Conversion therapy's elusive unicorn

From Facebook:
----------------------
In response to comments in a previous post, this describes my experience and perspective well.

Former Love in Action Director: I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual
John Smid was once the director of Love in Action a longtime Exodus International affiliate based in Memphis, TN. I have always found John’s candor refreshing. My first contact with John was at an Exodus meeting where he questioned the slogan, “change is possible.”

O-Mo Whatever the cause of homosexuality/same-sex attractions, whatever the life choices, and whatever the malleability or future possibilities of change through therapy techniques and neuroscience yet to be discovered, the reality of _today_, as I see it, is that people do not change from mostly same-sex attracted/gay to mostly opposite-sex attracted/straight. Some claim to have changed but later recant, and a few have staked their income and reputation in the claim and persist in it. But when pressed, I have found more wordsmithing and perspective reframing for functional/behavioral change or cognitive adjustment than actual change in attractions. Still, I don't believe this should be used as ammunition to shoot down someone's personal, honest, carefully considered direction for their life in congruence with their beliefs, values, desires, and goals.

Guy1 People make this so damn complicated.... :-P for me it all boils down to what gets you off. ;) I've never had a conflict of faith and sexuality, of course, so I don't really understand the intricacies involved...to me, it seems like a simple no-brainer.

O-Mo Afterthought: While my observation matches his, I would not say, as he does, that "none of this can occur with homosexuality" with a more accurate, "I have never seen it occur."

Gal1 I agree... This brings up some very intruguing differences between attraction and behavior. Attraction - well, there's no need to "repent" of that, since it's something you can't change. Behavior, however, is something you are always accountable for. People will try to reason their way out of a lot of things, but ultimately you are the one in control of your actions.
I also like the point made toward the end of the article, that it is possible to be in love with someone you are not sexually attracted to. It's an interesting thought, in a culture that overexaggerates the importance of sexuality. When it really comes down to it, there is SO much more to love, true love anyway. If it's just sexuality involved, that is lust. Big difference.

O-Mo Yeah, Guy1, I've run into that same confusion with others who either were not raised in a homosexuality-shunning church or left at an early age. I don't know how to convey it. But even without religious conflicts, I've known some to struggle with what they really want.

Guy2 This is some good stuff O-Mo. I've actually had a lot of these thoughts on my mind the past few days. I have found so much peace and happiness finally in my life doing exactly what I have always been taught was wrong. Letting go of that "battle" between good and evil and just following what I feel is right in my heart has been such a blessing for me.

Guy1 I grew up in small-town mid-america. I never knew what gay was until I got online at the age of 15... I always knew what I found attractive, though. Perhaps it was because I grew up with such a streak of individuality that being gay never really bothered me, even though family and friends spoke ill of it once it started hitting popular culture. My mom tried to get me to go to church and her side of the family is pretty religious, but it never stuck with me. I only went for the grape juice and crackers. I was never able to think of any of the stories as literal...they just seemed like good stories and I enjoyed reading all sorts of books back then.

I was certainly a prude throughout my teen years and the first couple of college, but that wasn't because I thought I should be with girls! :) They never did anything for me...

O-Mo ‎Gal1, I want my spouse to be passionate with me, and even...dare I say...lusty. ;-) I don't care to downplay sexuality as part of a whole relationship because I really do value it, particularly as an intimate and bonding (not to mention certainly fun!) experience between partners built on trust, familiarity, and mutual investment. But I also know that if I _had_ to choose between sexual passion and, say, open communication or tender affection, sexual passion does not win out as a highest priority. I just hope I don't have to choose. ;-) Incidentally, I do know some guys who, despite still being primarily attracted to men, quite enjoy sexual intimacy with their wives, even if it's often not to the same level as it had been with men. Beliefs, choices, priorities...

O-Mo More on this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/10/37766

Guy1 It's certainly not unheard of to have an open relationship wherein there is emotional intimacy with your primary partner and then the allowance of both parties to have physical intimacy with others outside of the partnership. This happens in many relationship regardless of whether the couple is same orientation or mixed orientation.... Sometimes people love each other deeply and want to build a life together but don't click physically. Certainly isn't a reason to give up the relationship if both parties want to stay together.

I think if more people accepted the idea of "nontraditional" relationships, there would be less of a problem with divorce and you'd see more families sticking together (and being stronger). Just my opinion, of course. :)

O-Mo Ha, true. But again: religious or personal conflicts can prevent that from being considered an option. But that's why I have always found strength in remembering that I am imposing some of my own restrictions and therefore am not merely a victim.

Guy1 Sometimes we must work through conflicts for the betterment of ourselves and our relationships. ;) Flexibility in life is a good thing! Flexibility and conflict...always makes for a good story.

O-Mo It does, indeed. But can you stretch too much too fast and end up spraining something? ;-) Or bend something not meant to be bent and break something you shouldn't have broken? Heh.

Guy1 TIme and lube. Everything's possible with time and lube. (per Dan Savage) :-P

O-Mo NARTH has responded to this notion without actually mentioning it at all: http://narth.com/2011/10/2061/. I see problems in such follow-up studies, mainly that I have known guys who would have put themselves in the "Success: conversion" category who, when I pressed, conceded that their new attraction to women was more a curiosity and 'openness to the possibility' than an actual drive, but since that was more than they'd ever known, they considered it an 'increase in heterosexual attraction'. And...let's just say you needed only watch their eyes at a party to see which sex caught their inadvertent gaze more often. ;-) I also wonder how many respondents are married and therefore are not only self-limited in their life choices and self-identification but are measuring their progress not by generalized attraction but by attraction to their wife, specifically. Increased heterosexual function and intimacy with their spouse is wonderful and should be acknowledged rather than dismissed for political agenda, but I just don't see it as the same thing as 'becoming heterosexual'.

NARTH » Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible
narth.com
Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible, Harm Unlikely, according to New Eviden...See More

O-Mo Let me clarify one point in my last paragraph: "appropriately and understandably self-limited". :-)

Gal1 You can be just as much a victim of your own "self-limiting" choices as you can from others'... just sayin' :P

Hello eternal perspective, I'm John Wayne

A friend of mine just posted a link on Facebook to an article at The Mormon Women Project about a woman whose husband left her after coming out, titled An Eternal Perspective.

Since I haven't finished any of the myriad of drafts I've begun about various topics, I'll throw this up here as a filler for now. My comment on the link this friend posted is as follows:

I just ranted about this, but I deleted my comments and will rant in my own space. I of course can't speak on her ex-husband's perspective. But I agree that it should be considered in light of the nature of her comments, which sound, to me, less like "eternal perspective" and more oversimplified and stripped of opportunity to really grapple with truth.

Of course, I understand that just because the interviewee doesn't seem to agree with my view doesn't mean she is less intelligent or hasn't struggled with the topic long enough. And just because she doesn't detail her study and research doesn't mean she hasn't done any. But she describes very little effort to really understand the issue beyond what church leaders and scriptures have said, and the way she discusses it indicates a lack of...*sigh*...OK, seems to reflect a view that, when I held it, was simplistic and did not include any effort to understand except from sources which confirmed and consoled my existing beliefs.

Clearly, I no longer share the beliefs my old self had, so I have a bias and am likely to be dismissed by some as merely an example of one who has been led away by Satan precisely because I sought knowledge outside of official church materials. I think that very accusation is what keeps some people in the church, just to prove that not only godless heathens believe such things but that you can believe "liberal" doctrines without abandoning the gospel.

Anyway, that's enough digression. This being my own space, here is the rant:

Troubling on a few levels: she says she deals with it by praying, getting blessings, and reading official church materials. That sounds nice and spiritually safe, but years of personal experience and talking with others have strongly indicated that that approach alone pushes the real conundrums away or polishes conflict with veneer that wears off. I finally decided the scriptures are for matters of salvation, but we're given light and knowledge in professional fields to really sort out some things for ourselves. Only then, when I started seeing the issue from a more human, real-life perspective rather than a merely abstract ideological one did I start healing and really understanding.

Second, she rejected counseling because the counselor didn't agree with her beliefs about "the family", as traditionalists like to refer to the notion of the modern nuclear family as the only acceptable definition of family. That's understandable, but to disregard someone's wisdom about human relationships just because they don't share your view of gender roles and religious beliefs about family seems rash after a month or less of counseling and potentially a bit of a copout or escape.

Third, kids don't need to be 12 to understand man and woman, husband and wife, and I've discovered they don't need to understand sexuality and "gender roles" to grasp husband and husband either. As I see it, such limitations are projected and imposed on children by adults who want to be able to explain in their chosen framework why it's wrong, not just what it is.

Sorry to seem harsh, but I think this woman still has some emotional growing up to do. Even the way she speaks almost dismissively of her husband's experience as if he suddenly decided to "go gay" and escape the marriage at all costs attests that she is likely pushing some issues away rather than really grappling with them. That's not strength and eternal perspective. That's a low-level, short-term coping mechanism.

Opinions? No, not me. Why do you ask?

Some days, I step back and try to tell myself things like, "She's probably still in a lot of pain and maybe shouldn't be talking publicly about this yet but clearly seems intent on helping, and she could be a lot harsher, so let's go easy on her." Today, that didn't work so well, maybe.

Premature Joculation

Mohodom is abuzz over an openly gay member, Mitch Mayne, being called to serve with the bishopric (as executive secretary) in a bay area ward. My understanding is that Mitch was in a long-term relationship with a man until about a year ago, during at least part of which he was active in his ward and held a calling, and...well, read it yourself in his open letter. He's currently single and celibate, open to a future relationship (though exactly what kind of relationship is [possibly deliberately] vague), and committed to the "same standard of behavior that we require of any heterosexual member in a Priesthood leadership position." Enter my skeptical brow.

Don't get me wrong: an openly, unapologetically gay man was called to work closely with the bishopric, which may not be new but is certainly getting more attention than most and is another testament against the notions of some members that anyone who doesn't renounce and deny their very attractions is unworthy of any leadership, and that's very cool. But I think people are jumping the gun in declaring this to be a revolutionary move. For example, does he mean he will have a romantic but nonsexual relationship with a man? Does he mean he intends to have a sexual relationship with a man when they're married or in a civil union? Is the latter a completely different scenario than the first, and would it be a dealbreaker if he were asked point blank and answered with the latter? Is the former even acceptable to church headquarters? Or is the whole thing being taken a day at a time, focusing on his current compliance and worthiness, without projecting unnecessarily into the completely unknown future? I want to correct those who oversimplify: "Of course he has a calling: he's committed to chastity like everyone else." Yet when people sound victory charges for "openly gay" members to serve in church leadership, my "let's wait and see what this means before declaring social revolution" gear kicks in.

Yes, if Mitch marries a woman someday, he's golden. His open letter doesn't seem to preclude that option, and you never know what life might bring. But his views on homosexuality being inextricably part of him (not that I believe heterosexuality is a prerequisite to marrying a woman, but that's a can of worms for another post) combined with his insistence that he will be forthcoming with his leadership about his relationship status (which wouldn't be necessary for non-gay folk) lead me to believe the future relationship he's open to is most likely same-sex. If you combine that with his statement that he does not plan to intentionally spend the rest of his life celibate or single, I see a dilemma.

I know many individuals who believe the church's stance on same-sex relationships will change with time, but cleverly wordsmithing or reinterpreting temple ceremonies or the Proclamation on the Family still amounts to speculation. The church officially prohibits sexual relationships outside of man-woman marriage (long-term romantic, non-orgasmic relationships between members of the same sex are not as clearly addressed but are also slightly more common than unicorns). I'm not saying that could never change: perhaps, before I die, the church will welcome time-only same-sex partners (whether God-disapproved-married or civilly unified) into some form of meaningful fellowship, but I'm speaking in terms of today.

I just don't believe that when general authorities say members who experience "same-gender attraction" are to adhere to the same standards of sexual conduct as everyone else, what they mean is, "sure, they can date and make out like everyone else and then make each other ejaculate to their homo hearts' content once they obtain the kind of civil contract we have explicitly and vehemently opposed as being not marriage at all." I think those who believe church leaders are saying gay members should just save sex until they're married to members of the same sex should not mask or mince their words and should say so clearly and publicly...and see how church leadership responds.

So the concern I have is that despite Mitch's effort to be open and honest, there are many unanswered questions, the answers to which may likely conflict with assumptions or extrapolations many are making, e.g.:

• he intends to be either celibate or with a woman for the rest of his life,
• the local leadership called him knowing he intends to be with a man again someday,
• he was officially called as a counselor in the bishopric, or
• he was in full fellowship while in a romantic and sexual relationship with another man and church headquarters was OK with that.

I believe those assumptions to be common and understandable, given Mitch's open letter and subsequent coverage. Some of them may even be correct. But nobody has done the aggressive journalism to answer them. So they're still unanswered. And I don't think their implications are incidental or irrelevant when the calling is being framed as a bold representation of progress in the role of gay members in church leadership.

I do think the _discussion_, far disproportionate to the situation itself, is going to make waves and change paradigms. That's how activism works, so from that standpoint, I get it. I actually appreciate JonJon's response to the issue.

I say let Mitch serve quietly (although let's be honest, Mitch, you threw "quietly" aside with your open letter...actually, I think you kind of threw it up in the air and demolished it with rockets *wink*), wait and see, and get the details before portraying it as if the Catholic Church just handpicked a bishop from a pride parade's leather daddies contingent.

Connexion Confessions

Confession: I've been relatively uninterested in Connexion (gay Facebook) lately. But I still log in to check messages or chat with a friend, and sometimes, when that happens to be around midnight, I end up among the "most viewed members" of the day for a short time because the numbers reset and those who recently logged on jump to the top. I may or may not secretly enjoy this brief moment of glory.

Confession: When I keep logging back in to check each new message, the site's "recently logged in" and "online now" categories boost profile views further, and I enjoy the experimentation of seeing how long I can stay among the "most viewed," even though due more to trickery than to the typical (non-existent, in my case) chiseled torso in a bathroom mirror.

Confession: I'm a snob. I get way more messages than I care to respond to. Not that I get a ton of messages. Maybe 1 or 2 each time I log in. Sometimes more. Sometimes none. But I don't have a lot of social energy for new connections (I'm very introverted, remember?), so I end up ignoring almost everyone who says nothing more than, "Hey whats up?" I mean, give me something to go on! Then I think about the HR people who dismiss my resume outright because I'm not great on paper and never give me the chance to plead my case in person. I think if they'd only stop being resume snobs and let me interview, I might have a fighting chance, but they just can't afford the time among hundreds of applicants. But somehow that little exercise in empathy doesn't spur me to be less stingy than them in responding.

Confession: I'm getting more messages from guys I suppose are more the age range I should be looking for. But I'm left pouting ever-so-slightly (with a smirk, of course) over apparently falling out of favor with hot 23-year-olds. Have I crossed some threshold into withered-old-faghood? Ah well, it was bound to happen sooner or later, and there are worse things in life than trying to figure out how to tell the adorable 19-year-old that it's just never going to happen. I just...might still want the narcissistic opportunity once in a while, that's all. Growing up is, like, so hard.

Confession: I'd rather be with a mature and growing guy younger than me (but not younger than 25, and even that's typically too young these days) than an immature or stagnant guy my age or older. Wait...am I stagnant? Crusty? Crap, here comes that unmanly self-doubt that supposedly helped make me gay in the first place.

Confession: I bookmarked pretty much all the local guys I figured I'd like to actually get to know in the area if I get serious about dating (and yes, they're almost all older than 25...no, seriously, they are...shut it). So now I mainly just bookmark hotties in the short stints when I browse briefly. Yep, shallowness. I own it.

Confession: Speaking of shallowness, I totally judge people by their pics. Backwards baseball cap is a strike. Shirtless bathroom mirror is another. But neither of those is so bad that someone can't recover from it: they just raise a lot of skepticism from me as to what potential there is. Multiple shots of flexing in various ways is a big strike. Posing next to a mustang wearing Ed Hardy is a huge, huge strike. "Peace" sign with puckered tough-lips in every pic just screams "I'm a tool". I'm genuinely open to someone proving me wrong or surprising me: it's just that...I don't think anyone has yet.

Confession: I know some people think it's rude not to at least reply with SOMETHING, but when I've replied with as little as possible just to not ignore, I still get a response, typically no more substantive than the first but clearly expecting continuation. And at some point, I don't have the energy to sustain all the conversations people start, much less meet everyone. So it's easier to ignore from the beginning unless they say something substantive or ask a question. I'm not at all complaining about getting too many messages. And I'm not trying to tout myself as popular (trust me, I have no illusion that I'm the hottest of items on the site). I'm just saying sue me for not responding to "nice pics," "what're you doing tonight?" or, "Where can I flick my tongue to make you moan the loudest?" Call me a snob.

Confession: I do feel a little bad sometimes about not replying, but I figure that's the way the cookie crumbles. I've been ignored, too.

Confession: I may or may not have checked my rank while writing this to see if I'm still higher than that one really hot guy and that girl: beat by a girl on Connexion's most viewed?! Oh, hay-ul no, it's on...

Wide-eyed wonder

I remember a night my world changed forever. I was tucked cozily into bed, and Mom was saying goodnight when I mustered the question I'd been mulling over in my youthful brain: "Is Santa Claus really real?"

I may have held on longer than many children to belief in the jolly old elf who chutes down the chimney to leave presents and fill stockings. Some kids had tried to tell me he wasn't real, but only a mean-spirited person would bother to say such a thing, so they were clearly not people I should listen to. One kid said it's all a story, another said she saw her mom and dad putting the presents under the tree and eating the cookies and milk. I thought they might be lying, or they might have been mistaken, or maybe they were naughty, and their mom and dad had to fill in for Santa because he wasn't about to hop down their chimney. There was surely an explanation because he'd been to my house and eaten the cookies I left for him. My parents had clearly indicated it must have been Santa, and good parents don't lie, and my parents were good. I'd seen unhappy, grumpy people in movies who didn't believe in Santa, and when they let the Christmas spirit in, they could finally see him, and he'd been there all along. That's how it worked. I saw their eyes light up as they let the magic in. I would believe.

As I grew older, some question arose. How could he get to every house in the world? Wasn't that a lot of houses? Movies and stories showed me ideas of how time might slow down for him. I thought the explanations were fair enough for a magical guy, and I pushed away the doubts. Why doubt what was such a happy thing?

What about Santa at the mall? He couldn't be in every mall at once, could he? I mean, even for a magical person, it seemed a stretch. I asked my parents about this and was told Santa had helpers, and I had taken pictures with what were probably his helpers who passed children's messages on to the real Santa. I wondered if I had ever met the real Santa or if they had all been helpers, and I felt a little disappointed, but it did make sense. After all, I had seen people in Santa costumes and knew some of the beards seemed fake, but I had refused to let that register before I had a satisfactory explanation other than the sad and unappealing, "Santa's not real". Besides, why wouldn't you just believe? Disbelieving could not only result in Santa not visiting but would also be insulting to Santa if he were real.

But the questions had added up. I wasn't one to go with the crowd in most ways, but I was surrounded by peers who had apparently stopped believing, and I couldn't help but notice that Santa's handwriting seemed somewhat familiar... The biggest tip-off came not from those who loudly said he was fake but from those who had quietly stopped defending him.

So on this night, I had finally asked the question those who believe in the magic of Christmas don't ask. As my mom's expression told me she was arranging the words in her head to make the answer as easy as possible on me, I already knew the answer was not simply "yes". I felt a knot in my stomach.

She handled it in expert parental fashion. She told me about a kind man with a generous spirit who gave to others and of a spirit of goodwill and sharing that became the legend of Santa. The magical Santa Claus who left me presents was not real after all, at least not in the literal sense. I felt a little silly for having stood up for Santa after many of my friends already knew. I felt mournful over the loss of the most magical part of every year. It did help to hear that he had been a real person, and it helped to focus not on what wasn't real but rather on what was real: the magical spirit of Christmas I felt and saw in people's eyes every winter. With a tender kiss, I was left in the dark with teary eyes to come to terms with a new loss of innocence as I tried to hold on to the spirit of Santa in my heart while mourning his death centuries after he was said to be laid to rest.

"What will next Christmas be like?" I wondered. It seemed so sad and empty without the magic of Santa. Maybe she's well-intended but wrong? Maybe we'll experience a Christmas miracle, and we'll all see him flying away in his sleigh...? No. Something told me to let go, that this was right. I knew Christmas was about celebrating Jesus' birth, so it would still have its main meaning, even if it would be years before that inspired me more than Santa ever again could. And the Muppets and The Grinch had taught me Christmas was also about love, kindness, hope, purification of hearts, generosity, and friends and family. I let these ideas fill in the void where Santa used to be. But it took time and deliberate self-reminders to focus on what Christmas was and not what it now wasn't.

I wanted to let everyone know I knew better, and I even felt a desire to tell others so they could avoid feeling more silly when they finally found out. I did let friends know I was finally in on the secret, sometimes when asked delicately, "Do you still believe in Santa?" I no longer needed to prove I had the Christmas spirit by saying yes, though I still tried to vocalize the positive. I didn't become the newest anti-Santa crusader. What for? I had seen the truth when I was ready for it, and others would, too. Besides, what's the harm in holding on to the magical feeling of Christmas and that glimmering "what if"? How would it feel to go around making sure everyone knows Santa isn't "real"? Is that something I could do with bright-eyed excitement, even to someone who was angry at others for not believing in Santa? Wouldn't it feel kind of sinister to go around saying it, even if it was the truth? Wouldn't it feel better to focus on the meaning of Christmas and the spirit of Santa even if I no longer believed in the literal story?

Rather than resenting the cruel trick or becoming bitter about the holiday because I'd been duped, I recognized that, Santa or no Santa, it was still an undeniably magical time of year...for me, at the very least. I could either become Scrooge, or I could be inspired and buoyed by the seasonal change in my own heart and in others as we shared magical stories, gave and helped a little more, remembered what was most important in our lives, ate some great food, and remembered the birth of a Savior, whom I understood to be central to the entire purpose of our existence.

Yes, the magic I had loved so much as a child was lost, and that took some getting used to. But as I chose to hold on to the spirit of that magic, something present and persisting remained. Once I was past the sadness and defensiveness towards the stories about Santa which I had previously believed quite literally, I was able to see them with a resurrected twinkle in my eye as if to say, "Wouldn't it be wonderful?"

How not to become the next boy-renting NARTH officer

Hey, listen, it's time to stop fooling yourself. When you're cuddling compulsively (e.g. you can't seem to get enough or are fighting a persistent urge to rip off clothing), that cuddling is most likely a substitute for sex. Sorry to break it to you, but when cuddling is about natural affection and trust in a secure friendship, it's not something you do in lieu of prohibited naked fun. And if you have a perma-stiffy, you might consider either going ahead and just making out (call a spade a spade) or stopping that particular cuddle session before it catches up with you. Blueballing is only one small probable negative consequence. Warping a relationship is another, especially when boundaries and meaning ascribed to the cuddling aren't clearly agreed upon between both parties. But what's most concerning me is learning to justify behavior in a way that masks underlying motives with idealized but inaccurate motives, a skill not smiled upon in politicians or ex-gay therapists caught in sex scandals.

"Well, who's to say one motive is stronger than another? You don't know me."

Come on. Be honest with yourself. You know the difference between cuddling with a child, for example, or a pet, or a friend of the opposite sex, or a friend of the same sex with whom the idea of sex is either comical or extremely awkward, and cuddling with someone you're physically attracted to.

"Well of course it's going to be different, especially if I have unmet emotional needs related to men and can find intimacy and connection in male friendships. Stop trying to sexualize everything. Besides, just because I might get aroused for a moment doesn't mean I actually wanna go at it."

Fair enough. Like I said, only you really know the difference. Just ask yourself: if you're so sure you're just sharing healthy affection with other men, do you have as strong a desire to share that healthy affection with men who are not your type whom you trust and feel close to?

"But what if that's part of my healing? What if I need affirmation from men I find attractive?"

Do you really believe that's what it's about?

"...I'd like to...maybe...OK, probably not."

Thought so.

"But it's really nice, and it's not just a substitute for sex."

No, it's not just a substitute for sex. But look, if you thought it was OK to make out, would you rather be doing that than only cuddling and caressing?

"...No, because I'd have to have a relationship with someone to do that. I've never even kissed someone."

Oh, that's right. Speaking of your incredible ability to not kiss someone even though you've cuddled with someone in nothing but your garment bottoms...

"Hey, how do you know...?"

Oh, honey, let's just say I know very well. It's maybe a little embarrassing, but it's OK. Mohos are amazing at pushing the envelope in creatively chaste ways. Anyway, that caressing business you do: I get that it's sometimes completely benign and purely affectionate (e.g. arms, hands, scalp massage, back tickling). But when you're caressing each other's inner thigh or bare chest and teasing the underwear waistband by slipping your fingers barely under the edge...well, let me just put it this way: would you do that to your female friend?

"Well, you can't honestly expect me to draw a direct comparison. There are things guys just 'get', and we know each other, and they don't have anything I don't. I mean, I wouldn't shower with my female friends, but that doesn't mean showering with my male friends is sexual."

OK, then maybe consider whether you'd be at all disturbed if you saw two brothers doing it? Anyway, here, let me show you what I know now with another four years of physical intimacy experience under my belt...eh, you know what I mean. OK, now you've kissed someone and all that jazz. What's your answer about whether you'd rather be making out if you thought it were OK?

"Hm...yeah, OK, when I'm honest with myself, I probably would want to make out with at least these two cuddle buddies..."

I'm not saying that any time you get briefly aroused, it means you're just after sex. And I'm not saying you should merely obey your body's lusts. I believe it's good and right to learn to rein your appetites. I believe that particular member sometimes briefly responds to stimuli in its own way. And I certainly don't believe every attraction or affection has a raging undercurrent of sexual desire. I'm just saying the next time you're being physically affectionate with someone you find attractive, consider thinking, "Hey, do we have a close enough friendship for this cuddling to be genuinely trust- and affection-based? If we thought it was OK, would we go for it? If you were absolutely not my type, would I still want to cuddle? Am I mostly kinda hot to trot, and your body feels nice against mine?" There's nothing wrong with admitting it's mostly a physical thing, but I think your cuddle partner should be on the same page to avoid probable messes...pardon the wording.

I'm just concerned that the longer you keep basically using cuddling as a substitute for 'more', the less likely you'll be to really, honestly identify your motives in potentially conflicting situations. I'm worried that some or much of your caressing and holding is an expression of your desire for romantic and sexual intimacy, but you're refusing to recognize that and masking it with an effort to revolutionize male intimacy. That's probably very true for certain of your friendships, but by projecting the innocence of some cases onto all, you may make abnormal behavior or behavior inconsistent with a relationship into something normal in your head, and that's troublesome territory.

I'm also afraid you run the risk of using cuddling and caressing in a way which isn't 'breaking any commandments' but mostly just puts off actually making a decision about what you're going to do with all of this homosexuality and religion conflict you have. It's like you're keeping the religion part and following the rules but in a way that is partially lust behind a mask of affection and intimacy, the exact opposite of what you actually think you're accomplishing.

Short version: I think you're becoming a cuddle slut.

"OK, OK, I see what you're getting at. I do generally want to cuddle the hottest guys the most, and if we both believed differently, I'd probably just wanna go at it sometimes, so I'll try to be more aware of that. But...I have some friends who are totally physically attractive, but I'm not at all attracted to them in 'that' way. Can I still cuddle them?"

Of course. I remember what it's like to believe you're never going to be allowed sexual 'fun' with another guy and how much that can affect your desire to have what physical affection you can, no matter how sexually repressed the motives. Besides...y'know...none of us is perfect.

"Wait...have you cuddled with someone you mainly wanted to get freaky with or didn't necessarily have reason to trust intimately?"

...Yeah, cuddle...um...we're not talking about me. We're talking about you.