needs. On an emotional/moral level, there are people everywhere who think they've identified what "healthy" carbs are, or they insist carbs are carbs, no such thing as "healthy" or "unhealthy" carbs, and it's how they're ingested that matters... There are conflicting ideas about what are healthful means of getting carbs we need...and most of us just sort it out the best we can.
Many years ago, I would have responded to such an argument as I've just put forth with acknowledgment that you can't equate physical health with spiritual and that they operate under different laws. Later, I would have said it might apply in some way but that we fortunately have an all-knowing nutritionist who has laid out the complete diet, and the best health is found in following that diet completely to keep it all in balance, and that's the great quest of this life. I'd have said that even a healthy reduction of sugar may well involve temptation to eat sweets, and that only after I'd resisted sugar intake for a long time did I lose the desire for it, and I was healthier for it and glad I'd done it, difficult as it was. And I still see reason in that moderate approach.
The problem is that I'm not convinced every dietary rule we have is given by an all-knowing 'nutritionist'. I believe 'truth' exists and is waiting to be understood, but I believe most rules are given by well-positioned observers or spokespeople who have identified trends and feel strongly about certain guidelines, but that the underlying principles of those are still being learned and discovered, so the application of them necessarily varies. The trick is to remain focused on improvement and open to truth. As long as the prescribed diet seems to be working, as it may for many or most, there's seemingly no need to question any aspect of it, and it becomes easy to think that those for whom it doesn't work just didn't do it right. But when your body starts to wither and wear beyond what others have described when they've assured you they "went through some of that, too," it's time to re-examine the diet or, at the very least, your specific application of it. Is there far more to the true, full diet than you have yet understood?
I believe the rules should be generally respected as the positive general guidelines they are but can and should be adapted as each individual gains understanding of his or her own life and situation. That seems like real obedience: seeking out and living by true/proven principles rather than clinging to arbitrary rules. I think looking beyond the stark rules to the reasons they work is necessary if we are to truly put a full effort into understanding our own health and the workings of our unique bodies with unique needs.
I also believe there's clear danger in poo-pooing counsel to reduce sugar, especially for some people with certain conditions for whom it could mean death to take in too much sugar, and those are probably more common than the people who would be detrimentally affected by reducing their sugar intake.
But if the nutritionist spokespeople told us all to cut all carbs and sugars from our diets, and to cut all fat from toddlers' diets because fat is bad, and to run 3 hours a day because running is good for you, you bet your sweet bippy it's OK to take that counsel with a grain of salt and acknowledge the underlying principles while moderating the actual implementation, without an ounce of guilt for not being 'healthy' enough to run 3 hours a day without taking in any carbs. Even if some people can do that, they're odd anomalies, not you, and that doesn't mean theirs is a strength, as it probably comes with some serious drawbacks.
I think we all can and should prioritize our 'dietary considerations', not letting that be an excuse for laziness or disregard but actually compelling us to a more engaged, informed, discerning, intelligent approach to our health. Depending on where we get our information, or how we prioritize, we'll each find different balances in different ways at different times, and that's OK because we can teach and balance each other. I think the more we increase our own health, the more we encourage those around us to do the same. And to my chagrin, maybe even the extreme zealots have a role to play in that balance, illustrating for the rest of us the consequences of their extreme decisions, so the rest of us don't have to.
Fin.
Sundance Refreshment
As I've been volunteering at Sundance Film Festival, which of course attracts people from all over, I've had some glimmers of hope in the dating-interest department. Despite having to keep from laughing at the many pretentious and self-important people there, I was refreshed to see a few people I suspected were gay and who seemed well-adjusted, comfortable, genuine, and even...dare I say it...soulful. I checked the name badge of one such person with whom I interacted briefly in my capacity as a volunteer who immediately struck me as an interesting and sincere-seeming person: Ricky S. Turns out he's a producer and vice chair of The Trevor Project. I held back from being flirtatious but totally did a double-take and looked him in the eyes for a moment. Ha, I think he noticed, but I don't think 'flattered' would describe his return expression, so I quickly focused on the task at hand.
And then a really beautiful female volunteer joined me, and she seemed a bit shy or otherwise distant, so I talked with her, and she engaged, but she always kept her face pointed slightly away, looking at me somewhat askance, looking into the room we were in but glancing over and leaning in slightly when I'd talk to her. I figured she was either uncomfortable--maybe I had a dangling booger or she was afraid I was trying to come on to her and was trying to make it clear she wasn't interested--or maybe--though it seemed more of a stretch because she was the kind of woman who probably gets a lot of attention from men and who probably wouldn't be into guys like me--maybe she was actually attracted or something and was trying to play it cool. I realized, for the second time in the last month, "Wow, I have no idea how most career-oriented, financially independent, image-conscious adults approach dating and flirtation, let alone most women my age who have careers and would probably regard me as all kinds of ineligible for a real relationship even if I were straight. I just know how to flirt with Mormon types or college students." But I like direct, honest, games-free interaction. I like people who don't care much about money and social networking. To be honest, I'm more accustomed to college-level interaction than typical, urban thirty-something interaction.
For example, I sent flirtatious glances to the cute-seeming guy outside the projector room of the theater I've been working in...and when I accidentally grabbed or brushed him through the curtain when I reached to pull it aside just as he was passing through, and I said, "Oh, excuse me," and he said, "No, you're fine," and then the smile and nod I gave him as he left which he returned with a sort of grin/smirk as he left last night that I couldn't quite figure out: was he flirting? Was he flattered but not interested or not even gay? Was he amused at my obvious inexperience? Was he thinking of a completely unrelated joke? Am I in high school? Yeah, letting it go. ...But if I see him again, I will probably strike up a conversation out of curiosity. Just sayin'.
And then a really beautiful female volunteer joined me, and she seemed a bit shy or otherwise distant, so I talked with her, and she engaged, but she always kept her face pointed slightly away, looking at me somewhat askance, looking into the room we were in but glancing over and leaning in slightly when I'd talk to her. I figured she was either uncomfortable--maybe I had a dangling booger or she was afraid I was trying to come on to her and was trying to make it clear she wasn't interested--or maybe--though it seemed more of a stretch because she was the kind of woman who probably gets a lot of attention from men and who probably wouldn't be into guys like me--maybe she was actually attracted or something and was trying to play it cool. I realized, for the second time in the last month, "Wow, I have no idea how most career-oriented, financially independent, image-conscious adults approach dating and flirtation, let alone most women my age who have careers and would probably regard me as all kinds of ineligible for a real relationship even if I were straight. I just know how to flirt with Mormon types or college students." But I like direct, honest, games-free interaction. I like people who don't care much about money and social networking. To be honest, I'm more accustomed to college-level interaction than typical, urban thirty-something interaction.
For example, I sent flirtatious glances to the cute-seeming guy outside the projector room of the theater I've been working in...and when I accidentally grabbed or brushed him through the curtain when I reached to pull it aside just as he was passing through, and I said, "Oh, excuse me," and he said, "No, you're fine," and then the smile and nod I gave him as he left which he returned with a sort of grin/smirk as he left last night that I couldn't quite figure out: was he flirting? Was he flattered but not interested or not even gay? Was he amused at my obvious inexperience? Was he thinking of a completely unrelated joke? Am I in high school? Yeah, letting it go. ...But if I see him again, I will probably strike up a conversation out of curiosity. Just sayin'.
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
27 January 2011
Match Schmatch
Ha ha, officially--and now quantifiably--hopeless. These matching percentage breakdowns of me and a few attractive gay male users on OKCupid (none of which live in Utah) with whom I have an overall match of 96% or up are examples of why I honestly question whether I'll ever really find a match where there's enough mutual attraction and the whole God thing won't be a deal-killer, and why I'm focusing on being happy and content as a single man. *big gay sigh*
You match...
- 76% on Ethics questions
- 91% on Sex questions
- 48% on Religion questions
- 84% on Lifestyle questions
- 88% on Dating questions
- 91% on Other questions
You match...
- 87% on Ethics questions
- 91% on Sex questions
- 27% on Religion questions
- 91% on Lifestyle questions
- 78% on Dating questions
- 87% on Other questions
You match...
- 69% on Ethics questions
- 87% on Sex questions
- 9% on Religion questions
- 95% on Lifestyle questions
- 80% on Dating questions
- 87% on Other questions
Heteros do it too (and what I really think about most therapy of homosexuality), Part 5
Back to Part 4...
What if we told straight men that going through only two or three years was "giving up" and that it may take many years for the changes to set in, that it would take finding the "right man", and that in the meantime, they had holding therapy and quality friendly time with women to fill their needs in healthy ways, but that they were not to date them? What if he were told that "infatuation" he feels for women on occasion is unimportant and but a hint of the lifelong intimacy he could find with a man? Would we be correct to believe that those who changed had proved that the process can and does work, that they are pioneers of change, or would it only prove that, given enough time and programming, you can convince people of just about anything? Does it even matter which it is as long as they feel 'happy' in the life they find?
The more clever purveyors of the theories insist same-sex attraction doesn't need to be cured: it needs to be fulfilled in healthy ways and is a very natural sign of the need for intimacy all men have. Nevermind that you could say something akin for hetero men who have failed to recognize or seek true intimacy with women in their lives, instead substituting sexual gratification or lust for real intimacy, perhaps partially because they've had no respected role models to teach them how. I suspect that for those who focus on developing their supposedly latent heterosexuality by building their masculine identity, these questions might be interesting but are disregarded as the musings of one who "hasn't experienced it firsthand".
Speaking of experiencing firsthand, I'd be interested to know what it's like on the other side of a mixed-orientation marriage. Maybe, if I lived in that society where same-sex relationships are the norm, I could date, fall in love with, and potentially marry a straight man who was trying to change and be homosexual or at least function in a same-sex relationship to live according to his beliefs. I've been attracted to a small handful of hetero guys, and the thought that one would be trying to change to be with me might be flattering and would probably increase my love for him more as I tried to be the kind of partner he needed to make our relationship work, saw him as needing my help and patience, and educated myself to know his needs and prepare for the challenges ahead. If he seemed really interested in me, enjoyed physical affection, even making out (the mechanics all worked, and he seemed to get passionate), we could talk in a meaningful way, he was honest and open with me...then maybe I'd try it.
I'm sitting here actually thinking I might, especially if I was feeling pretty fed up with trying to find the traits and values I wanted in a gay man. I mean, yeah, if an attractive straight guy who was "my type" and was trying hard to prepare himself for a meaningful same-sex relationship, and he had been sober from women for a while, I'd love to believe that was possible. And it wouldn't matter to me if many men had later gone on to fall back into being attracted to women and had affairs: I'd trust my man to do it right, to do what it takes. I tend to take the experiences of others into account and learn from those, but if I see discrepancies between my situation and theirs, I'm typically inclined to learn from those and adapt while trying it 'another way'. There's something very refreshing and intellectually stimulating about being part of a potentially pioneering group.
I might even acquiesce to my man engaging in holding therapy done safely and to quality time with girls in safe, group settings...eh, but there's where the analogy breaks down a bit for me because there's something inherently different about being with the guys, even other gay guys, where we just relate in ways a typical guy and girl don't. Gatherings of gay guys aren't big ol' orgies: they're just guys' nights, often with froofier food and less grunting, maybe.
Assuming Straightie cared deeply about me, appreciated me, even enjoyed sexual intimacy with me, and loved spending time with me, then I'd be interested in making it work, if I'd fallen for him, even without that sun igniting in his soul as I'd felt, or his heart freefalling, or him wanting to be sexual with me nearly as much as I would with him (in a soul-bonding way, not a simply down-and-dirty way). But I question whether I should deal with it or should have to, or anyone else, for that matter. It seems a bit sad, to me, for someone I care about to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't feel for them what I've now felt, if I know the person I care about has felt it for the other person. But is the less "in love" love really 'less' or just...different? Relationships with completely equal kinds and intensity of "love" are probably rare even among straight folk, and being open to experience it for myself, if the opportunity comes, without deciding ahead of time what kind of "love" I can or will feel. There's maybe no way to know until you've been there, right?
...Continue to Part 6.
What if we told straight men that going through only two or three years was "giving up" and that it may take many years for the changes to set in, that it would take finding the "right man", and that in the meantime, they had holding therapy and quality friendly time with women to fill their needs in healthy ways, but that they were not to date them? What if he were told that "infatuation" he feels for women on occasion is unimportant and but a hint of the lifelong intimacy he could find with a man? Would we be correct to believe that those who changed had proved that the process can and does work, that they are pioneers of change, or would it only prove that, given enough time and programming, you can convince people of just about anything? Does it even matter which it is as long as they feel 'happy' in the life they find?
The more clever purveyors of the theories insist same-sex attraction doesn't need to be cured: it needs to be fulfilled in healthy ways and is a very natural sign of the need for intimacy all men have. Nevermind that you could say something akin for hetero men who have failed to recognize or seek true intimacy with women in their lives, instead substituting sexual gratification or lust for real intimacy, perhaps partially because they've had no respected role models to teach them how. I suspect that for those who focus on developing their supposedly latent heterosexuality by building their masculine identity, these questions might be interesting but are disregarded as the musings of one who "hasn't experienced it firsthand".
Speaking of experiencing firsthand, I'd be interested to know what it's like on the other side of a mixed-orientation marriage. Maybe, if I lived in that society where same-sex relationships are the norm, I could date, fall in love with, and potentially marry a straight man who was trying to change and be homosexual or at least function in a same-sex relationship to live according to his beliefs. I've been attracted to a small handful of hetero guys, and the thought that one would be trying to change to be with me might be flattering and would probably increase my love for him more as I tried to be the kind of partner he needed to make our relationship work, saw him as needing my help and patience, and educated myself to know his needs and prepare for the challenges ahead. If he seemed really interested in me, enjoyed physical affection, even making out (the mechanics all worked, and he seemed to get passionate), we could talk in a meaningful way, he was honest and open with me...then maybe I'd try it.
I'm sitting here actually thinking I might, especially if I was feeling pretty fed up with trying to find the traits and values I wanted in a gay man. I mean, yeah, if an attractive straight guy who was "my type" and was trying hard to prepare himself for a meaningful same-sex relationship, and he had been sober from women for a while, I'd love to believe that was possible. And it wouldn't matter to me if many men had later gone on to fall back into being attracted to women and had affairs: I'd trust my man to do it right, to do what it takes. I tend to take the experiences of others into account and learn from those, but if I see discrepancies between my situation and theirs, I'm typically inclined to learn from those and adapt while trying it 'another way'. There's something very refreshing and intellectually stimulating about being part of a potentially pioneering group.
I might even acquiesce to my man engaging in holding therapy done safely and to quality time with girls in safe, group settings...eh, but there's where the analogy breaks down a bit for me because there's something inherently different about being with the guys, even other gay guys, where we just relate in ways a typical guy and girl don't. Gatherings of gay guys aren't big ol' orgies: they're just guys' nights, often with froofier food and less grunting, maybe.
Assuming Straightie cared deeply about me, appreciated me, even enjoyed sexual intimacy with me, and loved spending time with me, then I'd be interested in making it work, if I'd fallen for him, even without that sun igniting in his soul as I'd felt, or his heart freefalling, or him wanting to be sexual with me nearly as much as I would with him (in a soul-bonding way, not a simply down-and-dirty way). But I question whether I should deal with it or should have to, or anyone else, for that matter. It seems a bit sad, to me, for someone I care about to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't feel for them what I've now felt, if I know the person I care about has felt it for the other person. But is the less "in love" love really 'less' or just...different? Relationships with completely equal kinds and intensity of "love" are probably rare even among straight folk, and being open to experience it for myself, if the opportunity comes, without deciding ahead of time what kind of "love" I can or will feel. There's maybe no way to know until you've been there, right?
...Continue to Part 6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)