I know some very vocal ex-mormons who speak at conferences to reveal the "truth" about Mormons, the seedy underbelly and corruption in Mormon culture behind the fluffy, feel-good masks of family-centrism and values-based living. They explain the dishonesty of the members, the hypocrisy rampant in leadership, the child abuse, the spouse abuse, the consumerism, the addiction to antidepressants, the truth about their beliefs which they don't publicly acknowledge because they know how outlandish they are. Yes, the truth about Mormons can only be revealed by one who has left that lifestyle and can be corroborated both by Mormon neighbors we've all heard complain about those very issues in their own culture and by their own leaders who reveal their underlying bigotry and lust for control over their disciples: it's so clearly confirmed that there's no denying the ex-mormons are on to something.
I have a few straight friends. Yes, I do. No, seriously. And some of them have told me the truth about straight people. They are thoroughly convinced that marriage is a ruse, a farce, a joke and can testify why from their own experience. Sure, they might acknowledge possible exceptions, but those are just better at fooling themselves. They talk about their past affairs and swinger parties with leaders and members of conservative and sexually puritanical churches and the testament that is to the falseness of their supposed values, are absolutely convinced that everyone is a total sexual freak and some just won't admit it and that everyone watches porn and masturbates daily whether they admit it or not, and they can tell you the "truth" about people based on their experience in a sex industry.
Yeah, you see my point yet? Why does anyone buy so very thoroughly into occasional accounts from "ex-gays" who loudly proclaim the "truth" they've uncovered about "the gay lifestyle" based on their experience cruising gay dating sites, or a couple of gay relationships, or twenty years as a prostitute and porn star, and think that story is somehow "the truth" because they've heard hints of similar complaints even from gay people themselves? And especially without really examining their credibility/sanity and checking the facts as they would anyone else criticizing a society or culture they are fond of? Come on, people!
28 February 2011
25 February 2011
Change of heart
This post is mostly not about recent BYU drama, but it was sparked by thoughts related to it. As I read a post about gay BYU students being "transferred" to UVU, I thought, "Well, if that's true, and BYU is somehow cleansing itself, strapping on a pair, or somehow trying to show integrity in holding students accountable, then I expect to see a cleansing of the football team, too."
Don't get me wrong: I'm sure there are great guys on the football team, and I'd probably be tired of people singling them out if I were one of them, but I've known enough people, over the course of several years, who have reported abundant alcohol abuse and sexual promiscuity, not to mention dishonest academic practices, among specifically the football players that I'm pretty confident they can take on the theater department in a contest of transgression. I await the transfers of the football players by popular demand of the righteous masses and indignant administration. You know, for integrity's sake.
Then I thought maybe the conservative football players are extremely penitent every time they intoxicate themselves or penetrate a daughter of God, whereas the theater gays are brashly defiant and stubbornly liberal, and that's where the difference is. Truth be told, I've only heard from one first-person source about the theater department cleansing, so I don't even know the details, and this might all be conjecture, but let's just say it fits church culture perfectly.
And that brings me to my point: the popular LDS notion that it's "what's in his heart" that matters. Even those who seem to recognize a dissonance of sorts and express a sort of sympathetic, "Yeah, I can see where you're coming from," seem more patient with the constantly, repeatedly 'penitent' sinner than with the person who commits the same sins far less frequently but doesn't share the belief in the gravity of the sin, if they even believe it's a sin at all, because one is at least "trying" and "has his heart in the right place."
At least, that's how I used to think, even though I didn't fully realize that's how I thought at the time. The frustrating part is how thoroughly I understand the point of view I'm describing because it was mine. I know not every LDS person shares it, but I know many--maybe even most--do. In a way, it's completely understandable: if what matters is one's 'heart', or one's 'faith' in certain beliefs or deity, and if there's an 'atonement' which washes away sin, then certainly the point when you stop making it effective in your life is the point you have 'given up', and to over-abuse it is better than to waste it or ignore it...or something like that. Besides, without Christ, you are nothing, and we're supposed to forgive until seventy times seven, so...under those assumptions, it just makes sense to be more patient with the constant but penitent sinner...or does it? Not in my book.
"Trying". The word hypocrites bank on. The word which ignores the damage done and runs away from consequences because they have to keep their eye single...until the next time. Seriously, folks, if you're committing the same 'sin' over and over, at some point I think you have to acknowledge that your 'heart' is not, in fact, "in the right place," and that you are no more 'righteous' than any other common sinner who is not acting against their professed beliefs. You HAVE to, if you have a shred of integrity.
I submit that to be happy, you must stop destroying your integrity more and more each time you 'slip up' by pretending you're not going to do it again but not really changing anything, and that this pattern is absolutely, completely no better than the unrepentant sinner who doesn't believe what they're doing is wrong. I submit that to be happier, whether we're talking about 'sin' or 'bad habits' or 'changes you want to make in your life', we each must:
Sometimes, I haven't realized a need for change until someone explained how my actions or attitudes have affected them personally, which they might not know to do unless I admitted I didn't see a need to change. Since I care about harming others, I've had the opportunity to respond, though is is harder some times than others, or understanding the 'why' has been a challenge, and admitting that rather than sweeping it all under the rug can be difficult because I might look clueless or might have to change. Sometimes, I do want to change and have received a quiet nudge or a slap in the face to wake me up to a need to break patterns and cycles, and I've made another step towards progress until the next "lesson learned". Other times, I recognize that I do want to change, but I admit I have bigger fish to fry, and I have priorities, and they may not be the same as someone else's.
But the point is to improve. To really try. To strive for better today than yesterday in some way. There will be backslides, sidetracks, colossal mistakes, putting things on the back burner, and moments where you feel some things never seem to change. There will also be triumphs, joys, leaps forward, picking up again where you left off, and moments where you read a journal entry from twelve years ago and realize, "Wow, have I really come that far in that regard?"
I just don't buy this "his heart is in the right place" business. Isn't that what "change of heart" is all about? Whether you believe a "change of heart" is a spiritual manifestation of the goodness of God in purifying and aligning your will through the atonement of his son or an otherwise originated epiphany of clarity, resolution, and recognition of your own capability and motivation to live in a way that will be meaningful and leave an impact, I think we all have to, at some point, stop fooling ourselves with comforting masks or accountability-erasing balm because truth--or God, if you prefer--is not gullible. While mercy or ignorance may clean the slate of accountability for each of us, integrity--happiness--demands something internal, something nobody can force upon us, and something no amount of "acting like everything is fine" will ever bring about: a change of heart, and steps to truly align our actions with our beliefs, whether that means admitting our beliefs and priority of values don't match those of others or acknowledging that our actions are not excusable and do need to change to some degree, or both.
Man up, men, and let's all try a little harder to stand and be counted as we are, unafraid, in the light, accountable, courageous, honest about our beliefs and fears and hopes. It's scary, it's hard, it's vulnerable, it's likely to upset someone, and none of us is perfect at it or ever will be...but it's productive, it's ennobling and empowering to ourselves and to others, it fosters truth-finding, it promotes understanding and intimacy in ways secrecy never will, and...OK, actually, I'm just trying to get you all to admit your dirt, so we can have a big ol' gossip fest and point and laugh at the weirdos and scorn the filthy sinners.
Ha, is that what some are afraid of? Probably with good reason. Scary stuff, being exposed by admitting either your beliefs or actions are not what you've let everyone, including yourself, think they are, and letting that be the start of a true, lasting "change of heart" (you can't truly fix something you won't even admit is broken). Is there a limit or balance to how open you should be about such things? Probably...but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say most people could take several steps towards openness, ownership, and integrity (integrating rather than compartmentalizing their lives and actions and beliefs) and would find themselves happier for having done so. Take it or leave it, but don't expect me to shut up about it. :-)
Don't get me wrong: I'm sure there are great guys on the football team, and I'd probably be tired of people singling them out if I were one of them, but I've known enough people, over the course of several years, who have reported abundant alcohol abuse and sexual promiscuity, not to mention dishonest academic practices, among specifically the football players that I'm pretty confident they can take on the theater department in a contest of transgression. I await the transfers of the football players by popular demand of the righteous masses and indignant administration. You know, for integrity's sake.
Then I thought maybe the conservative football players are extremely penitent every time they intoxicate themselves or penetrate a daughter of God, whereas the theater gays are brashly defiant and stubbornly liberal, and that's where the difference is. Truth be told, I've only heard from one first-person source about the theater department cleansing, so I don't even know the details, and this might all be conjecture, but let's just say it fits church culture perfectly.
And that brings me to my point: the popular LDS notion that it's "what's in his heart" that matters. Even those who seem to recognize a dissonance of sorts and express a sort of sympathetic, "Yeah, I can see where you're coming from," seem more patient with the constantly, repeatedly 'penitent' sinner than with the person who commits the same sins far less frequently but doesn't share the belief in the gravity of the sin, if they even believe it's a sin at all, because one is at least "trying" and "has his heart in the right place."
At least, that's how I used to think, even though I didn't fully realize that's how I thought at the time. The frustrating part is how thoroughly I understand the point of view I'm describing because it was mine. I know not every LDS person shares it, but I know many--maybe even most--do. In a way, it's completely understandable: if what matters is one's 'heart', or one's 'faith' in certain beliefs or deity, and if there's an 'atonement' which washes away sin, then certainly the point when you stop making it effective in your life is the point you have 'given up', and to over-abuse it is better than to waste it or ignore it...or something like that. Besides, without Christ, you are nothing, and we're supposed to forgive until seventy times seven, so...under those assumptions, it just makes sense to be more patient with the constant but penitent sinner...or does it? Not in my book.
"Trying". The word hypocrites bank on. The word which ignores the damage done and runs away from consequences because they have to keep their eye single...until the next time. Seriously, folks, if you're committing the same 'sin' over and over, at some point I think you have to acknowledge that your 'heart' is not, in fact, "in the right place," and that you are no more 'righteous' than any other common sinner who is not acting against their professed beliefs. You HAVE to, if you have a shred of integrity.
I submit that to be happy, you must stop destroying your integrity more and more each time you 'slip up' by pretending you're not going to do it again but not really changing anything, and that this pattern is absolutely, completely no better than the unrepentant sinner who doesn't believe what they're doing is wrong. I submit that to be happier, whether we're talking about 'sin' or 'bad habits' or 'changes you want to make in your life', we each must:
- A) admit that you don't really believe what you're doing is wrong or harmful to anyone including yourself (and admit that your secrecy is an attempt to save face by living what you want while wearing a facade to deceive others--yes, to deceive, not to avoid drama, not because it's none of their business, but to deceive), and either recognize that the drive to change is not due to a true problem in your life but to external pressures or demands you don't actually believe are right or true for whatever reason (whether or not others seem to think you "should"), or
- B) stop making excuses and exonerating yourself based on your 'heart', stop pretending you should get some kind of free pass because of your 'intent' no matter how many pandering authorities are letting you off the hook because they need to validate themselves or need something from you or don't want to believe you could be as imperfect as you are, recognize that your integrity depends on bringing your actions and beliefs or goals into alignment, recognize your behavior is harmful and find out why to integrate beliefs and understanding that will actually foster and motivate change, be kind to yourself when you do fall short (as we all do, especially when striving for something beyond "normal" or "average"), and do something (break cycles, ask for help and accountability, whatever is required) to truly avoid repeating the error, if it is one.
Sometimes, I haven't realized a need for change until someone explained how my actions or attitudes have affected them personally, which they might not know to do unless I admitted I didn't see a need to change. Since I care about harming others, I've had the opportunity to respond, though is is harder some times than others, or understanding the 'why' has been a challenge, and admitting that rather than sweeping it all under the rug can be difficult because I might look clueless or might have to change. Sometimes, I do want to change and have received a quiet nudge or a slap in the face to wake me up to a need to break patterns and cycles, and I've made another step towards progress until the next "lesson learned". Other times, I recognize that I do want to change, but I admit I have bigger fish to fry, and I have priorities, and they may not be the same as someone else's.
But the point is to improve. To really try. To strive for better today than yesterday in some way. There will be backslides, sidetracks, colossal mistakes, putting things on the back burner, and moments where you feel some things never seem to change. There will also be triumphs, joys, leaps forward, picking up again where you left off, and moments where you read a journal entry from twelve years ago and realize, "Wow, have I really come that far in that regard?"
I just don't buy this "his heart is in the right place" business. Isn't that what "change of heart" is all about? Whether you believe a "change of heart" is a spiritual manifestation of the goodness of God in purifying and aligning your will through the atonement of his son or an otherwise originated epiphany of clarity, resolution, and recognition of your own capability and motivation to live in a way that will be meaningful and leave an impact, I think we all have to, at some point, stop fooling ourselves with comforting masks or accountability-erasing balm because truth--or God, if you prefer--is not gullible. While mercy or ignorance may clean the slate of accountability for each of us, integrity--happiness--demands something internal, something nobody can force upon us, and something no amount of "acting like everything is fine" will ever bring about: a change of heart, and steps to truly align our actions with our beliefs, whether that means admitting our beliefs and priority of values don't match those of others or acknowledging that our actions are not excusable and do need to change to some degree, or both.
Man up, men, and let's all try a little harder to stand and be counted as we are, unafraid, in the light, accountable, courageous, honest about our beliefs and fears and hopes. It's scary, it's hard, it's vulnerable, it's likely to upset someone, and none of us is perfect at it or ever will be...but it's productive, it's ennobling and empowering to ourselves and to others, it fosters truth-finding, it promotes understanding and intimacy in ways secrecy never will, and...OK, actually, I'm just trying to get you all to admit your dirt, so we can have a big ol' gossip fest and point and laugh at the weirdos and scorn the filthy sinners.
Ha, is that what some are afraid of? Probably with good reason. Scary stuff, being exposed by admitting either your beliefs or actions are not what you've let everyone, including yourself, think they are, and letting that be the start of a true, lasting "change of heart" (you can't truly fix something you won't even admit is broken). Is there a limit or balance to how open you should be about such things? Probably...but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say most people could take several steps towards openness, ownership, and integrity (integrating rather than compartmentalizing their lives and actions and beliefs) and would find themselves happier for having done so. Take it or leave it, but don't expect me to shut up about it. :-)
24 February 2011
Your mom's Wii
I laugh at the occasional "your mom" joke (I've typically found most of them pretty distasteful or disrespectful, but some of them are good-natured), and I appreciate some clever or downright saucy Wii references and innuendo. But my mom owns a Wii, which was borrowed tonight by a friend, and when my brain "goes there" and--seemingly against my own will--combines a "your mom" joke with a "Wii" reference in relation to my friends, the awkwardness makes me want to curl into a ball and rock myself with eyes tightly shut while repeating some comforting phrase over and over, and all things innuendoish are not my friends until I'm able to recover. And if you know my propensity for innuendo, you know that's saying something.
Maybe it's disrespectful of me to even mention it, but...I think my point in bringing it up is that while I don't believe there's generally any truly productive reason to broadcast "ew"-inducing thoughts, pretending they don't exist or keeping them a secret not only gives them power but also leaves good people thinking they're sick and twisted and shameful for having them on occasion. I've had what I think have been productive and healthy discussions with people whom you might never suspect of having thought or done certain things, who thought they were the only ones until we laughed about it together and shrugged at human oddity. I've been surprised to see how relieved they seem when they find out someone else who's not a crazy or a total deviant relates, and we can acknowledge it without giving it any prominence or glorifying it, and it almost paradoxically dissolves its influence or power.
Of course, maybe I am sick and twisted, but at least I shake such thoughts off and say to my brain, "Whoa! Ew! Not funny, just wrong!" Then I make the necessary "blblblblblblblechblechblech" noise. Sometimes I wish Family Guy and South Park writers would tell themselves that. No such luck. My opinion of those shows, you ask? My response: "Hated it!".
OK, so I've laughed at Family Guy a couple of times.
I'm so glad I have this intimate, judgment-free forum in which to make such odd confessions. Thank you for 'listening'. I will have to balance this with some constructive, uplifting, meaningful post. ...Sometime. Not now. I'm more in the mood for something brainless to help me unwind, like playing with my Wii...
Maybe it's disrespectful of me to even mention it, but...I think my point in bringing it up is that while I don't believe there's generally any truly productive reason to broadcast "ew"-inducing thoughts, pretending they don't exist or keeping them a secret not only gives them power but also leaves good people thinking they're sick and twisted and shameful for having them on occasion. I've had what I think have been productive and healthy discussions with people whom you might never suspect of having thought or done certain things, who thought they were the only ones until we laughed about it together and shrugged at human oddity. I've been surprised to see how relieved they seem when they find out someone else who's not a crazy or a total deviant relates, and we can acknowledge it without giving it any prominence or glorifying it, and it almost paradoxically dissolves its influence or power.
Of course, maybe I am sick and twisted, but at least I shake such thoughts off and say to my brain, "Whoa! Ew! Not funny, just wrong!" Then I make the necessary "blblblblblblblechblechblech" noise. Sometimes I wish Family Guy and South Park writers would tell themselves that. No such luck. My opinion of those shows, you ask? My response: "Hated it!".
OK, so I've laughed at Family Guy a couple of times.
I'm so glad I have this intimate, judgment-free forum in which to make such odd confessions. Thank you for 'listening'. I will have to balance this with some constructive, uplifting, meaningful post. ...Sometime. Not now. I'm more in the mood for something brainless to help me unwind, like playing with my Wii...
18 February 2011
Do all the real men go for women?
I sometimes wonder if the emotionally healthiest gay guys (or the ones whose perspectives best align with my ideals about relationships) most recognize (or believe) that much or most of what really matters in a relationship can be found in a relationship with a woman and are consequently inclined to seek it with a woman for social and/or religious reasons. Maybe they believe it to be genuinely not selfish if it's done openly because everyone brings baggage and emotional reservations to a relationship, and if a woman is willing to take this challenge on, they're both making sacrifices for a relationship they believe in and want, and to refuse to allow her to choose that is to demean her ability to decide what's best for her. Maybe the concern about not being able to return certain vulnerabilities and kinds of passion or investment is inconsequential, and every pairing is uneven in some way, so getting caught up in that is a cop-out when you can have open communication, emotional connection, and deliberate investment, which are what a lasting relationship is built on.
Maybe this is all correct, and only those with the emotionally healthiest perspective on relationships or who have the most mature outlook--the 'real men'--realize it, and therefore very few of the healthiest gay men end up on the market for other men, so those men who are left seeking same-sex companionship mostly include those who don't understand or grasp it, compounding the problems of relationships in popular gay culture. I mean no offense to those of you in great same-sex relationships. I'm just wondering if you're the exceptions rather than anything even remotely like the rule, not because same-sex-attracted men are inherently worse at relationships than opposite-sex-attracted men, and not just because of self-perpetuating unhealthiness in aspects of popular gay culture or society's official rejection of same-sex partnership commitment, but because gay men who see beyond dogmatic homosexuality or who can't stop wanting certain things for their lives see, in all probability, significant trade-offs no matter what they choose.
Some such guys might fully recognize and accept that, all else being equal, they'd rather be with a man, but they also believe all else is not equal socially, religiously, eternally, culturally, personally, or biologically, so all things considered, they might just as well take on the specific challenges and sacrifices of a mixed-sex relationship as take on the specific challenges and sacrifices and social or legal limitations of a same-sex relationship. ...Or maybe I'm only projecting my own skepticism.
I wonder if the men who most easily pass for straight are most likely to try to pass for straight. Maybe for a more "effeminate" guy, he's not going to fool anyone, so he will likely always deal with whispers of his probable homosexuality and people telling him to be himself. He might fear his sons, if he has any, will have a girly-man for a dad. He might have to "act" more "masculine" to play the role most women want. But for the already-"masculine" gay man, the one who enjoys sports and can fix a car, or the one who most people don't suspect until they find out he's only seriously dated one or two girls in his thirty years of life, playing the part of a typical, standard husband might seem more natural in certain ways than it would to the man with fewer traits generally regarded as belonging to masculinity.
I wonder if the guys I would be most attracted to and who want what I want are the least likely to be available to me because they're busy keeping everyone clueless that they're even gay by dating and marrying women because it just makes social sense to take the path of less resistance. Jerks.
But it's natural. Most of us don't exactly relish the idea of being social crusaders or living against the grain if we don't have to. Most of us don't really critically examine our beliefs until they're challenged thoroughly, or other beliefs seem not only more plausible but emotionally fulfilling. Most of us don't question roles and systems until something about them really doesn't fit or stops working. I certainly don't claim to be the most traditionally 'masculine' of men, nor the most understanding of relationships or women, but sometimes I wonder if I'd rather just give up on pioneering paths for the sake of intellectual integrity or making reality of conceptions and rejoin the trodden trails of normality...
Maybe this is all correct, and only those with the emotionally healthiest perspective on relationships or who have the most mature outlook--the 'real men'--realize it, and therefore very few of the healthiest gay men end up on the market for other men, so those men who are left seeking same-sex companionship mostly include those who don't understand or grasp it, compounding the problems of relationships in popular gay culture. I mean no offense to those of you in great same-sex relationships. I'm just wondering if you're the exceptions rather than anything even remotely like the rule, not because same-sex-attracted men are inherently worse at relationships than opposite-sex-attracted men, and not just because of self-perpetuating unhealthiness in aspects of popular gay culture or society's official rejection of same-sex partnership commitment, but because gay men who see beyond dogmatic homosexuality or who can't stop wanting certain things for their lives see, in all probability, significant trade-offs no matter what they choose.
Some such guys might fully recognize and accept that, all else being equal, they'd rather be with a man, but they also believe all else is not equal socially, religiously, eternally, culturally, personally, or biologically, so all things considered, they might just as well take on the specific challenges and sacrifices of a mixed-sex relationship as take on the specific challenges and sacrifices and social or legal limitations of a same-sex relationship. ...Or maybe I'm only projecting my own skepticism.
I wonder if the men who most easily pass for straight are most likely to try to pass for straight. Maybe for a more "effeminate" guy, he's not going to fool anyone, so he will likely always deal with whispers of his probable homosexuality and people telling him to be himself. He might fear his sons, if he has any, will have a girly-man for a dad. He might have to "act" more "masculine" to play the role most women want. But for the already-"masculine" gay man, the one who enjoys sports and can fix a car, or the one who most people don't suspect until they find out he's only seriously dated one or two girls in his thirty years of life, playing the part of a typical, standard husband might seem more natural in certain ways than it would to the man with fewer traits generally regarded as belonging to masculinity.
I wonder if the guys I would be most attracted to and who want what I want are the least likely to be available to me because they're busy keeping everyone clueless that they're even gay by dating and marrying women because it just makes social sense to take the path of less resistance. Jerks.
But it's natural. Most of us don't exactly relish the idea of being social crusaders or living against the grain if we don't have to. Most of us don't really critically examine our beliefs until they're challenged thoroughly, or other beliefs seem not only more plausible but emotionally fulfilling. Most of us don't question roles and systems until something about them really doesn't fit or stops working. I certainly don't claim to be the most traditionally 'masculine' of men, nor the most understanding of relationships or women, but sometimes I wonder if I'd rather just give up on pioneering paths for the sake of intellectual integrity or making reality of conceptions and rejoin the trodden trails of normality...
17 February 2011
Why I love Diana Krall
While listening to a playlist tonight (the one on my blog, actually), Diana Krall's A Case of You (originally by Joni Mitchell) played (I can't embed it, but the linked video of a live performance is so great), and I realized I didn't used to like that song (I thought it was boring) but now really like it and what it evokes.
So guess what I've spent the last hour or so doing? Yep, YouTubing Diana Krall music videos to review all of the reasons I fell in love with her music and how many of her songs "speak to me". Ah, good times.
And while exploring, I ran across this, which just plain made me smile. I love Nancy Wilson's signature style in this song, and Bill Cosby's antics, and the infectious jazz spirit which won me over years ago in my small hometown with a world-class jazz festival, which happens to be where I first heard and fell for Diana Krall when she sang "Peel Me a Grape" with all the saucy sass I could hope to find...y'know, in a woman:
So guess what I've spent the last hour or so doing? Yep, YouTubing Diana Krall music videos to review all of the reasons I fell in love with her music and how many of her songs "speak to me". Ah, good times.
And while exploring, I ran across this, which just plain made me smile. I love Nancy Wilson's signature style in this song, and Bill Cosby's antics, and the infectious jazz spirit which won me over years ago in my small hometown with a world-class jazz festival, which happens to be where I first heard and fell for Diana Krall when she sang "Peel Me a Grape" with all the saucy sass I could hope to find...y'know, in a woman:
16 February 2011
Snowy security
Tonight, the flurries of snow reminded me of an experience I had last December while looking out the window of the gym I work out in and about which I think I started a post but never finished it.
As I felt the magic of watching the snow fall onto frosted trees outside the window, I wondered at how it didn't carry the sting of watching alone, from a smelly gym, without 'someone special' and without a home in which I felt completely, totally secure and in my own element, where everything was just right in the world. I realized then that my happy memories filled whatever void I thought should probably be there. I remembered feeling, when I was a child, like all was right and safe and secure in the world because I was home, wrapped in a blanket, with my family, my cat, hot cocoa with sourdough toast, and a crackling fire as the snow swirled beautifully outside. I remembered feeling, as an adult, wholly at peace and at home in the most profound sense with my arms wrapped around someone special whose breathing felt like an extension of me and an affirmation that I was meant to and able to share life as we kept each other warm against the elements.
Rather than missing those days when I felt those things, the memory of them glowed within me, and I smiled at the richness and comfort they brought which I have forgotten or rejected at times. I wished everyone could have such memories but figured many people don't, and I was warmly grateful to have them to cherish and to provide hope for future memories rather than sorrowful that new ones were not presently being created. To lament not having someone special to bundle up with now or no longer being a wide-eyed child in a simpler world seemed petty and ungrateful, and for that moment, I was again a wide-eyed child who had known his fair share of love and warmth.
That perspective will not always be easy to maintain, but when it comes, it's worth remembering.
As I felt the magic of watching the snow fall onto frosted trees outside the window, I wondered at how it didn't carry the sting of watching alone, from a smelly gym, without 'someone special' and without a home in which I felt completely, totally secure and in my own element, where everything was just right in the world. I realized then that my happy memories filled whatever void I thought should probably be there. I remembered feeling, when I was a child, like all was right and safe and secure in the world because I was home, wrapped in a blanket, with my family, my cat, hot cocoa with sourdough toast, and a crackling fire as the snow swirled beautifully outside. I remembered feeling, as an adult, wholly at peace and at home in the most profound sense with my arms wrapped around someone special whose breathing felt like an extension of me and an affirmation that I was meant to and able to share life as we kept each other warm against the elements.
Rather than missing those days when I felt those things, the memory of them glowed within me, and I smiled at the richness and comfort they brought which I have forgotten or rejected at times. I wished everyone could have such memories but figured many people don't, and I was warmly grateful to have them to cherish and to provide hope for future memories rather than sorrowful that new ones were not presently being created. To lament not having someone special to bundle up with now or no longer being a wide-eyed child in a simpler world seemed petty and ungrateful, and for that moment, I was again a wide-eyed child who had known his fair share of love and warmth.
That perspective will not always be easy to maintain, but when it comes, it's worth remembering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)