The Erotic Supremacy Lie

One of the greatest damages to relationships and people's self image and security I've seen is what I believe to be a lie that romantic and erotic attraction and affection so far surpass attraction, affection, or bonding on a level some would describe as friendship, "true love", or "philia" that life is empty and full of loneliness with "only" non-sexual, non-romantic, or non-partnership intimacy.  My experience tells me that, mindfully pursued in principled ways, friendships can reach depths of intimacy and love that can surpass other bonds, passing enthrallments, or temporary investments.  A life lived in restraint or denial of romance and eros is not a life devoid of richness and meaning.

Another of the greatest damages to relationships and people's self image and security I've seen is what I believe to be a lie that friendship or non-romantic love so far surpasses attraction, affection, or bonding on a level some would dismiss as sexual appetite, "lust", or "eros" that life is empty and animalistic when sexual or romantic intimacy are pursued or yearned for.  My experience tells me that, mindfully pursued in principled ways, romantic partnership with sexual expression can reach depths of intimacy and love that can surpass other bonds, passing enthrallments, or temporary investments. A life lived in partial pursuit and development of romance and eros is not a life devoid of richness and meaning and need not detract from the pursuit and development of intimate friendship.  Romantic and sexual intimacy can expand and enrich selected relationships, especially those which also have or develop a basis in intimate friendship or "philia".

A life full of sex without friendship seems completely empty and kind of ugly to me, to be honest.  And if I have to choose between having sex and having friendships, I'll choose friendship every time, even if the choice is between great sex and great friendships.  Likewise, I'd choose having great lifelong friends over having great passing romances, if I have to entertain a false dichotomy.  And I highly recommend the same choice to everyone, so maybe I'm a bit of a hypocrite for wishing people would stop devaluing the choices of others by insisting theirs is right for everyone.  But I also don't see them as mutually exclusive.  And if I had to choose between spending the rest of my life with a truly intimate, loving, platonic friend, and spending the rest of my life  with a truly intimate, loving friend I also am romantically bonded with and have sexual intimacy with, better yet!  See, I believe in a generic, general sense that "friendship" is better than "sex", if they can be so simplified.  I also believe that, in my experience, living without sex or romance but with interpersonal intimacy is so much better and fuller a life than living without intimacy but with sex and romantic excitement.  But I also believe living with intimate, mindful friendships and with romantic/sexual expression--especially the intimate, mutually respectful kind--and especially especially the intimate, mutually respectful kind that comes with some pretty great internal chemical fireworks--is better and fuller yet!  Call me animalistic.

I'm fine with you choosing to pursue exclusively philic love, experiencing or investing in a different kind or degree of romantic love or erotic attraction, or however it works out for you within your value system and chosen priorities.  But I firmly reject the notion I've often heard implied or stated by those who so choose that love between intimate friends and companions where affection is not expressed sexually or even romantically is somehow inherently "superior", more selfless, or more noble than love which is those things _plus_ romantic/erotic attraction, affection, and expression.  I believe restraint is noble when exercised out of deference to personal or moral considerations, and I can certainly relate to the feeling that having both in the measure that most people exoerience them is not an option for such reasons and choosing accordingly.  And I very much have experienced the exquisite saturation of relationships or service with intense connection and meaning where I've believed and reminded myself I was sacrificing and subduing natural urges or distracting thoughts for a greater, focused purpose, and what I was giving up seemed a small price to pay in that light. I think everyone should know that sense of rewarding discipline in at least some aspect of life. That decision on how to respond to the feelings, however, doesn't make the feelings any more or less pure, nor does it mean relationships where romantic affection is checked or restrained are inherently more meaningful or rewarding than those in which it is expressed. That is a leap some try to make, but it's an erroneous and unnecessary leap, as I see it.

For example, when you feel intense appreciation, affection, selflessness, and physical attraction to someone, but you rein it in because that person is in a committed relationship which would be violated by expressing it or acting on your attraction, then yes, the _restraint_ based on deference to what you believe to be best can be quite noble.  You might find meaning or pride in overcoming your inclinations or in demeaning the restrained feelings by viewing them as inferior to the feelings compelling you to do what was "right" (in this case, for example, avoiding causing someone to emotionally or sexually cheat on their partner).  But that makes neither your actions nor your feelings for that person any more pure or noble than the feelings their partner has for them or the choice they made to pursue them.

If you choose a vow of celibacy, and you find greater meaning and richness in non-sexual relationships than you ever found in sexual ones, then I'm sincerely happy for you!  Yes, I question whether your sexual or romantic relationships were pursued in healthy, constructive ways, whether you ever experienced romantic partnership as I have, whether you inherently view sexual or romantic expression as so mutually exclusive with "philia" or "charity, the pure love of Christ" that you've blocked them from both occupying any one relationship, whether your reasons for choosing celibacy are based on truth or convincing but half-true-at-best stories or beliefs, whether you have wiring that causes you to experience romantic or sexual attraction and bonding in a patently different way than most humans do, etc.  But your choices are yours, and I cannot fully inhabit your mind and soul, so I try to balance analysis or skepticism with a healthy dose of "what the @#$% more do I know about the vastness and profundity of the universe than the next guy anyway, let alone the next guy's own internal workings?"  I try, even though failing at times, to step back from demeaning or dismissing lifestyles and choices other than my own (assuming they're not demonstrably harming people) or injecting so much "meaning" into my own choices as to portray other choices as meaningless out of some sense of justification.

Yes, some gay/SSA people do not want same-sex relationships, not romantically or sexually overt ones at least, due to reasons they regard as superseding their feelings, inclinations, or urges.  I believe they should be allowed that choice.  But I will not sit by quietly while they explain or frame my feelings and decisions in their own terms, and I have my limits on allowing them to speak unchallenged when they imply that they somehow have the market cornered on "true love".  Yet I sometimes invest a puzzling amount of energy trying to help people understand their decisions, while they actively urge people to limit my legal options and keep my relationship marginalized as patently inferior to heterosexual love and pairing generally.  Maybe I just don't understand true, selfless, godly love like they do, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

The spark for this post: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/, about which I have many more thoughts and responses but chose, for now, to focus on this one point.

Cougar Bait?

Me from behind the Egyptian Theater beverages/concessions counter in Park City for Sundance Film Festival: "How's it going?"

Thin, good-looking blonde lady in her maybe forties or fifties with a somewhat wry grin: "Better now."

Me not asking what makes "now" better because I'm afraid I'll be caught off-guard and unable to follow up if the answer is as flirtatious as it seems it might be: "Good!  What can I get for you?"

Lady alternately exploring the snacks and looking me intensely in the eye: "Hm...oh M&Ms, but none with peanuts?"

Me, confused that she seems to saying this as if it's some kind of innuendo but enjoying the ambiguity of her enthusiasm and intrigued by her demeanor: "Ha, none with peanuts, unfortunately.  Just plain."

Lady making a swift choice: "I think I'll have this chocolate bar with almonds."

Me, relieved that she didn't follow it up with something like "I like nuts" but kind of grinning to myself at the possibility of forwardness I am not accustomed to responding to, *cough* at least not from women: "Very nice.  That'll be just $2."

Lady, like she's playing the sassy corrective teacher in some kind of role play: "'Just' $2, you say?  You mean 'Two dollars only'?"

Me, amused and confused as to what the heck is going on: "Ha, sure, only $2, $2 is all, whatever works."

At this point, I choose to exchange my usual obliviously friendly smile for a semi-flirtatious smile for the heck of it as I hand her her change, she drops a couple of dollars in the tip bowl and smiles as she double-takes while walking away...at which point I have two thoughts: (1) does she always tip for candy bars?, and (2) even if she was making advances, my age means she was less cougar and more...just horny.

In any case, she may have just meant it was better now because she'd come in from the cold, and I got all weird, and she's now telling her friends about the concessions dude inexplicably flirting with her.  But I prefer to think of it as me getting hunted by a cougar 'cause that's just fun.

We can debate til the end of time...

Acceptance should not negate conviction.  The good news is that it doesn't have to.  If you struggle to wrap your mind and heart around that, you may do well to soften your heart, open your ears, and relax your neck.

Don't get me wrong: I _will_ challenge and push back and ask questions and retain skepticism.  Crucial conversations must take place regarding the consequences of our actions on each other and on people we care about in our political, social, and personal lives.  Understanding and solutions come from such conversations, through the conflict, not by avoiding it.  Conflict is bound to arise from people of varying convictions pursuing what they believe is right and good.  And some people in pursuit of power, self aggrandizement, or justification will destroy peace around us if we are too busy holding hands to stand against them and do anything about it.  Not all views of either spirituality or secularism include a love of peace or prioritize harmony, reconciliation, and self-determination.  But I think humanity generally craves them enough that they can and will be fostered and magnified by example.



If I love you, I am going to care about your happiness and will be concerned when I see you choosing what seem like destructive beliefs and decisions.  I think we should be honest with each other.  But there are respectful, mutually beneficial ways to approaching those concerns, and there are tyrannical, stiffnecked, or defensive ways to approach them.  We know where we fundamentally disagree, and we're not likely to change each other's mind, especially not by reminding each other of disapproval at every opportunity without being ever willing to hear each other out.  And if I turn out to have been slightly short of full understanding of truth, or just plain wrong about someone's decisions, will I have destroyed good friendships to defend my own flawed understanding?  If I'm certain I'm right, and they're certain they're right, am I proud enough to staunchly believe I am the right one?  Am I arrogant enough to let that sense of righteousness alone justify behavior or treatment of others that I would consider wrong from anyone else?  No, and I don't think I have to.  I have my beliefs, but I don't know all things or the depths and breadth of anyone's heart and experience.  I try to keep this perspective ever present when approaching and having conversations about controversial or difficult subjects I might more easily rail against or rant about than attempt to understand.

That's why I think I'd change one lyric in this song: "We can debate til the end of time who's wrong and who is right, yet I can honor your choices and you can honor mine."

I believe that debate can only get us so far.  At some point, I think each of us has to accept that there's no way we can keep up with each other, or there's no way I can fully articulate every nuance of every thought and experience I have, let alone do it in a way that would be convincing to everyone or even anyone.  I may have a higher tolerance for tension and debate than others.  And I still do and will rant sometimes.  I do still think we can and should have productive, even if conflict-born, conversation.  But I will nonetheless commit and re-commit, and strive to honor your choices, even when I don't understand or agree with them (which is often, let's just be honest *wink*), and after some rigorous testing, I've found that even though in some cases we agree less than ever, I can generally expect the same of my truest friends, for which I'm grateful.

Move on...?

Maybe I just have writer's block. Maybe I'm just busy with work and my first and potentially only "real" relationship. Maybe I'm realizing I was never that good a writer, and the time for becoming a better writer has passed. Maybe I'm tired of telling my story and trying to get people seeing new angles. Maybe I just think I have nothing novel or useful to say in this way, and my openness in my personal life has superseded this blog in importance. Maybe it's just not my battle anymore, and I'm inclined to settle into further obscurity and live an even simpler, quieter life. Maybe I'm also afraid this battle and effort of outreach has been my most important or impacting legacy (though unlike many bloggers, I do NOT get fan mail with proclamations that my blog changed someone's life...which I like to think just means my readers are mostly already stable, healthy individuals *wink*), and I will feel less useful or influential if I'm not actively engaged in the battle, even if only through a piddly blog. Maybe I'm a little fish in a big pond, and I'm not invested or skilled enough to compete with or be of any real use to the big boys. *sigh* I guess angst and existential crises aren't entirely over. :-)

It gets better. ...If.

OK, it just gets better.  From adolescence, things get better even for the vast majority of those who could see no light at the end of the tunnel.  There are things that will happen totally without your effort, such as a gradual balancing of hormones.  Don't scoff: that's huge. ;-)  Environment will change.  Minds will adapt and open.  But for some, it might not happen readily, and it might not happen quickly, and it might not happen to any great degree.

But I think it will more likely get better if:

• you don't wait around for everything around you to change and magically "get better"
• you really work at emotional authenticity, honesty, and integrity
• you learn to separate true criticism from blind bigotry
• you talk with someone who can help you sort through things
• you are honest about who you are, starting with being honest to yourself, then to others with care
• you remove yourself, when possible and with good judgment, from abusive situations
• you refuse to be a victim of circumstance and start planning your response to your situation
• you carefully seek others who understand and have more than their own self interest in mind
• you figure out your options and prepare to choose
• you remind yourself that you have no idea what ten years from now will bring, and 50 years of happiness will be worth a few years of difficulty
• you consider your situation to be a challenge rather than an oppression
• you find the right medications to balance your chemical levels and bring you to a more optimal level of functioning
• you avoid enslaving your judgment and cognitive abilities to addictive substances
• you avoid enslaving your emotional fulfillment and stability to addictive or abusive behaviors
• you remember that there is so much more that makes you who you are, and foster the parts that make you feel productive and strong
• you take time to meditate, ponder, pray, or otherwise focus both inward and on something greater than yourself of which you are a part
• you keep in mind that you are not truly alone, even if you haven't yet found those who understand
• you make an effort to help others in their need, since you are not the only one struggling with something
• you don't push away all unpleasant conversations or questions out of fear of having to face something
• you work on recognizing that you are just as worthy of love and understanding as anyone
• you let people compliment you and consider and take in their feedback at least as much as the douchebag who doesn't actually know you
• you forgive others and know you are worthy of forgiveness
• you just hang in there long enough to let some of this stuff work out, even if it takes years.

Meanwhile, those of us in more stable, secure places will do our part to change the environment for you.  We will reach out to build understanding both ways.  We will watch for people struggling like you are.  We will work to give you a better playing field in which to work through whatever you need to work through.  We will listen.  We will offer our ears and shoulders at times.  But it will take time, we might not yet know how to change your environment, and we may not have time and strength to personally reach out to every one.  We're working on it, but in the meantime, until the world is a safer, more understanding place for you to work through whatever you're working through, or until you find someone else who clearly 'gets it' better than I do and can offer you hope in a way I can't despite wishing I knew how, the one with the most power for you is you.

It will probably get better, but you'll make it much more likely to get better if you work at making it better.  And I attest that it's worth the effort. I don't know you, I don't know every aspect of what you're going through, and I have different brain function, chemistry, family life, life experience, social placement, religious background, personality, and coping mechanisms than you do.  But I hope something here is helpful, and I do think you can make it better by working at it if you can find the strength to just begin to do so, to begin to trust that it could conceivably get better even if you can't see how right now.  Hang in there.

Where should 'don't say gay' stop?

Missouri 'Don't Mention Mormons' Bill: GOP Sponsors Wary Of 'Mormon Agenda'

Republican lawmakers in Missouri are defending their controversial bill to ban the teaching of religious philosophy in schools as a way to prevent students from learning about the "Mormon agenda," the "Christian conspiracy" and the occult.

A group of 20 Republican state representatives introduced the so-called "don't mention Mormons" bill last week to prevent the teaching of religious philosophy in public schools, with the exception of classes relating to the founding of America. Tennessee legislators have been debating a similar proposal.

"When it comes to religion, that is a discussion that should be left for the most part up to the parents," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Andrew Koenig (R-Winchester) told HuffPost. "It is a pretty political subject. I know there are a lot of parents that do not want the Mormon agenda taught in the schools."

Koenig said he has heard of what he called a "Mormon agenda" being taught in elementary school, but when questioned, said he did not know of specific incidents "off the top of my head."

"I have heard of instances with story books in grade school where it has come up," Koenig said. "You have Christians pushing an agenda, and you have Mormons pushing an agenda."

Koenig said he wants to amend the proposal to allow for the teaching of Mormon issues in current events classes.

State Rep. Steve Cookson (R-Fairdealing), the bill's principal author, was not available for comment. Cookson's assistant, Agnes Rackers, said Cookson rarely speaks to people from outside his southeastern Missouri district.

"He will probably not get around to calling you back since you are not in his district," Rackers told HuffPost.

A staffer in Tilley's office said he did not have time to speak until Wednesday afternoon.

House Small Business Committee Chairman Dwight Scharnhorst (R-St. Louis), a co-sponsor, said he believes religious issues should be taught by parents and clergy. Parents have been passing along responsibility for children to the public schools, Scharnhorst said.

Scharnhorst told HuffPost that teaching about Mormon issues would lead to other discussions. "There is no need to talk about Billy wanting to marry fifty women or become a god over his own planet," he said.

State Rep. Stephen Webber (D-Columbia), a leading opponent of the bill, said he is not surprised by its introduction because Missouri Republicans have been wanting to limit discussion of Mormon issues. Webber pointed to the defeat of his bill to ban discrimination based on religious affiliation for the past several years. He said that while some Republicans have privately expressed support for the bill, political concerns prevent them from voting for it.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have been pushing to add gun owners to the list of residents who cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. He said the presence of Republican leaders on the religious philosophy education bill sends a signal to him.

"It is not a fringe thing," Webber said of the legislation.

Koenig said he disagreed with the gun owners bill and Webber's legislation, saying that he believes the list of protected classes should not be made lengthy to avoid burdening the small business community. He said that it should be limited to racial and gender discrimination. Scharnhorst said he is against Webber's bill for similar reasons.

Koenig said he believes students being bullied because of their religious affiliation should be allowed to discuss it with counselors.

Scharnhorst stressed that his support of the bill should not be confused with his personal beliefs about the Mormon community.

"I'm not bigoted," he told HuffPost. "I have friends who are Mormon."

UPDATE: April 24, 11:46 a.m. -- State Rep. Steve Cookson released a statement Tuesday morning explaining his sponsorship of the "don't mention Mormons" bill and why he does not view it as discriminatory. He said that he believes the bill's intent has been misreported in the media and that the bill's purpose is to shift discussion of religion out of the schools.

"Many of the recent articles on HB 2051 have shifted focus away from the true intent of my legislation, which is meant to protect the moral values that are most important to Missouri families. In a time when our public schools continue to struggle financially, we want their focus to be solely on core education issues such as math, science and reading; and not on topics that are better left for discussion in the home at the discretion of parents," Cookson said in the statement.

"It's also important to point out that my bill does not target a particular religion but instead says instruction or materials related to any religious philosophy should not take place in our public schools. This would not prohibit a student struggling with his or her religious identity from talking to a school counselor or cause any of the other issues that have been misreported by the media. Instead it would simply ensure the focus of our public schools is on the curriculum parents expect their children to learn when they send them to school each day."


[This is an adapted version of: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/missouri-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1447121.html]





Tennessee lawmakers advance 'don't mention Mormons' bill


NASHVILLE – A bill to restrict teaching about Mormonism before high school cleared its first hurdle in the state House of Representatives, setting the stage for a second year of debate on the appropriate way to handle discussion about Latter-day Saints with schoolchildren.

The House Education subcommittee approved the so-called "Don't mention Mormons" bill on a voice vote Wednesday, renewing a debate that roiled the legislature last spring over whether elementary and middle schools should be allowed to initiate discussions about Mormonism.


Opponents say it will not curb talk about Mormonism among grade school kids but will send the signal that it should be stigmatized. But several lawmakers argued that it would protect parents' right to educate their children about their beliefs on their own terms.


"The basic right as an American is my right to life, my right to liberty and my right to the pursuit of happiness," said state Rep. John DeBerry, D-Memphis, arguing to keep the subject of Mormonism out of elementary school classrooms. "Within that includes being able to run my home, raise my children as I see fit and to indoctrinate them as I see fit."


The measure, labeled "Don't mention Mormons" by its opponents, has proved to be one of the most emotionally charged bills to go before the Tennessee legislature in recent years. Mormon groups have led opposition to the bill, but many Nashville high school students have turned out as well.


Several dozen students, many of them wearing white shirts and ties, lined the rows of seating in the hearing room Wednesday to show their disagreement with the measure. Their numbers led the subcommittee to relocate the hearing to a larger room.


"To me, they're sending a message that in society LDS people aren't really equal," said Thomas Kibby, a student at Hume-Fogg High School. "This law would be kind of moving backwards."


The bill's original sponsor, state Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, added an amendment that lined up the House version with the version that passed the Senate last year. He said the new wording should dispel "hysteria" that has surrounded the issue.


"What this amendment does is keep us in line with current curriculum," he said. "This bill, if amended, does not prohibit the use of the word 'Mormon,' it does not change the anti-bullying statute, and it does not prohibit a school guidance counselor from discussing the issues of spirituality with a student."


The Rev. Thomas Kleinert, pastor of Vine Street Christian Church in Nashville, said the bill would discourage discussions about a subject that children hear about constantly.


"Our children have to deal with that complexity long before they've reached sufficient maturity," he said. "Silence in the classroom only adds to the cloak of pain and shame, whereas open, age-appropriate conversation may give them a chance and the courage to talk to an adult they trust."


Supporters alluded to the emotion of the issue, but they said the principle at stake was ensuring that children receive appropriate instruction in a publicly funded setting.


"We put 'phobia' on the end of words, and then we automatically demonize someone who has an opposing view," DeBerry said. "What this bill does is it says everybody has the right to train their children."


[This is an adapted version of: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-16/tennessee-bill-homosexuality/53116470/1]