Deliberate Misunderstanding of my post on (Gay) Sex and Morality?
Perhaps I shouldn’t have referenced Matt Sanchez in my recent post on (Gay) Sex and Morality. For as I — and some of my defenders — recognized (in the comments section), our critics used that reference to focus on that man’s alleged hypocrisy while ignoring the overall point of the post.
I merely used Sanchez as a jumping off point for his story caused me to reconsider the question of sexual morality. But, except for his comment on porn (that it “flattens the soul“), I don’t really find that he himself has contributed to the conversation on this important topic, the point is — and let me repeat it for blog readers ever eager to criticize gay conservatives, even if their criticism is based not on what we said, but what they think we had said — the point is that Sanchez’s story caused to me to think about sex and morality.
And on that very topic too, some readers totally missed the point of what I was trying to say. One reader even claimed that I “berate[d] gay men for not living up to a very particular standard of sexual morality.” I did no such thing. The closest I came to berating was to say that our culture does not promote sexual restraint.
I proposed instead putting forward a vision of morality which is not judgmental, but instead transformational — where we see that our sexuality can transcend the physical. Instead of berating, I wanted to inspire, to draw from the lessons I learned in my various experiences and begin a conversation about the potential of our sexuality to foster spiritual intimacy.
And if I fault gay men at all, it’s for not being willing to engage in this important conversation.
I believe sexuality is a very individual thing — and each person should be free to decide how to act on his desires. But, I also believe that our sexuality can nourish us spiritually (as well as satisfy us physically) if we see it as more than a means of physical pleasure, but also as a means of human connection.
26 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It is because, GPW, you used the “R” word — “restraint” — and furthermore, acknowledged that gay men can practice it.
The entire groupthink of the gay left revolves around a complete and utter denial of that fact, for one simple reason; they don’t want to do it.
James Chin, formerly of the World Health Organization, penned an excellent piece in the Chronicle this past Sunday that speaks directly to the issue at hand.
The highest HIV infection rates are found in many sub-Saharan African populations because up to 40 percent of adolescent and adult males and females in these populations routinely have multiple and concurrent sex partners, and they also have the highest prevalence of factors that can greatly facilitate sexual HIV transmission. In most other heterosexual populations, the patterns and frequency of sex-partner exchanges are not sufficient to sustain epidemic sexual HIV transmission.
UNAIDS and most AIDS activists reject this analysis as socially and politically incorrect, saying it further stigmatizes groups, such as injecting drug users, sex workers and men who have sex with men. However, all available epidemiologic data show that only the highest risk sexual behavior (multiple, concurrent and a high frequency of changing partners) drives HIV epidemics among heterosexuals or men who have sex with men, anywhere in the world.
This is why gay leftists and Democrats have a fetish of blaming Reagan for the AIDS epidemic; however, as this sort of data shows, the only thing Reagan could have done that would have stopped the AIDS epidemic among gays was to put in place and enforce a ban on playing musical mattresses — and, given that gays nearly rioted over merely shutting down bathhouses, one wonders how well that would have gone.
It’s all about gays wanting to avoid responsibility for the fact that gays encourage, practice, and push promiscuity as a cultural norm. Blame it on “biology”, ridicule those who wait as “repressed”….it’s all there.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2007 @ 2:24 pm - March 13, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriotWest [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Deliberate Misunderstanding of my post on (Gay) Sex and Morality? — March 13, 2007 @ 3:22 pm - March 13, 2007
“And if I fault gay men at all, it’s for not being willing to engage in this important conversation.”
This is the ‘Conservative’ myth: that engaging in conversation or espousing ethical thresholds or politically posturing for ‘family-values’ somehow translates into real results.
[First, I'm not posturing for family values here, but I do believe that this conversation would do us all good -- and may well lead to real results. --GPW]
It will never happen if your heart isn’t pure. I think that’s what so many outside of the Repubican Party find so ironic. Take the example of Bill Bennett. He wrote a whole series of books on Virtue and is seen among Republicans as both a Spiritual and Moral icon. Yet he was discovered to have wasted over $6,000,000 on frivolous slot machine gambling. Next time you see him on tv, just reflect on another sin in the Bible – that of gluttony. You don’t get to be over 340lbs without engorging yourself time and time again to blot out the uncomfortable feelings your conscience is reminding you.
Another example was Republican Andrew Sullivan. He has written extensively about how homosexual men need to turn away from their promiscuity and decadent San Francisco lifestyle. Yet again, at the exact same time he was writing this … BOOM!: anonmyous gang-bang orgies, AIDS gifting, bug chasing, and body worship. Like Bennett, his response was that he did nothing wrong.
So the reason the evil Leftist gay lifestylers are up in arms is because Jesus said that the last person to be lecturing or advising others on issues of morality is the man who has a log in his own eye. He should be working on himself first before worrying about others.
[So, are you saying that we should not have conversations on sexuality and morality? You're the one criticizing others by name. I'm asking for a conversation on these issues and promoting a vision of a sexuality that transcends its carnal aspects. --GPW]
For more: explore the Christian teachings of Roy Masters (Matt Drudge is a follower of his teachings and a supporter).
Comment by Luke — March 13, 2007 @ 3:23 pm - March 13, 2007
Not lecturing here, Luke, asking for a conversation. And to be sure, there are many gay men to to engage in that conversation. Yet, all too many seem unwilling. And that may well hold true for single straight men as well.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 13, 2007 @ 4:01 pm - March 13, 2007
#2-3: Both of you present excellent points. And yes, most if not all of us are guilty of the “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” situation.
However, be that as it may, it has been shown time and time again (most recently in the 2006 mid-term election) that those on the left employ the tactics of “slash and burn” on Republicans more often than vice versa.
To wit: George Allen’s decimation by Webb and the WaPo; Alan Keyes in the Illinois primary; Ken Mehlmann; Jeff Gannon; Rudy Giuliani. The list can keep growing.
God forbid we should cast stones at Hillary for her duplicity and her scandalous marriage, or at MA Governor Duval Patrick for his too-lavish lifestyle, or Algore for his purchasing of carbon credits from his own company. Then we’re just being mean-spirited instead of telling the truth.
Funny – the same One who said “let he who is without sin” also said “seek ye the truth, for you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”
Doug Giles has a wonderful column all about that, FYI.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 13, 2007 @ 4:21 pm - March 13, 2007
Sorry – it should say #3-4 above. Mea culpa.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 13, 2007 @ 4:29 pm - March 13, 2007
Good post, Dan. Here are some of my random thoughts. For most people, gay or straight, sexual morality basically is “whatever I have done is okay, but not much beyond that.” And that seems to be the restraint that people want others to subscribe to. Sometimes it’s because the persons thought long and hard about their choices, while others use it as a justification for their actions.
Of course, there are some people that, when looking back, thinks their behavior was wrong, and has true regret for the behavior, while others may think their current behavior is wrong but can’t help themselves.
For me, I am the opposite. My experience has been relatively limited. But I would rather have been involved in relationships earlier than I had, but in a restrained manner.
As for sex itself, I was never able to separate the act with the person. After my first sexual experience, I was bummed out for a couple of months when I was blown off by the other person, even though I had no interest in developing a relationship with him. For that reason, I don’t believe that I could have an open relationship with my partner, and that seems like a good thing to me.
As for those who don’t believe in having restraints, there are a lot of reasons for that. First, it is obviously not exclusive to gay males, since straight men, and some women follow that philosophy. Many gay persons never felt being an outcast, and were always comfortable with their sexuality, and their position in society, and placed no restrictions on having sex. But others have felt outcasted by their families, communities, and society in general, and use that as an excuse for their behavior. Of course, some of these people outgrew, while others didn’t.
But this is not limited to the nonreligious and liberals. I have seen some conservatives that appeared to have accepted their sexuality, but still regard it as inferior. So they will have sex to satisfy their needs, but gay sex, by their own definition is inferior or meaningless, so they most likely separate the sex and the person. At the very least, they are unable or unwilling to sustain relationships, because they believe they are unworthy.
So there are a number of reasons why many gay persons do not have restraint. I think that your point that some persons only see sex as a physical need are not getting the full benefit of sex. So to compensate, they have to have more and more sex. And it seems like when persons start seeing the spiritual or human connection side of sex, they start to impose restraints on their sexual activity.
I liked Michigan-Matt’s comments (in the other thread) about the closing time hook ups. I rarely stayed to closing time in gay bars, but I have stayed plenty of times to closing time in one of my straight bar stomping grounds. And there was plenty of negotiating that went on when the lights went on.
Comment by Pat — March 13, 2007 @ 5:18 pm - March 13, 2007
It’s nice to see that the Cabins are finally backing away from their psycho bitch hero, Matt Sanchez
Comment by Willy — March 13, 2007 @ 6:00 pm - March 13, 2007
LOL….and surprise, surprise, here’s Willy, whose idea of “integrity” is to support gays who ban JROTC as evil and insist the United States should abolish the military.
No wonder he thinks someone like Sanchez who SUPPORTS the military is a “psycho bitch”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2007 @ 9:12 pm - March 13, 2007
NDT, would you care to offer any evidence that I’ve support either of the things you say I’ve supported?
Comment by Willy — March 13, 2007 @ 10:58 pm - March 13, 2007
As soon as you answer Matt’s question,this question, Willy.
I ask you again: Where did Log Cabin endorse this guy anywhere or stick up for him? And just because someone is gay and not part of the leftist Gay Borg doesn’t make them a “Cabin,” or a “creampuff” or, as Pam homophobically calls them, “Cabinettes.”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2007 @ 11:34 pm - March 13, 2007
I recommend anyone who is interested in learning about the foundations of Islam and how the religion is regarded and implemented by Muslims to check out this 44 page overview.
I believe it’s extremely imporant for all Americans to learn as much about Islam as each can, so that Americans can probably evaulate the threats and possible solutions and choose a wise course of action.
vincep312.home.comcast.net/islam101.pdf
The author of this text has waived his copyright and all are free to distribute it.
Comment by Vince P — March 14, 2007 @ 12:10 am - March 14, 2007
UNAIDS and most AIDS activists reject this analysis as socially and politically incorrect,
I thought we learned a long time ago that if you f*ck around, you’re going to wind up with it. Now it’s not nice to say that? Why can’t people sack up and take responsibility for their actions?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 14, 2007 @ 12:42 am - March 14, 2007
NDT, I don’t know what group you’re in, but I agree Cabin isn’t the right word. You really should be a Cabinette.
Comment by Willy — March 14, 2007 @ 3:01 am - March 14, 2007
NDXXX, “willy” sounds a lot like many of the old GayLeftBorg commenters here who used to scramble around the barnyard telling us the “sky is falling” and GOPers and ReligRighters and “Christianists” are evil cause they want to make gays 2nd Class citizens and send them all off to concentration kamps in…. was it Montana or Minnesota?
Willy’s still using “Cabins” to smear all conservatives; I think he picked it up from his DailyKos and MyDD instruction manual.
The truth is, if Willy only had the sense to know, that most here see the LCRs as RINOs or sell-outs to conservative principles and the Party. But that would require Willy to exercise analytical powers; a talent that still clearly escapes his grasp.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2007 @ 7:29 am - March 14, 2007
Willy cant do anything more than talk like a kindergartener. I dont know if you remember those articles i was pasting in here last weekend from the guy who says Liberals suffer from the inability to use discretion and thier need to tear down things that are exceptional for the sake of it. Fits willy to a t.
Comment by Vince P — March 14, 2007 @ 8:13 am - March 14, 2007
Dan, getting back on topic, if that’s allowed… lol.
I can tell you from my personal experience that sex within the confines of a monogamous relationship is far more enriching than “sex with the last resort”, “sex with benefit-giving ‘friends’” or sex with a series of partners who are one’s perfect soulmate for the next 12-24 months.
I can also tell you, unlike many here, that taking that partner and building a family is the ultimate recognition of love between two gay people… there isn’t ANYthing that even comes close to the demands of that decidedly trust-filled, incredibly vulnerable, but richly rewarding experience.
Some of our peers, who are single, who are dating someone’s ex-ex-ex-ex BF and view issues of morality or moral agency or moral conduct as limiting, encroaching, usurping their “right” to act like a normal gay should (by their sense of the community’s license) can’t imagine how a real gay guy or guys can be monogamous. I wish I had a nickel for each time we’ve heard, “But isn’t that boring?” “You do at least play together as a couple, right?” “Why do you want to pattern our lifestyle on the breeders’ world?”
And the worst one is when they try to pull your GayCard by saying, “Well, honey, there isn’t a gay man out there who is really monogamous; if you are, you aren’t gay”. Granted, this is Ann Arbor… somewhere to the Left of SF.
I’m not sure our community is ready for a discussion on morality of gay sex. I think those that are ready are even likley less in number than those who self-identify as conservative. Is it possible for us to accept that many in society see gay sex as immoral? Is it possible for us to look fairly and deeply at the moral issues our community is known to push aside for the ego-centric satisfaction of crystal meth, anonymous sex or porn use? Can we begin by admitting that many in our community carry mortal emotional and psychological scars that thwart moral discernment? I don’t know… I think it’s great that we’ve finally gotten to the stage where not all gays HAVE TO BE Democrats or liberals… I think the GayLeftBorg has had enuff trauma just with that observation.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2007 @ 8:27 am - March 14, 2007
Ann Arbor is to the LEFT of SF??? Boy, that’s veering into Pyongyang territory if you ask me…
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 14, 2007 @ 10:32 am - March 14, 2007
We are, Peter. We affectionately call it “The Peoples Republic of Ann Arbor” and you see red background and yellow lettered bumper stickers around town.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2007 @ 11:16 am - March 14, 2007
And I thought Austin was bad! Geez….
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 14, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - March 14, 2007
Kids, your internecine battles and fine distinctions don’t interest me. Same goes for the left-wingers. From my vantage point, you’re Cabins. Some of you are Cabinettes. So. Be mad.
Comment by Willy — March 14, 2007 @ 12:36 pm - March 14, 2007
Umm, Willy, what’s with the Cabin obsession? Just asking.
Comment by Pat — March 14, 2007 @ 1:31 pm - March 14, 2007
Hi, Dan. Just dropping in, as per usual. Here’s a thought. My (former but profoundly formative) Catholic tradition thinks of sex in terms of finality…tries to think about its morality in terms of its purposes. Basically, if you can discover what sex is for, then you have a compass for deciding what kinds of sexual expression are good or not.
The male-female paradigm dominates, of course. And the first “end” of sex is procreation. Later on, the notion of interpersonal communion became more prominent. To this dyad, I would add a third, which I call either “pleasure” or “play.
I turn procreation into a wider theme for us gay men: generativity, the creation of new life, including personal transformation, renewed creativity, etc. Communion between persons sounds good as it is, although this will be a wider kind than only between committed partners. And then there’s play. So for post-Catholic gay me, the purposes of sex are generativity, communion and play.
For gay men, I suggest this way of looking at our sexual behavior: If our sexual lives do not exhibit elements of all three of these “ends”, then we have some questions to ask ourselves. I’m not suggesting a hierarchy, nor that every sexual encounter must include all three…but I find it helpful in reflecting on my sexual behavior to ask if I am promoting generativity, communion and play for myself and my partners. If one or more elements are notably lacking, I’m probably off-balance.
It’s very hard to have this discussion, since so many of us have forged our sexual identity in often very painful opposition to traditional moralities which we only experience as prohibitive and condemnatory…but I think the materials there, since they do reflect long human experience, can be useful for us if we can re-think them from our own ground of experience, without being gripped by anxiety or resentment.
Cheers!
Comment by EssEm — March 14, 2007 @ 3:06 pm - March 14, 2007
Hi, Dan. Just dropping by briefly, as usual.
Having this discussion is hard because so many of us forged our sexual identities precisely in opposition to and in painful struggle with traditional moralities, which we experienced as condemnatory and prohibitive. Been there and done that! Quite understandable.
Nevertheless, I have found some resources in my former but profoundly formative Catholic tradition that are helpful to me in making sure that my sexual life as a gay man is not only fun, but feeds my soul, too.
Catholic morality on sex is teleological. It asks what something is for, what its purpose is, and then reflects on its value or disvalue in that light. In the male-female case, procreation is primary. Eventually, communion between marital partners was added. Given that I do have a black belt in theology, I have added a third end: pleasure, or, as I prefer to say it, play.
If you take these three elements and re-think them outside heterosexual marriage, you have the idea that sex is for generativity (the creation of new life, in a wider sense), communion between persons, and play. As a gay man who is single and sexually active, I use these three to check in with myself. These are three primary purposes of sex. Each one could be expanded, of course, but I am not that cruel.
I am not suggesting a hierarchy among the three, or that every sexual encounter must include all three equally –though my experience is that the best do!— but that if my sexual practice lacks one or more of these elements on a regular basis, then my balance is off and I need to ask myself if my sex life is serving my soul.
I didn’t engage in this reflection out of some abstract desire to be good or appear to be better than others. I did it because I wanted to be happy, as myself. This is your motivation, too, I believe. Good luck with the search!
Here endeth the lesson!
Comment by EssEm — March 14, 2007 @ 3:30 pm - March 14, 2007
Tried to comment twice, with no success. Coitus interruptus!
Comment by EssEm — March 14, 2007 @ 3:32 pm - March 14, 2007
[...] I created, (Gay) Male Sexuality & the Monogamous Ideal, I penned a series of posts last year (here and here for example) encouraging gay men to engage in a serious conversation on sexuality and [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » A Conversation about Sex and Religious Ethics — June 8, 2008 @ 12:30 pm - June 8, 2008