The Musings of a Confused Man

On one of the message boards I'm on, someone did something that somewhat annoyed me. I don't think she (I think the person is a woman....) meant it the way I took it, mind you. She was just trying to stir up discussion. There are people who like doing that.

Basically, she started out asking for people's views on homosexuality and bisexuality. Nothing unusual about that, I grant you. It's a common topic that pops up semi-frequently on most message boards I frequent. And I really don't mind it, other than the fact that it gets a bit boring to have the same conversation after about the fifth time. (And bear in mind that I had that conversation for the fifth time almost a decade ago....)

But then she went on to ask if anyone on the message board had a same-sex lover. In reality, I suppose it's an innocent enough question. I'm sure that the person who asked it didn't mean anything nefarious by it. But it bothered me, all the same.

I guess what bothers me is that it took the discussion from the hypothetical to the highly personal. She wasn't looking to find out what people thought about same sex relationships, she was no looking to find out about real same sex relationships. I know she didn't mean it that way, but it just felt like she was now saying, "does anyone here have a same sex relationship I can examine?"

I'm reminded of a comment made by Ellen DeGeneris (I probably butchered her name, I admit) on her first sitcom during its last season. One of her friends actually "outted" her to a couple of strangers. Afterwards, Ellen scolded him about this. She said that she didn't like it when strangers found out she was a lesbian, because they often made her feel like she was a tourist attraction once they found out. "Look! The lesbian! Oooh! Get a picture!"

Truth be told, I've been there is a sense at times. At my last job -- where I was much more public about my sexual orientation -- I had a coworker who tended to see me as a curiosity to learn about. He'd often ask rather personal questions about my love life (or lack thereof at the time) and interests. I often felt like I was on display, or part of some sort of science experiment.

I know that this would probably surprise some of my friends -- even some of my online friends -- considering how plainly and openly I'll discuss my love life and sexual interests and desires with them. But all I can say to that is that it's different. With certain friends, you manage to build a certain level of trust and intimacy where you can talk about such things. There's that sense that you're sharing with someone who cares. I can easily share many personal things -- both seriously and with a cavelier, joking attitude -- with those I feel close to.

But I don't have that with everyone. I don't have that with my coworkers. And I don't have it with most people on a message board. So I guess when someone starts asking about my love life -- especially as a "matter of curiosity" -- in such a public setting, it tends to bother me. Not that I think the person meant any offense by it. In fact, I didn't take any offense by it. It's possible to be bothered by something without actually being offended. (As I think about this statement, I realize that a lot of people don't actually realize that.)

So, I kept quiet.

Tonight, I was snooping through my old files that I pulled off my old computer just before I gave it away. And I found something that I had written quite a few years ago. I'm not sure whether I originally wrote it in 1997 or 1998. I figured I'd post it here for old times sake. Perhaps another time, I'll look through it and see how much my attituded have changed since writing this.

For the first time ever, I watched the show "Thirty Days" tonight. My friend Beth told me about it, and I wanted to check it out. I particularly wanted to watch tonight's episode, as it was about a young (mid-twenties) conservative Christian from Detroit who went to live with a gay roommate in the middle of San Francisco's Castro District for thirty days. I was pleasantly surprised by the show, and I wanted to take a few moments to review and critique it.

To be honest, when I originally heard about the details, I wasn't entirely thrilled. I took issue with sending the guy to San Francisco. San Francisco is the "gay mecca" of the United States, and as such, I don't feel it's a very accurate representation of the lives of most gay people. Those of us wholive outside of San Francisco (and possibly NYC) tend to live more isolated lives and have to deal more directly with straight people much more often. As such, I wasn't sure that sending someone to San Francisco was the best way to give them a clear view of what it's like to live life as a gay man.

Having watched the show, I have to admit that I find it necessary to reevaluate my opinion. An essential byproduct of sending Ryan to live in the Castro District was that it caused Ryan to be the one who was isolated. He was a straight, conservative Christian surrounded by a bunch of gay guys. If Ryan really thinks about that experience (and I get the impression he did and will), it probably gave him a much more clear idea of what many of us experience every day than we realize. This understanding would come to him by being in an analogous situation himself.

He got a first taste of this kind of experience his first night in town. Ed, Ryan's thirty-something roommate for the month, took him to dinner with eleven other gay guys. Having watched the footage, I have to admit that I hope the dinner conversation was highly edited. Every conversation focused on homosexuality and issues relating to it. And in a number of instances, the twelve gay guys put Ryan a bit on the defensive. (I have to admit that Ryan handled himself relatively well under the circumstances, too.) At one point, one of the gay guys even asked Ryan about how many times he's had people on the street throw beer cans at him. Ryan said never, and the person who asked the question indicated that it had happened to him more than once.

While there, Ryan also attended MCC services on at least two Sundays and had a number of meeting with the minister. To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed with this part of the program. If what I saw was an accurate representation of the MCC, I don't think I'd be impressed at all. They aired brief segments from two of the services that Ryan attended, and both services went on about homosexuality. If this is a regular practice at every church service, I would have a serious problem with that, as there should be more to religion and spirituality than just sexuality. (And this is coming from someone who serves a goddess who values sexuality extremely highly!) Similarly, Ryan's meetings with the minister appeared to focus entirely on the topic of homosexuality, and there was a lot of head-butting there. It just seemed to me that there should have been an equal amount of searching for common ground as there was in arguing over this one topic. (Though I do give them credit for apparently keeping it more or less civil.)

They took Ryan to a gay bar. Let me just say "Wow!" Ryan did not find that the greatest of experiences, and I can't say as I completely blame him. There were a large number of barely dressed men (some looked to me as if they were running around in only briefs), and it definitely had the "meat market atmosphere" -- even moreso than the two clubs I have been to. One of the patrons picked a (verbal) fight with Ryan, which I felt was rather stupid. Though on the flip side, having had conservative people pick similar kinds of fights with me, I do have to admit that I felt it wasn't an entirely bad thing for Ryan to have to experience.

After that, Ed felt that Ryan was getting too frustrated and upset. So Ed took Ryan to join a gay softball team. I found it interesting that the team actually played in a league where all the other teams were (mostly?) straight. It was nice to see that the team wasn't totally isolationist in nature, and played teams that were not all-gay.

During his time playing softball, Ryan got to spend time with his team's coach, Charles. Ryan gained a lot of respect for Charles, realizing that he broke all of the gay stereotypes. And later, Ryan got to hear Charles's coming out story. Charles was one of those (hopefully) rare people who actually got thrown out of his house by his parents (he was 12 at the time) when he came out. Charles also indicated that at the time, he was highly religious and "went to bed every night, praying to wake up and be 'normal' the next morning." Ryan was very silent about this, and I think this story really confronted some of his own preconceived notions.

Ryan did make a few enemies at the local "gay chapter" of the VFW. Being a Reservice, Ryan has strong opinions on gays in the military. This did not go over well with the veterans he was speaking with. Both sides got quite upset. However, it did lead to an interesting discussion with Ed later that same day. When he got back to the apartment, Ryan and Ed talked about it. Ryan asked Ed to try to understand why a bunch of straight soldiers might have a problem with having a gay guy in the barracks. (Personally, I think straight guys have a problem with it because they're afraid gay guys will treat them as poorly as they themselves treat women, but that's besides the point.) Ed then turned around and asked Ryan about a hypothetical question. He asked Ryan to suppose that things went really bad in teh Middle East and that the United States found themselves at war with the whole region. This would probably mean that they'd have to reinstate the draft. So Ed asked Ryan to suppose that he (Ed) was drafted and ended up in Ryan's unit to serve during war. He asked Ryan whether he'd rather put up with Ed as a gay man serving with him or possibly not having enough manpower beside him to keep him and the rest of his unit safe.

Ryan actually admitted that he had to contradict himself. He admitted that having gotten to know Ed as a person over the past several days, he'd have no problem serving with him specifically. In fact, Ryan admitted that he felt that Ed had a lot to offer the military. As such, Ryan found himself having to reevaluate his blanket statement about gays in the military, and I respect him for having the integrity to admit that.

Ed also took Ryan to meet his family, which was an eye opening experience. While there, all of the men (Ryan, Ed, Ed's father, and Ed's brother) shot firearms. In a brief interview afterwards, Ryan admitted that it gave him a chance to see Ed as not just a gay guy but a brother, a son, and an uncle. And he was amazed at how his family treated him.

Ryan also attended a PFLAG meeting, where he got to talk to a father whose daughter came out to him her sophomore year in college. He got to listen to this father talk about his fears and worries, and his desire to see his daughter treated with the same respect and dignity a her two straight brothers. Ryan said this also touched his heart.

There was a lot more that happened, but I'm not going to go into everything. These are the experiences that really struck me, and I wanted to share them, as well as my brief thoughts in them. In closing, I'd like to talk about the brief segment in the show where Ryan eventually went home. He spent his first night home showing photos to his family and talking about his experiences. They only showed about thirty seconds to a minute of the discussion, but it was amazing to watch. His family asked all kinds of questions, and it seemed to me that Ryan was a bit troubled and shocked by the questions. Ryan himself admitted that when he got home and talked with his family that night, he really saw how much he had grown. He saw his own earlier attitudes and how much he had bought into the stereotypes reflected in his family now. He said that realizing how much he had bought into the stereotypes was the most powerful result of the experience. He found himself having to reevaluate his opinions.

I get the impression that his religious beliefs about homosexuality didn't change as a result. To be honest, that's okay (well, sorta). It would be unreasonable to expect such a change to happen just because of a thirty day experience. However, I did feel that he came away with a rather different perspective and that he did find his preconceived notions challenged in many ways. And I think that he should be commended to being open to that.

A couple weeks ago, I was looking through my old diary entries. I ran across an "unsent letter" I wrote to my ex, Zech. In it, I talked about my relationship with Mike. I decided I wanted to go back and comment on what I said there, considering how things with Mike finally ended up. Excerpts from the original letter are in italics, while my new thoughts will be in normal text.

I'm dating a wonderful guy now. His name is Mike.

Ah yes. These were "the good old days" when I actually thought Mike was a catch. (Actually, I wrote the original letter almost a full year before I broke up with Mike.) My opinion has changed since then. Funny thing is, I probably am having more fond thoughts of Zech right now than of Mike. That's a scary thought, in some ways. Mike and I had our issues, but the "relationship" with Zech was just one huge mess. So you'd almost think that I'd have less fondness for Zech.

I suppose the fact that it's been over seven years since Zech and I broke up, time has healed those wounds. Compare that to the fact that it's only been six months since I told Mike I didn't want him in my life any more, and I suppose that's understandable. But I think there's more to it than that. Zech and I had real issues back then, both individually and as a couple. And in Zech's case, I can cut him some slack due to the fact that he was a lot younger -- not even twenty yet. In comparison, Mike's turning thirty in January. Being that old and still thinking it's perfectly reasonable to tell someone, "You mean the world to me, but I'm not going to do anything to meet your emotional needs because it'll require me to accept some personal discomfort" is unthinkable. So in that sense, I think he deserves my contempt.

But I'm slowly learning something. There's a huge difference between you and Mike.

Unfortunately, I'm also learning there were a lot of similarities between them, too. It's ironic that I spent so much time teaching myself to not react to Mike out of my issues with Zech, only to find out there really were some things they had in common. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad I went through that process anyway. I did need to learn that not everyone was exactly like Zech.

But in the end, both of my exes were wrapped up in their own little worlds. They were too busy trying to keep their worlds so perfectly balanced, that they were willing to sacrifice my needs and feelings if it came to it. Perhaps Mike wasn't as dastardly about it, but does that make it any better? And besides, he also should've known better.

In retrospect, I think I've decided to re-make my rule against not dating guys who are still "in the closet" -- at least to their family. I made that rule after Zech and broke it when dating Mike. When Mike and I started going together, I told him about my reservations. But I went ahead on the grounds that he was otherwise wonderful and he promised me that he'd make sure that the fact that his friends and family didn't know about his sexual orientation wouldn't get in the way. He broke that promise. And I'm now convinced that when push comes to shove, most guys in the closet will break that promise. So if they're not ready to be honest with their family, they deserve a pass in the realm of relationships. They're just not ready.

Earlier this morning, I realized that it was April 1. I then realized that it was April 1, 2006. That's exactly ten years after April 1, 1996. For those who might not be aware of it, April 1, 1996 was the day that I quit trying to "fix" my sexuality, and came out to both myself and my friend Merion. That means that as of about 8pm this evening, I have been "out" for ten years. So happy anniversary to me!

I'm not big on commemorating "life changing moments" every year. But for some reason, remembering my tenth coming out anniversary struck me as important today, so I thought I'd say a few things about it.

First of all, let me just reiterate that if you're about to come out to your best friend and you find yourself prefacing your announcement with the phrase, "Please bear in mind this isn't an April Fool's joke," you've probably chosen a bad day to come out. It's something that Merion and I have joked about every so often for the past ten years.

I remember that night with some amazing details. I remember meeting Merion in the small alcove where our Small Group Bible Study (the one I was helping to lead and that Merion used to attend) met on Wednesday night. My stomach was all in knots and I think I was visibly shaking. It took me several long moments of hesitation to get the words out. I had a certain feeling like this was it. Once I took this step, there was no going back. And it's hard to jump off the proverbial cliff like that. Ultimately, I'm glad I did and I've hardly looked back since, but my perspective was quite different back then.

Merion was momentarily stunned. I'm not sure whether she wasn't expecting it (if so, she may well be the only person who hadn't at least suspected something was up by then) or if she was just so surprised that I decided to tell her. She did tell me she was honored that I told her, which I sort of understand all of these years later. To me, it only made sense at the time. After all, she had come out to me the previous year.

I think that part of the reason thinking back to this event ten years ago is that it was my first "big change." Considering the number of changes I've been through in the last ten years -- including several changes in the past year -- thinking back to the event that "got the ball rolling," seems appropriate. I mean, on March 31, 1996, I was a "straight" (okay, that's not entirely true, but that's another complicated topic) evangelical Christian with highly conservative political leanings. The next day, I officially took the first step towards becoming the person I am today, a gay witch with a mostly left-leaning political outlook. Had you asked me back then if I ever thought I'd be where I am today, I think I would've laughed. Maybe even offended.

Isn't life strange?

I just finished watching Dorian Blues. It's a curious movie that I had never heard of until I ran across it in Blockbuster's tonight. I have to say that I'm glad I rented it, as it was well worth watching.

The movie centers on Dorian, a young man who discovers he's gay and attempts to deal with his self-discovery in light of his less than supportive family. The movie takes us through his senior year at college, his conversations with his therapist, his first sexual experience, his coming out experience, his first relationship in college, the eventual breakup, and the resulting depression. All through these experiences, Dorian consistently demonstrates himself an intelligent and wonderful man, held down by past hurts and his unwillingness to let them go.

Most of Dorian's problems stem from his relationship with his father, an overly demanding man whose general displeasure with his older son only became more intense when Dorian came out to him. This situation was further exacerbated by a mother who would do anything to avoid a confrontation and a younger brother, Nick, who loved Dorian but was constantly held up by their father as the "perfect" son, who Dorian should strive to be more like. This of course, created a strain in the two brothers' relationship, though the two tried their best to support each other in their own way. This emotional baggage weight down Dorian in every aspect of his life, causing him to be bitter and edgy. This cost him more than one friend and even the perfect relationship.

In the end, Dorian and Nick -- who had been visiting his older brother at NYU -- end up making the trip back home to attend their father's funeral. Their father had died of a heart attack due to stress -- most likely due to the fact that Nick had been cut from Syracuse University's football team earlier that week and had therefore lost his scholarship.

The bes scene of the movie was the conversation between Dorian and his mother outside the church just before his father's funeral. In it, his mother confronts her son about the fact that he had become mean and disapproving lik his father. She tells him, "I want you to be a good man, despite the fact that your father was never good to you...and your mother never stood up to him and made him stop."

I cannot express how appropriate this theme is. Far too often, coming to term with one's sexual orientation is the easy part. The hard part is learning to let go of all of those past hurts and fears, as well as the defense mechanisms and bitterness that we tend to build up in the process. Learning to let go of these things so that they don't continue to affect our current lives is a painful and difficult process. Watching this movie enabled me to revisit this lesson, identify with Dorian's character, and experience this letting go process one more time.

And I have to admit that scene where Dorian is franticly brushing his teeth was well worth a laugh.

Apparently, I started an unplanned tradition when I wrote my previous review of the movie, Dorian Blues a couple weeks ago. This past weekend, I decided to watch the 2005 movie, FAQs, and I find myself with the desire to similarly review it.

First of all, let me just say that producer Everett Lewis did an excellent job in this movie. It's a truly moving tale about a group of gay men (and one young lesbian, though she plays such a bit part, unfortunately) trying to not only survive in the face of the hate directed towards them, but to be themselves and thrive because of it. India -- a young man living on the streets of LA after his homophobic parents disowned him -- is rescued from a pair of gaybashers by an old drag queen, Destiny. Destiny gives India a home and begins to teach him to protect, love, and respect himself. Destiny, India, and Lester (a young lesbian Destiny similarly saved and "adopted" in years past) are soon joined by Spencer, who becomes India's main love interest in throughout the rest of the movie. The plot of the movie then revolves around the dual themes of "saving" India's would-be bashers (who turn out to be closeted queers themselves) and India trying to convince Spencer to give up on his plan to kill his parents, who had abused him until he ran away. These dual themes perfectly frame the central message of the film: Love conquers all if you just give it a chance. One of my favorite quotes from the movie was when India tells Spencer, "Our kisses are like bombs going off in the straight world."

Of course, the movie itself had plenty of "bombs." There are several highly erotic scenes in which various boys are shown caressing, kissing, and rubbing up against one another. And while no genital contact is shown (though there are a few scenes involving full frontal nudity in non-sexual settings), I imagine that this might be a bit "explosive" for some viewers. (Personally, as someone who often wryly jokes about "gratuitous straight sex scenes" in most movies, I found it a nice change.)

One of the problems that I had with this movie, however, was that it was too optimistic. There were several potentially dangerous scenes (some of which were created by an overly-optimistic India who tended to make unwise decisions) in which someone could have died, yet everyone made it through the movie virtually unscathed. The particular scene which bothered me was when Quentin -- one of the bashers from the start of the movie -- shows up at the boys' home with a gun after having gotten their address off his answering machine from a message India told Guy to leave. Considering that the movie had been building up a highly distrought Quentin -- who not only held a gun under his chin at one point, but also was shown firing said gun at a roadside sign fantasizing about killing his former friend "turned fag" -- it just seemed like a poor climax. It also sends the message that doing something stupid like giving your home address to a known basher -- even one you think is really gay and needs to be "saved from himself" -- is okay. It's not. It's dangerous, and it's stupid. So Lewis gets points taken off for being too optimistic and implicitly encouraging needless and foolish risk-taking.

In closing, I would like to say that I particularly liked the final scene. Without giving too much away, I will just say that I found it appropriately cyclical.

This past weeken, I watched Lattere Days. This is a tale about a gay man, Christian, living in Los Angeles who meets, sets out to bed, and eventually falls in love with anotehr young man by the name of Aaron. Of course, Christian's plans are complicated by the fact that Aaron is a missionary for the LDS church, just starting his two year mission.

The remarkable part about this movie is that it's not just a movie about a young man from a religiously conservative background coming to terms with his sexual orientation and being excommunicated from his church (and presumably biological) family. This is also a movie wherein a cynical and superficial gay man begins to take a closer look at his own life and initiates a search to give it deeper meaning. In effect, this movie seeks to strike the balance between criticizing harmful repression and taking an honest look at the emptiness that can come from the superficiality we sometimes fall into while trying to escape the latter. In effect, both boys face their own demons as a result of coming into each others lives.

The scenes between Aaron and his mother after he's found out and sent home are well done. Particularly, the scene where Aaron challenges his mother to actually look at him is quite incredible, and something that I think most gay people with religiously (or otherwise) conservative parents can appreciate on some level. Of course, even Aaron's mother has her moment, when confronted with Christian's act of love in coming to Idaho just to tell her how sorry he is for the loss of her son (at this point, Christian was falsely led to believe that Aaron had committed suicide).

This was truly a touching movie, and one I think many people will be able to connect with on one level or another.

Last Monday while shopping at OUTlandish Gifts, I bought a white tee shirt with "2QT2BSTR8" on the front of it. Today was the second day I've warn it. I have to admit that I've been enjoying people's reactions. Surprisingly (at least to me), a lot of people have to ask what it means ("Too cute to be straight," if anyone is wondering"). What's really funny is to watch how people react once I tell them. I think the most memorable incident was today with the guy at the T Mobile kiosk. Once he found out, his expression really changed. I somewhat got the impression that he wanted to make a negative comment about it. However, he also seemed to be struggling with the knowledge that he was in a bad position to do so, considering (a) he had originally asked me to stop just so he could read the shirt and (b) he still had to ask me what it means. It's kind of hard to complain about someone "flaunting" his sexuality when you've gone through so much effort to figure out that he's "flaunting" it. ;)

I didn't get the shirt with the intentions of making such political statements, though. While it's true that I got it to make my sexual orientation more visible, I did it for personal and romantic reasons rather than political ones. Truth be told, I don't feel I'm visible enough. And as I'd eventually like another chance at love without having to force myself to suffer through going to gay clubs, I need to find other ways to let the guys know I'm out there. Besides, I know from personal experience how difficult it is to even consider expressing interest in another guy if you're not even sure if he's gay (and how emotionally upsetting it is if you finally get up the courage to find out only to find ot he's not). So I figure I'll save any guy who's interested in me that bit of trouble.

There's another reason I got it, and this one is at least partly political. I got it as much for the part about being cute as I did for the part about being gay. In some ways, I'm currently at a point where I feel the need to express my own attractiveness despite not fitting some stereotype about what good looking guys are supposed to look like. So to me, wearing the shirt is about giving myself (and others) permission to think of me as "cute."

Yesterday, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs who were suing for same-sex marriage rights. The full test of the ruling is available online, and I encourage everyone to read it for themselves. I also highly recommend that anyone interested check out the analysis of this ruling that was provided by Tin Man. (I also recommend his other blog posts on the same topic.) His legal background makes his ability to criticize the flaws in this ruling far superior to my own. So instead of putting my own thoughts (which in many ways run similar to the Tin Man's anyways, but wouldn't be nearly as complete or cohesive), I'll let those with a better grasp of the topic handle that.

However, I do wish to focus on one aspect of this ruling that bothers me. It can be found in the following sentence, taken from page 6 (according to the statements own page numbering scheme; page 9 according to Acrobat Reader) of the ruling:

It [the legislature] could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

I find myself wondering if the justices who penned this wording have looked at any statistics that cover the divorce rate lately. The idea that getting married "creates" stability and permanence in a relationship is patently absurd. The only thing that keeps a relationship stable and permanent is when those involved in the relationship not only make the commitment to do so, but lack the integrity and self-discipline to keep that commitment.

Contrary to what these justices are suggesting, no amount of "inducements" will ever replace that commitment, integrity, and self-discipline. Inducements will only make "fair weather relationships" last a little bit longer. But in the end, if the real glue that keeps a relationship hold together is still lacking, the weather will get too rough even with the inducements. And when that happens, the whole illusion will become unravelled.

Those who believe in the sacred nature of marriage should be outraged by this part of the ruling. The justices who penned this have made a mockery of their belief in that sacred nature by suggesting that marriage and marriage benefits are little more than "bribes" being offered to people without integrity or discipline to keep the commitments they won't keep on their own. As someone who holds marriage -- and relationships in general -- as sacred, I know I'm outraged.

I originally wrote this for Writers On The Loose. I decided to cross-post it here to my own blog.

Yesterday, Zjabs wrote a column in which he linked to an L.A. Times article about a study suggesting a link between birth order amongst males born to the same mother and the probability that each male would be gay. Given my own recent column on the origins of sexual orientation, I thought it appropriate to take a closer look at the study. To that effect, I did a Google search and found a reprint of the researcher's own write-up on the study. I would encourage anyone who is interested in this topic at all to take the time to read this more scientific article, as it provides a lot more details and gives more clarity as to exactly what conclusions can and can not be reached from this study.

To that effect, I think that Ms. Kaplan, the author of the L.A. Times article, has done the study a great disservice. In the very first part of the article, she suggests, "A mother's antibodies may change with each boy, raising chances the next will be homosexual." In including this statement in her article at the outset, Ms. Kaplan gives the impression that this is the conclusion reached in Bogaert's study. This is entirely untrue. While it is true that Bogaert mentions this possibility, he also makes it clear that this is merely speculation on one possible explanation behind the real conclusion of his study. Indeed, Bogaert indicates that there is no direct evidence at this time to support maternal antibodies as a contributing factor in sexual orientation. So in this sense, Ms. Kaplan has run out ahead of the scientists she is talking about.

To be clear, Bogaert's study is simply a statistical analysis of data on four sample sets of men. The relevant data concerned ages of the participants' mothers at the time of their birth, the number of older and younger siblings of each sex they had, and the amount of time they were reared with each sibling as children. The study also incidated whether each sibling was a "biological" sibling (birthed by the same mother) or a "non-biological" sibling. This data was run through a number of statistical analyses to see if there was any strong correlation between a number of factors and the sexual orientation of the men. The only strong correlation found was that, statistically speaking, men who had a large number of older biological brothers were more likely to be gay.

In order to further determine whether this correlation was due to prenatal factors involved in the birth order or some other factors (such as the number of brothers raised with), Bogaert included a number of other factors in his statistical analysis. Bogaert spends a good deal of time explaining the rationale he used in determing what factors to analyze in order to exclude post-natal explanations, and I would direct everyone to his write-up for that information rather than trying to reproduce it here. I will say, however, that I found his approach rather thorough.

It is important to understand that what Bogaert's analysis shows is that (1) there is an apparent link between birth order amongst biological brothers and the probability that each of them will be gay and (2) that link appears to be related to pre-natal factors (such as the speculation about the mother's antibodies during pregnancy) rather than post-natal ones (such as childrearing factors or the psychological effects of interractions between brothers). It in no way casts any light on the subject of what that pre-natal factor (or factors, as there's no reason to assume there's only one factor involved). Indeed, Bogaert indicates that this is an area of research for other people -- most likely those in the fields of biology and chemistry -- and even cites some research being done in that area.

Bogaert's statistical analysis itself will need to be examined more closely and duplicated. Most likely, further such analyses will need to be done to expand this study and address any gaps or methodological errors in it. Indeed, this study itself is a follow-up study of a previous one Bogaert had done along the same lines. So any attempt to read this particular study as "final proof" would be a tragic misunderstanding of the research process. Nonetheless, this study is vital in that it strongly indicates a valuable area for further research.

I'm not sure how many people read this blog any more. I know I've been silent for almost a month now. To be honest, I've logged in to write something several times since my last entry, but have never been able to get past the blank textbox.

This is one of those cases where many aspects of my life have caused me to turn inward, to work on projects and go through things that I'm not ready to post about yet. There's just so much going on that still needs to be worked out in the stillness of my own mind before broadcast to the world, and as such, I leave what readers I may have wondering what's going on.

What I can say is that my spiritual life is getting rather interesting right now. There are certain things that I need to work on and certain changes in my life that I'm making in order to prepare for the "next big step." At some point, I hope to talk about some of that. But for now, I must leave it at this simple teaser.

I'm also working on a writing project, which I have several guides telling me will eventually coalesce into a publishable book. However, I'm in the very early stages of that process. Currently, I'm at the point where the project involves me spending regular times with a separate journal (as opposed to my "everyday" one) and writing about past experiences, people, and choices that I can remember, and my emotional reactions to them. It's been both a rewarding and trying process, as not all of the memories or the realizations related to them are entirely comfortable. They're not exactly painful, either. But they take a bit of processing at times.

One of the interesting things is that as I continue with this project, I find myself remembering little things that I had completely forgotten about, things that I haven't thought about in a decade or more. That in itself can be a bit shocking. Of course, on the flip side, it's also nice to suddenly discover that I have more memories of my life before high school than I might've thought. They're just there waiting to be found.

Of course, a side effect of this process is that I find myself growing nostalgiac. I find myself wondering what ever happened to old friends, old school chums, and even an old lover or two. I find myself wondering what kind of people they are today. After all, it's been at least a decade since I've seen some of them.

You can't go home again. But at least you can visit. Even if only in your mind.

My friend, James, once commented to me that in our society, masculinity is a terribly fragile thing. To underscore his point, he offered an example: “If a guy likes flowers, it’s automatically assumed he’s gay.” I’m certainly inclined to agree with James on his observation, but I also have to admit that I find myself wondering what being gay has to do with one’s masculinity. After all, I’m gay, and I consider myself 100% male. My masculinity is not up to debate.

Because of this conversation, I started wondering why this idea that gays are inherently “not masculine” comes from. And while I considered all of the stereotypes which are the source of James’s lament, I decided that the matter had to go deeper than that. So I dug deeper, and realized that the real issue is deeply routed in how our society – and especially the men in it – have viewed sex in general over the past few decades.

Sex and sexual prowess has been the primary determination of a man’s masculinity for quite some time, now. Indeed, the only other factor of masculinity that even comes close to degree of importance is athleticism and physical strength. To comfirm this, one merely needs to go back to the high school locker room and pay attention to the two things that teenage boys brag to each other about: How great they did at the last game and what girl they “bagged” over the weekend.

When you look at it from the most common view in our society, sex is all about the man. The man is the active partner, doing his thing to the woman, who is often seen as just laying there and letting him go at it. If she gets any pleasure from the experience, that’s fine. But even her pleasure is often seen merely as a sign of the man’s prowess and ability in bed. After all, anyone who watched the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine tells Jerry that she always faked orgasm whenever the two of them had sex knows that Jerry was far more concerned about how this demonstrated a lack of his own skill in bed than any sincere concern for Elaine’s lack of pleasure. Based on my own observations and conversations with people, I think it is safe to say that this is a clear case of television portraying a strong cultural trend.

But obviously, this paradigm only works when the sexual activity in question involves both a man and a woman. When you introduce a sexual situation which only involves men, this paradigm less becomes comfortable. Suddenly, rather than the activity being all about the man and the woman being a more-or-less passive participant, you have two men. Under this paradigm – and it is only natural for us to try and squeeze any situation into our current paradigm because we are comfortable with it – you are left with the problem that suddenly, one of the men must become passive and let it be all about the other man. Suddenly, a man has to subject himself to the needs and whims of another. This is a scenario that most men in our society cannot comprehend, and it makes them uncomfortable.

This passivity is something which men in our society have been taught to avoid as a rule. Indeed, in this sense, the idea of passively submitting to another man’s sexual prowess also collides with the competitive, athletic, and physical strength components of our understanding of masculinity.

Interestingly, some society’s – and even some segments of our own society – have dealt with this dissonance to some degree by only ostracizing gay men who take on the “passive” role in male-to-male sex. In our society, you can see this by the fact that many men seem to be disgusted by the idea of “taking it up the ass,” but remain relatively quiet about having anal sex with a receptive partner – male or female.

The solution to this, of course, is to develop a new paradigm of human sexuality that does not rely so heavily on a strict dichotomy between passive partners and active partners, as well as coming to appreciate the importance of a receptive – be it actively receptive or passively receptive – role in sex. Not only will this help undo the divide between masculinity and homosexuality, but it will force us to further explore a broader and deeper understanding of masculinity.

I recently discovered Seething Mom's blog. I've enjoyed reading her thoughts, and particularly loved her testimony concerning how she found out her son was gay because of an essay he had written two years earlier. Their stories, both as individuals and as a family, are moving and easy to identify with.

However, this entry is actually inspired by another post Seething Mom wrote, this one about her reaction to hearing Rush Limbaugh point out that a test to determine if an unborn baby was gay might lead parents to have an abortion. Her reaction was quite powerful, heartfelt, and completely understandable. Indeed, the very idea fills me with similar feelings. I've even also considered that even many parents who choose to have the child might take this knowledge as an opportunity to get their child into reparative therapy as soon as possible to overcome their natural sexual orientation, a possibility that I find equally disturbing.

But as I thought about testing fetuses for sexual orientation, I considered a more hopeful possibility, too. I think it stems from spending the last ten (nearly eleven now) years thinking about the difficulties I went through when coming to terms with my sexual orientation and realizing how much of those difficulties were unnecessary, if only I or others around me had made different choices. Because of those thoughts, I find myself thinking of what a parent who is both loving and supportive could accomplish if they knew right from the start that their child would be gay. I find myself thinking of how they could prepare for those challenges that might come up, or even find ways to get around them.

I think of my own experiences when I first started learning about sex. In the time and place I grew up, there was no talk of including "alternative lifestyles" in the sex education curriculum. Sex education consisted of explaining the mechanice of vaginal intercourse and the process of sexual reproduction. That was it. So those of us who were gay were left out in the cold, wondering what we were supposed to do. Indeed, we had to first even learn that there was such a thing as being gay before we could even find out what it meant or what to do about it. Instead, we were left wondering what was wrong with us and why were weren't "normal," like the rest of our classmates.

This is the reason why some schools are updating their curriculum (or why some individuals and groups are trying to convince schools to do so) to at least mention about the other possibilities. But imagine if a child's parent already knows their child will need to know about those alternatives? I can envision a conversation that goes something like this:

Johnny: We talked about sex in school today.

Mom: Really? What did they tell you?

Johnny: Well, they talked about how a boy sticks, well you know, into a girl to make a baby.

Mom: I see. And what do you think of that?

Johnny: Well, I don't know....

Mom: It didn't seem right to you, did it?

Johnny: Well, I don't know. I just can't imagine doing that. I mean, all the other guys seemed to be fascinated by it. But it seemed weird to me, like I wouldn't want to do it.

Mom: Well, you know, not everyone likes that kind of sex.

Johnny: Really?

Mom: Really. Not all guys like to be with a woman. In fact, I think we need to talk more about this. There's something I've been waiting to talk with you about...

Imagine the months or years of confusion and inner turmoil Johnny's mother could spare him. Imagine how well equipped she would be to deal with those times when Johnny's peers teased him for being gay. Rather than wondering why Johnny's having such a hard time in school because he won't tell her what's really going on, her knowledge can prepare her so that already she has a good idea of what might be going on.

The possibilities of how a loving and supportive parent could make a gay child's life that much easier simply by knowing about their child's sexual orientation ahead of time are endless. And while I certainly wouldn't change a thing about my past, even to go back and make them easier (after all, they made me the person I am today), I'm all for making the next kid's journey through the coming out process easier than mine was.

Today, I ran across a small story about homophobic vandalism over at Pam's. One thing ran across my mind as I looked at the photographs of the obscenities someone chose to paint on the bus in question. I'm amazed at just how juvenile the whole thing is. I find myself wondering if the "vandals" are any older than schoolyard boys I hung out with back in fifth grade. Quite frankly, these obscenities sound like the kinds of things my early classmates would've blurted out to show how "cool" and "knowledgeable" they were.

To be honest, I find myself hoping that the vandals in this incident were a bunch of fifth graders. Because the only other possibility -- that they were a small gang of adults who think and behave like fifth graders -- is just too disturbing for words. I've met some immature people in my life, but that would just beat all.

Of course, this whole incident also got me thinking back to the recent circus over Ann Coulter's questionable remark about John Edwards. To me, this is another clear case of someone acting juvenile. In fact, I can almost hear those same schoolyard boys chuckling over the fact that using a word like "faggot" to describe someone is humorously insulting. I find myself wondering if there are any homophobes that somehow managed to develop emotionally past the onset of puberty.

To be honest, it's hard to take such people seriously. It's difficult to look at them as anything other than schoolyard children (and the worst kind of schoolyard children at that) who have not managed to grow up despite having grown older. And as I consider that, I realize that I actually pity them.

The other evening, a friend and I got into a discussion about coming out. He remarked that he had met a number of older gay men who seemed to be of the opinion that coming out makes all of the struggles with one's gayness disappear, or at least become insignificant. He told me that this attitude bothered him, because he didn't feel that was the case at all. Listening to him, I found myself agreeing with his point of view wholeheartedly. Indeed, I found the claims made by these older gay men (and bear in mind that these "older men" actually fall in my age range) to be astonishing and completely unhelpful. I emphatically told my friend that I felt the attitude these men had expressed was complete garbage.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think there are a great number of benefits to coming out when a person is ready to do so. (I also think that coming out is a process that involves degrees and situations rather than an all or nothing thing, but that's probably best left for another post.) Coming out to myself, ending the denial, and allowing myself to be the person I knew was inside of me has been one of the greatest gifts I have ever given myself. And allowing myself to share that person with those people in my life that were important to me allowed me to save a lot of time and energy that I would have otherwise wasted by trying to hide who I am and worrying about what might happen if anyone ever found out my secret. And I suspect that my friend with whom I had this conversation would agree with everything I've just said.

But to say that all problems surrounding one's sexual orientation will fade away once one comes out just isn't realistic. In fact it's a lie, and one that could deeply hurt someone who doesn't feel this fictional release of all troubles upon coming out. And to me, spreading such a hurtful lie to another person is reprehensible.

Truth be told, as wonderful as the coming out process is, it's only the beginning of a larger process. And for many of us, that beginning is the equivalent of opening floodgates and letting out a whole world of hurt and confusion we need to deal with. I can look at my own coming out experience that took place almost eleven years ago and the rough road it started me down, and the very lie of these older men's claims makes me wince.

Coming out means coming to terms with who we are and allowing other people to see who we are. In many cases, the whole reason we need to come out is because we've been denying or repressing who we are -- often for years. That takes its toll on a person, and quite often, coming out also requires us to face the results of those years. It's one thing to accept who we are, but it's completely different thing to come to love who we are. Sometimes, it means rebuilding our self-perception from scratch. Sometimes, it means learning that we really are deserving of love. Sometimes, it means struggling to live in an adult world while having the emotional maturity of a young teenager. Sometimes, it means coming to terms with an unconscious mind that only found it possible to express your sexual feelings through violent dreams and fantasies. The list is potentially endless.

Perhaps some people really do have less emotional and identity issues to work through after coming out. Perhaps they never denied or repressed their feelings as totally as others of us. Or perhaps they really can heal instantly. But not all of us are like it. To us, facing and admitting our sexual orientation -- whether to ourselves or to others -- is merely the beginning of the next stage of a difficult journey, not the end of one.

I recently enjoyed reading Pam's follow-up on the Equality Ride bus vandalism story. It gave me the chance to learn more about the Equality Ride itself. It sounds like a wonderful experience, and something I might have liked to participate in at one time. (Sadly, my life no longer would allow me the time or leisure for such a project.)

However, it also gave me a chance to learn more about the organization behind the Equality Ride, Soulforce. Soulforce is an organization consisting of spiritually minded people who work for "freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance." Given my own struggles that resulted from my religious background, I find this a rather noble cause.

I particularly like the Soulforce Credo About My Adversary:

1. I believe that my adversary is also a child of the Creator, that we are both members of the same human family, that we are sisters and brothers in need of reconciliation. 2. I believe that my adversary is not my enemy, but a victim of misinformation as I have been. 3. I believe that my only task is to bring my adversary truth in love (nonviolence) relentlessly. 4. I believe that my adversary's motives are as pure as mine and of no relevance to our discussion. 5. I believe that even my worst adversary has an amazing potential for positive change. 6. I believe that my adversary may have an insight into truth that I do not have. 7. I believe that one day my adversary and I will understand each other and that if we conduct our search for truth guided by the principles of love, we will find a new position to satisfy us both.

To me, this willingness to see one's "adversary" as wholly human and worthy of respect, dignity, and even love despite differences is a marker of true spirituality. It shows a compassion and spiritual understanding that I often find missing when observing people mired in addressing such controversial topics where feelings run high.

Of course, I also have my qualms about some aspects of Soulforce's proposed spirituality. For example, the Soulforce Credo About Spiritual Possessions seems to come a bit too close to ascetism and a "sackcloth and ashes" mentality for my tastes. While I'm certainly not in favor of unrestrained materialism and self-gratification, I'm not a minimist, either. All the same, I think I'll continue to check the organization out and see how I might become involved.

While surfing the web tonight, I came across a book I'd never heard of before. The title is From Boys to Men: Gay Men Write About Growing Up. I find myself wondering how closely any of the stories contained in the book resemble the experiences I'm working on writing about. One of the reason I started writing about my own sexual self-discovery is because I feel like the topic is not well covered. So it would be interested to see if this book is a sign that there's more out there than I realize. It would be a pleasant discovery if that is the case.

I've added the book to my wish list. I'd buy it outright, but I think I spent enough money today. I got a laptop in the price range I expected. But by the time I added all of the extras I decided to get with it (including a new wireless router for the house), the bill was a bit...shocking.

Earlier tonight (before it became tomorrow), I took the time to write about the weekend I decided to come out and the emotional crisis that led up to it. It surprised me how easily much of the emotion I felt that weekend came back to me. In some ways, writing about it meant reliving it, and it was a strange experience.

Of course, this time around, the feelings weren't nearly as strong. Instead, they were more a ghost of events and feelings long gone. Back then, I was afraid that all of the feelings were going to consume and destroy me. Tonight, the worst they will do is chase a smile from my face until I get some much needed sleep.

And in some way, I find the return of these emotions comforting. Not because I have any desire to return to the constant torment I felt back then, but because it means that I'm still connected to that person I was. I can still identify so completely with my past that I can draw on it for strength, insight, an even wisdom without becoming lost in it or controlled by it. And that is a wonderful feeling.

I'm beginning to realize that this writing project is meant to serve a dual purpose. So far, I've been focused on how it might help others who are going through many of the same things -- or even just similar things -- that I did. But now I also see that it's also a chance for me to again connect to my past, understand how it led me to the presence, and discover just how I've grown from it all. And perhaps that's something I need right now, too.

I think everyone has those people who came into their lives for the briefest of moments, yet touched them in a profound way despite how temporary their presense may have been. Darcy was one such person for me. I spoke with her a total of three times in my entire life, and I doubt I'll ever see her again. And yet, the first night we met, she left an impression I doubt I will ever forget.

That night took place several years ago. It was the night that I agreed to go out to a movie with my older brother -- the first and only time I ever went someplace with him since I became an adult. Terry wanted to go see a movie, but didn't have his license due to legal issues at the time. As such, he needed someone to go with him. Being the generous, if foolish, person I am, I agreed to go with him when he asked me. Both before and after the movie, we decided to hang out at the bar in Ruby Tuesday's, which was located in the same mall as the cinema complex we went to.

When we returned to the bar after the movie, I was seething. The entire outting had been a real eye opener to just what kind of person -- and let me just say that I'm being polite in using that word -- my brother was. At one point, I was sure he was going to get himself thrown out of the theater during the movie. (I had decided I was going to sit there pretending I didn't know him if that happened.) But I allowed him to convince me to return to the bar with him. By that time, Darcy was working behind the bar alone. Things had slowed down enough that Darcy had a lot of idle time, and she and Terry got talking.

Darcy was a sweet girl, a few years older than me at most. She was on the short side with long, blonde hair, but a real spitfire. She was the type of person that could say some incredibly cutting things, yet smile the entire time. I suspect that many of her customers were too drunk to realize she had actually said something biting until after the fact. Her personality struck me as admirable, and entirely conducive to the line of work she was in. And I have to admit that I was enjoying the process of watching her spar with my brother, who was too dumb to recognize all the jabs she got in despite the fact that he was perfectly sober at the time.

The incident that truly earned her my admiration, however, was when the topic turned to that of gay people. I forget what exactly came on the television to spark the conversation, but Terry made some sort of nasty remark on the topic. As I felt my heart sink and my stomach lurch, Darcy turns to Terry and asks him in a friendly, yet pointed manner, "What? Do you have something against gay people?" As soon as she asked the question, she gave me a quick wink. I'm not sure how she had managed to pick me out, but it was clear that like many other people in my life, she had immediately known I was gay. (Fortunately, my brother was clueless, and still is to the best of my knowledge.)

Terry stammered a bit and tried to make excuses. Of course, the first thing he did was played the typical male double standard, pointing out he had no problem with two women being "like that" -- and even found it somewhat alluring. However, he pointed out that he just didn't want any gay guys to hit on him, because that would not be okay.

Darcy's reaction was incredible in that she didn't pause, take a breath, or even blink. As soon as Terry said what he did, she just looked at him, smiled, and said in an even if somewhat patronizing voice, "Oh, hon, don't flatter yourself." And before either Terry or I had time to register what she said, she was off to serve another customer at the other end of the bar. I just about fell off my bar stool. (And for the record, I was sober, too!) Terry could only respond with a hurt and shocked "Hey!"

I was just totally amazed at how easily, gracefully, and politely Darcy had shot him down. Every time I find myself in a similar situation, I find myself thinking of her response that night. I can only hope I handle things half as well.

I went back two weeks later just to thank Darcy. I also left her a very big tip on my second trip, as an expression of my gratitude. We had a nice conversation, and she was shocked to discover that Terry was my brother. She couldn't believe we came from the same family.

I only returned one more time after the night I went in to thank Darcy. I'm not the bar type, and even hanging out with such a great gal as Darcy was sufficient reason for me to keep returning. As a result, she disappeared from my life as quickly as she entered it. But that brief encounter is something I still like telling people about several years later. I think I always will.

Tonight, I wrote the next chapter in Journey, the one that talks about my first attempt at love, or something that I thought resembled love at the time. Surprisingly, it was a pretty easy piece to write. Of course, it helps that I've written about that relationship elsewhere before. (In fact, I may dig up those old diary entries and look into supplementing what I wrote tonigh with some of their content.)

Of course, this marks a point in my story that has me somewhat afraid. This is the point where I start talking about my experiences prior to 1996. It's time to delve back into some of those emotionally trying times, and the things my psyche did to survive my youth. And it's appropriate that I start writing about these things at this juncture. After all, it was towards the end of my relationship with "Chris" that some of those things started coming back to my conscious attention. Indeed, they contributed to the rapid decline of our relationship, as I was forced to deal with emotional wounds I had hidden for years.

I find myself in an interesting position. I want to go there, yet part of me dreads it. I'm not entirely sure why. I suppose it's in part because I'm afraid of what pain I might still find there. Will I be fortunate and only find the kind of "ghost emotions" I experienced when I wrote about the weekend I came out? Or will I find something more difficult to deal with?

Of course, there's also the fact that I'll be sharing some deeply personal things. And a much as I feel I need and want to do so, I have to admit the idea still scares me in some way. I won't let that stop me, as I feel it's right to press on. But perhaps a bit of tenderness towards myself as I work through this part of the story is in store, all the same.

Today, while recuperating from whatever illness beset me late yesterday afternoon, I decided to watch But I'm a Cheerleader, which is possibly one of the cheesiest movies I have ever seen. This is a movie that tries to play off of every stereotype of gay men and lesbians they can think of. And amazingly, it works in this instance.

I think the reason it works for this movie is because it's a movie about a group of young people who have been shipped off to some insane camp to turn them all straight. The camp attempts to do this by teaching each teen to break away from the queer stereotypes and try to act more like tha "proper" boy or girl, based on gender stereotypes we've all heard.

I think part of what makes the whole thing funny, if a little scary, is that based on some of my own investigations of groups that try to turn gay people straight -- including one book I read while back in college, such programs really do put a significant amount of stock in such stereotypes. Suddenly, being a straight guy is as much about being able to talk cars and sports as it is about who you want to cuddle with. (And we won't even mention all the other things we want to do together!)

I think I find this mentality particularly strange because there are certain stereotypes I fit that have nothing to do with the fact that I'm gay. For example, I absolutely stink at sports. Whether it's volleyball, baseball, soccer, football, or any other sport you can name, I'm lousy at it. However, that's because of how my brain chose to adapt to the fact that I lived the first twenty eight or so years of my life with a lazy eye. Having your entire perception of the world shift to the left or right by a couple inches at a critical moment tends to make catching, hitting, or kicking a quickly moving object quite the challenge. Being gay has nothing to do with it. It's just one of those odd coincidences.

And that's the problem with such stereotypes around gender and sexuality. They completely miss the bigger picture.

Earlier today, Lauren and I got joking around. In the process of our joking, she asked me when I'd be donning a white gown. I gave her an answer that more or less amounted to "never." Silliness ensued, and she ended up posting an obviously edited, but hilarious photo. Of course, this whole thing was particularly funny, because one of the running jokes whenever the idea of two guys getting married that invariably comes up is the question, "Who's going to wear the white dress?" At least I think it's a joke.

But setting the jokes aside, I am inclined to answer that question for myself. At my wedding (unless my fiancé manages to offer me one hell of a compelling reason), no one will be wearing a white dress. Because, to me the idea makes no sense at best and is downright offensive at worst.

I am a gay man. I am not a crossdresser. I am not a transvestite. I am not a transsexual. While I might put on a blouse and skirt on rare occasion just for the fun of a given situation, dressing in women's clothing simply isn't a part of my normal life. So why would I want to introduce it to the solemn occasion of sealing my commitment to the man I hope to spend the rest of my life with?

I certainly wouldn't do it for the "laughs," as was my reasoning for donning women's clothing in the past. Those kinds of "laughs" simply have no place on my wedding day either. Nor does the kind of political statement (in the form of parody) that I've heard some people posit as a reason for doing such a thing have any place there. My wedding day will be about myself, my love, the love we share, and the commitment to one another we're making. Playing around with traditions just for the heck of it would only detract from those themes.

I don't know what my love and I will wear during our wedding. Maybe we'll booth wear tuxes. Maybe we'll just go with suits. I wouldn't even rule out my daily casual attire. But I know there will be no white dress, because it just doesn't fit in with what I want my wedding to be about.

Besides, what would be the point in me wearing white? All my friends know better anyway. ;)

Once again, I find myself looking at the calendar to find the words "April 1st" written in simple letters. And once again, I find myself thinking about the special significance those words have for me. For those who may be new to this blog or my life, those words mark the anniversary of the day I came out to myself and a very good friend. And while I stated last year that I'm not big on commemorating yearly anniversaries of "life-changing events," I've decided that I will make note of this particular anniversary again this year. Perhaps my opinion on such commemorations is changing, and this will become a normal practice for me. Or perhaps this is just one more of a tiny number of exceptions to that attitude. In the end, it doesn't matter. I simply feel called to write this post, and I will do so. I'll worry about the implications some other day.

Part of the reason I feel particularly called to do this again this year is that this has been a year of changes for me, sexuality-wise. Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm still a raging homo with an attitude. I sincerely doubt that will ever change. But over the past year, I think I've gone through some growth periods that will ultimately allow me to express my sexuality more freely and comfortably. So this anniversary post is about reviewing a few of those changes.

I think the most notable change came around my thirty-second birthday this past June. I spent the weekend hanging out at the psychic fair that the POC did. I spent both days ogling the cute guys that walked through and talking about them with a friend the entire time. Now, this isn't entirely a new practice for me. However, it was the first time I've done so without trying to be a little discreet and worrying about whether the guys I'm checking out noticed. As this particular weekend went by, however, I became less and less concerned about anyone noticing. I got bolder, and probably more than a little out of control by the time the event was over. I remember one friend sat by me and commented that if I kept making some of the sounds (mostly a very interested "hmmm" sounds), people were going to realize what I was doing. In that moment, I realized that I really didn't care if they did. I figured if some guy realized I was checking him out, he should feel flattered. And if he was really flattered, he should come over and say hi!

That same weekend, my attitudes about myself and my body started to change. I began to realize that I really was a good looking guy. I also realized that I needed to come to believe in myself as a sexually attractive man, despite my own hang-ups about my body-image. Since June, that's been a highly common theme in my life, and I've found an increasing ability to look in the mirror and smile, knowing that there really is a good looking guy smiling back at me from that reflective surface.

Of course, my recent relationship, though terribly short-lived, also helped me in that realm. The young man I ended up getting involved with went through a great deal of effort to pursue me (though not as much effort as the next one may find necessary, as I've now found the bliss of being pursued) gave me the first inkling that yes, there really were guys out there who could also see my allure. And despite my sadness over how things went, that realization is something I continue to carry with me, and hopefully always will.

The other major change in my life has been Journey, of course. The past year has involved a germination process which ended in the