Category Archives: Gender and Sexuality

Gender and Sexuality

Thank the Gods for Option Three

Leave a comment
Logo designed by artist Keith Harring.

Image via Wikipedia

I’d rather be hated for who I am rather than loved for who I am not.

I ran across the above saying on a tee shirt a couple years ago.  It’s always stuck with me, and it’s a principle I try to keep in mind when I live my life.  It’s an important principle when faced with the decision of whether or not to live as an openly gay[1] man.  It’s a principle I want to discuss as a part of my contribution to National Coming Out Day.

One of the big hurdles to coming out — whether in general or to specific people — is the fear of rejection.  There’s that fear — and sometimes, it’s a well-founded fear — that friends, family members, bosses, and other individuals will reject us, stop loving us, and even make our lives miserable.  Personally, I’ve often found it far easier to come out to a perfect stranger.  After all, if they reject me, I’ve lost no relationship or support.  However, I maintain that remaining in the closet in order to get someone to continue to love and accept me isn’t a good reason to stay in the closet.

I wish to be clear on what I am saying there, lest it be misconstrued.  Staying in the closet so that someone loves me is not the same as not coming out to my parents because I’m financially dependent on them.  Nor is it the same as hiding my sexual orientation from my boss so that I don’t get fired.  In those cases, I would not be staying closeted in order to get the people in question to continue loving me.  I would be doing it in order to survive.  I could survive without my parents’ love[2] relatively easily — sadly, some kids do it all their lives.  But there was a time when it would’ve been much harder to survive if my parents quit buying me food and clothes or stopped providing me with a place to sleep and keep warm.[3]

The thing is, there are billions of people on this planet.  And a great many number of them will love me and accept me for who I am, gay man and all.  I’ve been fortunate in that over the years, I’ve found and built friendships with plenty of them.  Indeed, I’ve made far more new and incredibly supportive friends than I have lost old friends.

So I see no point in remaining in the closet to keep those “friends” who refuse to accept me for who I am.  Truth be told, if I have to lie to them to keep them as loved ones, then they are not truly loved ones at all.  I learned long ago that as much as it may hurt, I’m better off letting such people go and finding people who will not only accept me for who I am, but actually prefer me to be authentically me.

So yes, I’d rather be hated for who I am than hated for who I am not.  But I have a third, even better option. I can find people who love me for who I am.

Notes:

[1] And I’m pretty sure it would apply to other QUILTBAG people too.

[2] I am fortunate in that this was never an issue for me.  While it did take my parents time to adjust, they never rejected or disowned me.  Sadly, not every QUILTBAG individual has been so fortunate.

[3] Note, also that came a going when I no longer needed my parents’ financial support.  And that’s the thing about valid reasons to stay in the closet:  they are more often than not temporary and something that can eventually be overcome.  Granted, finding a new boss who isn’t homophobic in today’s economy may seem like a near-impossibility….

Books, Gender and Sexuality, Sexuality

C.S. Friedman and Heterosexual Privilege

Leave a comment
Slash fan art drawn by Yukipon, based on descr...

Image via Wikipedia

While looking over C.S. Friedman‘s website as part of writing my blog post about her treatment of religion in her fiction, I ran across her commentary on slash fiction[1] that she included in her FAQ page.  Apparently, Friedman is not a fan of us gay people, and presumably other QUILTBAG individuals as well.  That may change my opinion of her, though it doesn’t really change my opinion of or appreciation of her fiction.  She doesn’t have to approve of my sexual orientation — though I would love to challenge where she thinks she gets off disapproving of it, either.  After all, it’s my life, not hers.  Not her life, not her business.

But what really got me was the following statement regarding slash fiction:

I admit to no comprehension at all about why this appeals to folks….

Personally, I admit that I cannot comprehend how someone can be that wrapped up in heterosexual privilege that they just don’t get why at least gay people[2] might like to see stories about same-sex couples.  It leaves me wondering just how blind they are to gay people (and others in the QUILTBAG spectrum) and their basic humanity.  So while I doubt Ms. Friedman will ever read this, allow me to offer a simple explanation:

Some of us like slash-fiction because we like to see relationships and sexual activities that mirror our own interests and desires.

Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Seriously, think about this for a moment.  For many people, part of the enjoyment of reading is to identify with the characters, to put yourself in their shoes.  I often either imagine myself as being one of the characters or being there with them.  I think most people like characters whose minds and bodies we can slip into and share.

That illusion, that experience of identification, can be severely stunted for me when the character I identify with suddenly starts romantically pursuing or becomes sexually involved with a woman.  Suddenly, we are very different people at a very basic level.  They are doing something that I wouldn’t do and wouldn’t want to do.  I’m left behind, separated.

And almost every single book I read is filled with characters whose romantic and sexual pursuits are foreign to me.  It can be frustrating and lonely.

So when someone takes a world and characters that I absolutely love and identify with on so many levels and adds in romantic and sexual elements that I can identify with, that’s pure gold to me.  To be honest, I’m surprised I don’t write slash fiction myself.

Of course, what really gets me is that having just read The Magister Trilogy — which explores sexuality as well as its intersection with power and violence quite extensively — I admit that I’m quite tempted to pick up my pen and write about gay characters in the world C.S. Friedman created for the series.  Quite frankly, the series is begging for someone to do it.  At least that’s my opinion.  The series brings questions to my mind.  What would happen if a male ikati bonded with a gay human?  Would such a mating even be possible?  If so, would two gay men each bonded to an ikati be able to form a relationship of any kind with one another? Would there ever be such a thing as a gay ikati?  How would that effect the mating dance and the species’ overall aggression?[3]

These questions seem obvious to me.  These questions nag at me to the point that I’m seriously considering a new writing project.  And while I can certainly understand that these question may not interest Friedman in they way that the interest me, I am astounded that she’s completely blinded to such questions’ very existence or the idea that for some of us, those questions would be hard to ignore.

I can only write it off as immense heterosexual privilege.

Update:  For anyone interested, I have talked further about some of my ideas for playing in C.S. Friedman’s world over at WdC.

Notes:

[1]  For those who may not be familiar with the term, slash fiction is a special category of fanfiction that describes and explores same-sex romantic and sexual pairings.  For example, I understand there are a large number of slash fiction stories in which Harry Potter and Draco Malfo either get romantically involved or just plain get freaky.

 

[2]  In reality, I also know of heterosexual people who like to see same-sex pairings for a multitude of reasons.

[3]  Of course, the whole premise of the ikati species is predicated on the presumption gender essentialism.  How would the introduction of transgender individuals (either human or ikati) challenge or change the whole premise?  I bring this up in a footnote because I simply don’t feel I am qualified to address this issue beyond asking it and hoping someone else might choose to tackle it.

For that matter, I think there could be some interesting points of analysis of comparing and contrasting the characters of Siderea, Gwynofar, and Kamala from a feminist perspective.  That is something I might consider attacking, though I’ll gladly hand that project over to any of my readers who are much more grounded in feminist thought.


Gender and Sexuality, Religion

Catholic Charities need to decide if they’re a religions group or an agent of the state

Leave a comment
A third proposed version of the map showing th...

Image via Wikipedia

This morning, I read an article by Michael Gormley about the status of New York legislation that could bring about marriage equality here in the Empire State.  I’ve been following this story pretty closely in my private time and am excited that my state may soon allow me to marry my (hypothetical) partner rather than requiring me to elope to Massachusetts[1].  I practically cheered to learn that they only need one more state senator to sign on to guarantee passage.

Gormley reports that the current hold-up is discussions over religious protections:

Democrats and Republicans emerged from meetings with Democratic Gov.
Andrew Cuomo and said there is progress toward proposed additional
religious protections that could bring a gay marriage bill to the Senate
floor for a vote as early as Wednesday night.

By the sounds of it, Cuomo and supporters are trying to take the teeth out of the old arguments currently be raised by the National Organization for Marriage of Moralists.  I’m a bit troubled by that, as the arguments about religious freedoms are all based on lies.  Truth be told, churches and religious organizations already have plenty of protections.  A minister or church cannot be compelled to host or perform any marriage — even any opposite sex marriage — they do not approve of.  Any stories about such nonsense (such as the Ocean Grove pavilion controversy) are usually misrepresented, and a careful examination of the facts demonstrate that the situation is not about religious freedom at all.  To be frank, the Religious Right crowd is fond of spreading misinformation to make themselves look like martyrs and to drive fear-based political action and decisions.

My pragmatic side almost wants to just shrug and give a thumbs up to the unnecessary “religious protections” that may get put into the new legislation.  After all, if such legislation forces NOM and company to shut up (or at least makes it easier for people to see their lies for what they are), then it’s not all bad.  But then, I read this part of the article (emphasis mine):

More protection for religious organizations such as adoption agencies
and marriage counselors is sought by undecided Republican senators who
are key to the vote.

You see, the mention of adoption agencies tells me that someone is thinking about situations like what’s going on with Catholic Charities in Illinois[2].  And this is the exact kind of lying that I’m talking about.  You see, NOM would have you believe that Catholic Charities in Illinois is being forced to close their adoption services if they continue discriminate against same sex couples.  However, that’s not true, unless you assume that the rich and powerful Catholic church needs government assistance to do its charity work.

You see, that’s the part that NOM and company fail to mention:  Catholic Charities operates their adoption services in Illinois (and elsewhere) under a government contract and with state funding.  And the state regulations require that any organization or business who uses taxpayer money to provide a service must not discriminate against anyone who seeks out that service.  This isn’t a case of Catholic Charities losing their religious freedom.  When it comes to their adoption services, they gave up that freedom[3] when they became a contracted agent of the state funded by that same state.

If the religious protections in this new legislation goes on to say that religious groups can offer state-funded and state-contracted services and still discriminate, then those clauses are no longer about religious protections.  They are about state endorsements of religious privilege.  They are about using taxpayer money — including gay taxpayers — to support an agent of the state who is allowed to engage in discrimination while acting as an agent of the state.

And that’s just not cool.  It’s also why even my pragmatic side cannot get behind these so-called “religious protections,” even if they do bring marriage equality to my state.  Because marriage equality that still allows religiously motivated agents of the state to discriminate against me isn’t actually marriage equality.  It’s still a form of second-class citizenship.

[1]  Seriously.  New York would consider me married right now if I went and had the ceremony in a state that already performs same-sex marriages, but will not currently allow me to have the ceremony here among my loved ones.  That’s just a strange state of affairs.

[2] This also took place with Catholic Charities in Massachusetts and looks like it will be a common theme across the country.

[3]  In fairness, they only gave up that right in terms of how they conduct their state-contracted and state-funded services.  They’re still free to give homily’s about how gay people are inherently disordered to their heart’s content.

Gender and Sexuality

Gay Teens, Risky Behaviors, and NOM’s bizarro world

Leave a comment

Tuesday, I blogged about a recent CDC study that suggests that gay teens tend to engage in riskier behaviors than heterosexual teens.  Yesterday, Alvin McEwen drew attention to a blog post by Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage of Moralists that mentions this study.  Except that Brian tries to use the study to demonstrate that gay teens are “safer” in states that ban same-sex marriage than in states that have embraced such unions.  He does this by comparing some of the statistics for Wisconson and Massachusetts:

For example, about 25 percent of
Massachusetts teens who self-identify as “gay” said they had missed
schools because they felt unsafe, compared to 14 percent of Wisconsin
teens. More than half (50.5 percent) of Massachusetts gay teens said
they felt “sad or hopeless” compared to 29 percent of Wisconsin teens.
Thirty-three percent of Massachusetts gay teens attempted suicide,
compared to less than 20 percent of Wisconsin teens. Massachusetts gay
teens were about twice as likely as Wisconsin gay teens to commit a
suicide attempt serious enough to require medical care (15 percent to 8
percent). (By contrast, heterosexual teens in both states were about
equally likely to have committed a suicide attempt that required medical
care: around 2 percent.)

You see?  Brian Brown has shown that this survey says that kids do better in Wisconsin than they do in Massachusetts.  But Brown also plays with some of the figures from the study.  For example, Brown notes that a whopping 25% of Massachusetts teens that self-identify as gay miss school due to feeling unsafe, compared to 14% of teens in Wisconsin.  Those figures come out of Table 18 (page 27) of the study.  The problem is, Brian is comparing the wrong numbers.

The 14% of students in Wisconsin are students who (1) have had sexual contact and (2) have only had sexual contact with members of the same sex.  This percentage comes from a sample set that is defined by sexual activity, not self-identity.  That is a qualitative difference.  The importance of that of that difference become obvious when you look at the table, find the figure that corresponds to the group of Massachusetts students specified by sexual activity rather than self-identity, and discover the comparable figure in Massachusetts drops to 12.6%.*  We have nothing to compare the Massachusetts students who self-identify as gay with, because that data is not available for the state of Wisconsin.

Brian plays this same shell game with the other statistics he cites.  Comparing the correct figures makes the results for those two states much closer** together.  The fact that Brian plays the shell game to make his argument more compelling is particularly ironic hypocritical, as the whole point of his blog post is to whine that the media and homosexual activiists play with statistics to get them to say what they want.  I’m sure that some members of the media and gay people do exactly that.  However, I know Brian Brown does it.  I just showed you where he does it.

Of course, what’s bizarre is that Brian brings up the CDC survey, not to discuss anti-gay bullying, but to defend his opposition to marriage equality by conflating the two issues:

Why is this stark clear evidence that marriage is not responsible for
gay teens’ suffering never, ever considered worthy of mention in the
debates over bullying?

The answer to Brian’s question is actually quite obvious:  No LGBT person I know considers the fact that same-sex marriage is not yet a reality to be a cause of anti-gay bullying.  No LGBT person I know considers achieving marriage equality to be the solution to ending anti-gay bullying.  GLSEN does not hand out “support marriage equality” buttons to raise awareness of or stop anti-gay bullying.  They hold the National Day of Silence.  They push schools and educators to create safe spaces for LGBT teens.  They push schools to adopt anti-bullying policies that explicitly mention LGBT students.  Dan Savage starts the It Gets Better campaign and associates it with the Trevor Project.

The only link that LGBT people make between marriage equality and anti-gay bullying is that they are both issues that arise out of the same anti-gay animus.  Beyond that, we understand that they are issues that need to be approached in different ways through solutions meant to address them appropriately.

It’s people like Brian Brown and the other folks of NOM that tend to conflate such issues.  It’s NOM who tried to link a California educational program about gender identity and bullying to marriage equality, for one example.  In reality, NOM tries to link this issue to anything that will scare people into fighting against marriage equality.  They do this because they know that they can’t stand on their anti-gay animus alone.

Brian Brown and the rest of NOM are simply projecting their bad faith tactics onto us, their opponents intended victims.

—

* This does raise interesting questions as to what differences there are between students who self-identify as gay and those who have actually had sexual contact exlucisvely with members of the same sex.

** I’m hoping Erin will confirm or correct me on this, but based on the CI values, I believe ate least some of these percentages are too close to really comment on which state is better or worse, statistically speaking.

Family, Gender and Sexuality, In and Around Rochester

Glowing with pride

1 Comment
Postcard - The White House in Washington D.C.

Image by adam79 via Flickr

Last night after I got home from my coven’s business meeting, my seventeen year old unofficial godson* sent me a text asking if we could make a run to Dunkin Donuts before school in the morning.  He explained that he had some exciting news he wanted to share with me.  He explained he couldn’t tell me over the phone, despite my efforts to talk him into doing so.  I finally relented and went to bed, agreeing I’d find out in the morning.

So this morning, I got up, showered, and headed out to pick him up.  As he climbed into my car, he handed me an envelope made of heavier paper — the kind of paper some greeting cards come in.  I flipped it over and saw the envelope was addressed to him.  Then I saw the return address on it.  Whatever I was about to look at, it had come from the White House.  You know, the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  In Washington D.C.  I was excited.

I pulled out the first piece of cardstock in the envelope and began to read a beautifully printed invitation for my godson to attend the White House LGBT reception later this month.  I took a few seconds to let what I was reading sink in, then I hugged my godson tight.  (Not an easy task when you’re buckled into the driver’s seat of a Mercury Sable, let me tell you.)

We’re not exactly sure how someone at the White House got his name.  I’m guessing that someone from GLSEN‘s national office submitted it, as he’s had some involvement at the national level** and is a student member of our local chapter’s board of directors.  Between that and his involvement with the local LGBT community center and his school GSA (holding leadership roles in all of them, no less), it’s no surprise that his name got submitted, really.  In fact, the invitation is a testament to and wonderful reward for everything he’s done.  He’s proud and excited about going to the White House.  And I don’t blame him.

I’m proud of him too.  And maybe a little jealous.  😉

—-

*  Godfather and godson are the best terms we’ve come up to describe the friendship that has developed between the two of us, though our use implies no official status as such.

** That includes having his picture appear on both the national website and the promotional literature for GLSEN’s Safe Space campaign.

Gender and Sexuality

Risky Behavior the Anti-Gay Crowd Loves

Leave a comment
The Bisexual flag and Gay flag put together (A...

Image via Wikipedia

I ran across an AP article this morning that says that some research suggests that LGB teens* are more likely to engage in risky behavior than their heterosexual counterparts.  According to the article:

Investigators asked about dozens of risky behaviors, ranging from not
wearing a bicycle helmet, to drug use, to attempting suicide. Gay,
lesbian and bisexual students reported worse behavior in half to 90
percent of the risk categories, depending on the survey site.

The article goes on to give statistics on cigarette usage, suicide attempts, and purging:

  • About 8 percent to 19 percent of heterosexual students said they
    currently smoke cigarettes; 20 percent to 48 percent of gay and lesbian
    students smoked.
  • About 4 to 10 percent of heterosexual
    students said they attempted suicide in the previous year. For gay and
    lesbian students: 15 percent to 34 percent. For bisexual students: 21
    percent to 32 percent.
  • About 3 percent to 6 percent of
    heterosexual students said they threw up or used laxatives to lose
    weight or stay thin. For gay and lesbian students: 13 percent to 20
    percent. For bisexual students: 12 percent to 17.5 percent.

At first glance, it might seem strange to talk about not wearing a bike helmet and suicide attempts in the same article.  However, when you consider that both behaviors are inherently self-destructive and an indicator of self-image and self-worth issues, it makes perfect sense.  When people don’t value themselves as much as they should, they tend not to care as much what happens to themselves or take proper care of themselves.

Unfortunately, the anti-gay crowd does not help this, when it comes to LGB youth*.  The anti-gay crowd is invested in stigmatizing them, encouraging them to feel bad about themselves and lower their sense of self-worth.**  They tell these youth how horrible it is to be gay, and all the horrible things that means about them.  They tell these youth how bad their life is going to be, painting a “gay lifestyle” that must be by its very nature filled with self-destructive behaviors.

One thing anyone who has worked with children and teens will tell you is that if you tell a child or teen long enough that they’re bad and they do bad things, a teen is going to decide to do those things.  So in effect the anti-gay crowd is engaging — and I have to assume at this point that it’s done knowingly — in pushing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And of course, once the fruits of their smear campaign starts showing, they self-righteously point to the self-destructive behavior and insist it’s because “gay people know that what they’re doing is wrong.”  Note how it turns into a vicious cycle.  One that we QUILTBAG adults and our allies need to break.

It’s important that we remind the QUILTBAG youth in our communities that the anti-gay crowd is lying to them.  We need to remind them that they are worth far more than the anti-gay crowd want them to know.  We need to remind them that they deserve to treat themselves with care and respect rather than engaging in risky, self-destructive behavior.  Because QUILTBAG youth are being inundated with some awful messages, and they are listening.  We need to make sure they hear and listen to our message too.

Our message to QUILTBAG youth is that they are better than that.

—

* I suspect the same can be said about all QUILTBAG teens, but that would be pure extrapolation on my part, not something supported by the studies mentioned.

** Oh, the anti-gay crowd will tell you that it’s untrue and that they only want such youths to “find freedom from homosexuality.”  But first, they have to convince those same youths that they’re sexual orientation is the same as “bondage.”

Gender and Sexuality, Health, Sexuality

A possible consequence of slut-shaming

Leave a comment

A recent article on Medical News Today reports that there’s a certain class of young gay men who are particularly susceptible to HIV infection right now:

Gay young men in serious relationships are six times more likely to have
unprotected sex than those who hook up with casual partners, according
to new Northwestern Medicine research.

The article goes on to explain how this tendency, combined with the fact that young men often don’t get tested frequently enough, makes those in serious relationships vulnerable to HIV infection.

I’ve seen this in action.  To some degree*, I’ve even been guilty of it.  It’s far too easy to fall into the belief that HIV is a problem that mostly — or even only — affects those gay men who visit bath houses or goes cruising in parks.  It’s easy to tell ourselves that as long as we tend towards serious relationships and only have a few partners — all serially, of course — and only get involved with men who do the same, we’ll be safe.  And to be honest, given the way some of us — even those of who know better and are careful even when we’re in a monogamous relationship — reinforce this idea, it’s not surprising.

How do we reinforce this idea?  By the way we talk about and treat those men who do visit bath houses or go cruising.  I’ve seen so many gay men call these “promiscuous” men irresponsible** and automatically accuse them of getting and spreading STD’s.  And I’ve seen many gay men assume that if a guy happens to be HIV+ or have any other STD, he must have been “promiscuous.”

And that’s how you get young men who assume that HIV and STD’s are a problem for men who cruise or hook up.  Because the rest of us send them that message by our words and actions, even if it’s unintentional.  Those young men don’t hear — at least not as loudly — that they don’t have to have hundreds of sex partners to get HIV or any other STD.  People who only have two or three partners*** can become infected, especially if one of those partners hasn’t been tested because he figures he’s HIV- and STD-free simply because he has only had one or two partners who seemed to be STD-free at the time.

Let’s quite pretending that being HIV+ or having an STD is a sign of “promiscuity.”  It’s unfair to everyone and especially harmful to young men who assume they must be safe if they can still count the number of partners they’ve had on one hand.

h/t Edge on the Net

—

* Though as a rule, I still used protection.

** Some of them may well be irresponsible, but it’s still an assumption made without evedence.

*** Let’s face it, the likelihood of any of us meeting our perfect life-partner the first time and never having sex again is low.

Gender and Sexuality

A Persecuted Hegemon is upset that others aren’t persecuted for real

Leave a comment

Alvin McEwen over at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters pointed out that Peter Heck, a guest columnist at One News Now is whining about all the gay celebrities that came out recently.  Alvin wrote a wonderful response, explaining (though I hope to add to it) how coming out is not the same as discussing your sexual escapades, and I highly encourage my readers to check out his post.  However, he left a lot of stuff in Heck’s column untouched, so I want to take a closer look at the column.

CNN host Don Lemon recently became the latest in a string of
high-profile individuals to “come out of the closet” and inform everyone
who would listen that he enjoys practicing homosexuality.  Every time
this occurs, and we are treated to the seemingly endless litany of
interviews that applaud the recently outed individual’s courage and
fortitude, I’m left scratching my head.

The reason Peter is scratching his head is because he simply doesn’t understand what’s so courageous about coming out.  I mean, sure, he’s writing a column for a “news agency” run by the American Family Association, an organization that spends a great deal of energy vilifying and dehumanizing QUILTBAG individuals.  But surely, the fact that people like Peter actively encourage open hostility towards us wouldn’t make the thought of opening yourself up to such hostility a daunting thought, right?

But what really gets Peter is the fact that in his mind, people are telling him about their sex lives:

First, why do the very people who constantly tell us that what a person
does in their bedroom is no one else’s business, simultaneously find it
necessary to inform everyone of what they do in their bedroom?  If this
is a private matter, Don, then let’s keep it private.  Perhaps I’m the
only one who feels this way, but frankly, I don’t care to know what kind
of sex the evening news anchor is into.

Here’s the thing:  I doubt Pete’s hypothetical news anchor isn’t telling Pete whether he’s a top or bottom.  I doubt he’s telling him whether he prefers to do it doggy style or has a preference for the reverse cowboy position.  That would be telling Pete about his sex life.  And yeah, i can see where that might be considered inappropriate*.

But saying, “Hey, I’m gay.”** is not the same as discussing one’s sex life.  Yeah, it tells you that if one is going to have sex, it’s going to be with someone who’s the same sex as the person speaking.  But then, that same information is transmitted in different ways.  If Peter casually “checks out” — or even just takes a second look — at a woman, he’s announcing to everyone present that he’s heterosexual and will probably have sex with a woman at some point in his life.  Somehow I doubt Peter sees anything wrong with that.  It’s just gays he has a problem with letting people know.

And let’s face it, I doubt Peter gets upset about wedding announcements in his local paper, either.  And yet, those announcements make it pretty clear that the couple will be having sex.  In fact, they’re probably having a lot of sex at the moment Peter is reading their wedding announcement, as they’re most likely on their honeymoon.  And yet, Peter is okay with knowing that.

Of course, Peter doesn’t read a wedding announcement and immediately start thinking of a couple having sex.  No, he thinks of everything that comes with marriage.  He’s picturing that couple holding hands in public.  He’s picturing that couple having breakfast.  he’s picturing that couple making plans for the weekend or discussing how to pay an upcoming bill as they have dinner together.  Because Peter knows marriage is about more than sex.

But to him, being gay or being in a same-sex relationship is only about sex.  We don’t hold hands.  We don’t cuddle while watching a movie on television.  We don’t discuss our household budget or do any of that stuff.  To Peter Heck, we just strip and get it on the moment we both get home.  In effect, Peter thinks about gay people (and mostly gay men) having sex.  He thinks about it more than most gay people!***

But then we get into Peter’s real problem:  He’s a persecuted hegemon, and the fact that gay people are coming out and not immediately being tossed into prisons**** fires up his persecution complex:

Does anyone actually think that in the politically correct world of
American media there was any chance Don Lemon was going to be publicly
criticized amongst his peers for such a declaration?  Lemon’s home
network of CNN has become notorious for their one-sided reporting of the
emerging face-off between homosexual rights claims of sexual anarchists
on the left and the rights of conscience for the traditional morality
crowd on the right.

Of course Peter’s argument is completely flawed.  Peter and the company he keeps are not merely “expressing their conscience about traditional morality here.”  Peter is out to vilify not only QUILTBAG people, but anyone on the “left.”  He tars us all as “sexual anarchists.”  This is not the act of a “proponent of traditional morals.”  This is the act of  an anti-gay propagandist.  Even as he tries to claim victim status for himself, he cannot resist the urge to take a swipe — not to mention a false claim (apparently, dishonesty is okay with today’s “proponents of traditional morality) at those he sees as worthy of his disapproval.

But that doesn’t keep Peter from trying.  He draws out how he and his fellow Bible-believing “defenders of morality” are the real persecuted people

If Lemon really wanted to demonstrate courage, let’s see him “come out”
in the media as a Bible-believing, born-again follower of Jesus Christ
whose faith teaches him that homosexuality is morally improper.  Rather
than basking in the glow of the entertainment crowd’s unyielding
affection, he would be immediately tarred and feathered for his
draconian allegiance to discriminatory and prejudicial fairy tales
coming from an ancient, bigoted book.

The thing that Peter keeps ignoring — and hoping everyone else will ignore as well — is that he and his kind are not just saying what they believe.  They are trying to make us agree with him, or at least let them dictate our actions based on what they believe.  They’re trying to vilify, dehumanize, and even control and outlaw other people.  That’s not standing up for “traditional morals.”  That’s attempting to become a privileged oppressor.

The fact that Peter Heck cannot see the difference between these two things says a lot about him.

*  Granted, I will be the first to admit that I’m perfectly happy to discuss my sexual preferences in certain social settings.  I see nothing wrong with that, as I think having a healthy attitude and openness about sex rather than being all uptight and secretive about it.  But that’s still a far cry of telling every random person I meet about these things.

** Or bisexual for that matter.

*** Please stop to think about how creepy this is.  Peter Heck and people like him spend more time thinking about my sex life more than I do, despite not even knowing me.  Quite frankly, the only person who arguably has any healthy reason to think about my sex life more than I do is my own partner.  And I am not sleeping with Peter Heck.

**** I actually don’t know whether Peter believes that QUILTBAG individuals should be criminalized, but the people who gave him his platform do.

Gender and Sexuality

Exploring Sexual Ethics: Personal History

3 Comments

Quite a few days ago, I got into a discussion about sexual ethics and how people respond to others who have a different (mostly more permissive) sexual ethic than their own.  As the conversation continued, I’ve considered how my personal sexual ethic has changed over the past year.

Prior to March 2010, my personal sexual ethic was still more or less what it was like when I was a Christian.  While I felt other people should be free to come to their own conclusions about what was appropriate for their own lives – provided their choices treated others with the dignity and respect that they deserve – the best course for me was to continue to seek a life-long partner and enter into a monogamous relationship with him.

In retrospect, this did cause me to act rashly and rush taking a few of my romantic relationships to a more sexually intimate level more than may have been prudent.  I quickly convinced myself that I was experiencing “true love” so that I could acknowledge and consummate that bond through sex.  And then everything would crash and burn, and I would feel miserable, get depressed, and kick myself for being such a fool.

After a particularly abysmal failure at love and a relationship in early 2010, I decided that I was tired of that pattern.  I decided that I was even tired of looking for “true love” and a life-long partner.  I decided that I wanted to have short-term fun.  In short, I wanted to have sex for the sake of having sex.  And I spent a few months doing exactly that.  I looked for friends with benefits.  I looked for fuck-buddies.  I even looked for one-time hookups.  I had sex and I enjoyed it.  I found that I really could enjoy having sex with another man without first having some sort of emotional bond.  And in many ways, it took a lot of pressure on me to find Mr. Right.  I was able to relax rather than worrying about being single quite so much.

Of course, it wasn’t all roses either.  More than once, I found that I eventually developed those emotional attachments anyway.  I remember in one case, I was quite devastated when one of the guys I saw a few times suddenly quit showing any interest in me and even quit talking to me.  I was terribly upset about this, despite the fact that our arrangement was supposed to be no strings attached.

And of course, there was the incident where I caught an STD, despite the fact that I was  extremely careful.  I was fortunate that it was treatable/curable.  The experience was traumatic, but not the end of the world.  And then there was the incident when, despite the fact that I was being careful about such things, one of my partners managed to steal from me.  Being taken advantage of like that left me feeling quite betrayed, and I remember spending over an hour crying and blathering to a very dear friend.

I can honestly say that despite the bad experiences I had, I don’t regret anything that I did during that time.  I learned a lot about myself in the process, I ended up making a couple good friends, and I had a lot of great times too, far more than the bad times in fact.

All that being said, though, I can honestly say that I’m happy to put those adventures behind me.  While I feel like I needed to give myself that chance to explore and play and heal from my past experiences, I think I’m ready to think in terms of long-term relationships again.  After all, in the end, I personally will be happiest when I’m with that special someone I can share every part of my life and body with.

That’s not to say I’ll never explore a more casual experience again, mind you.  Truth be told, if I ever reach a point where I feel I absolutely need to have sex – after all, there are just some things about sex that cannot be reproduced or satisfied through manual or mechanical stimulation – I might give myself permission to do so.  I think it’s far healthier than trying to rush around, find Mr. Right, and push myself prematurely into a relationship that’s not going to work out.  (In some respects, I think it’s also more respectful towards the other person and more ethical.)  And so long as I’m honest with the other guy and treat him respectfully, I see no problem with that.

That’s the thing I learned from the whole experience, I think:  it’s all a question of what someone needs at the time.  Different people have different needs.  Sometimes, the same person has different needs at different points in their life.  As long as the person is honest with themselves about what those needs really are, is honest with any partners and is clear about what they are willing to give in return for those needs, I think there is a lot of flexibility in what behavior is acceptable.


Gender and Sexuality

Coming Out Considerations

2 Comments
Rainbow flag flapping in the wind with blue sk...

Image via Wikipedia

I came out to myself and my best friend at the time on Monday, 1 April 1996. Today, 1 April 2011 marks the fifteenth anniversary of that event. In honor of that, I’ve decided to do a series of posts on the topic. This is the third one.

Given the fact that I came out on 1 April, I often like to make the following joke when discussing that night:

If you find it necessary to start the conversation with “This honestly isn’t an April Fool’s Day joke,” then you probably picked a bad day to come out.

This year, it’s particularly funny because Merion commented on the fact that I really did start with that disclaimer.  However, this year, the joke has me thinking about the practical matters of coming out and timing.

Truth be told, there is such a thing as a “bad time” to come out.  For example, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) cautions students to think about their financial and emotional safety when struggling with questions about whether to come out — coming out may prove to be a mistake if you’re one of those unfortunate souls who will find yourself homeless as a result.  I’ve also seen others caution against coming out to family during holidays, family reunions, and times of great stress.  After all, it’s important to consider how the other person’s or people’s states of minds at the time may shape their immediate response, or even their overall attitude.  So yes, there really is such a thing as a “bad time” to come out.

However, the rest of the message needs to be considered, too.  When I make that joke about my own “bad timing,” I also like to point out that I had to come out the day I did because I was in crisis.  I had reached the point where waiting simply would have continued to leave me in a state of mind and bondage that could have very easily led to my total self-destruction.  Plus, there’s the fact that Merion — the one person I knew would support me — was only going to be on campus for a limited time.  A day or two after I came out to her, Merion was back on her way to her new college (and her incredibly cute roommate, though I didn’t meet him until the following year) in New Paltz.  If I had delayed coming out that night, I’m not sure when I would’ve gotten another opportunity.  And then, I’m not sure what would happen.  (I shudder to think of what might have been the most likely outcome.)

So while it’s important to think about many factors in considering when the best time to come out, one should always remember that some factors are more important than others, and that sometimes, a sense of true urgency could override many pieces of otherwise good advice about when it might be better to wait.  In the end, only the person coming out can make that call, though.  That’s the person who has to live with the decision and whatever consequences might come of that decision.