On every first date, I try to let the conversation flow naturally so each of us can get to know the other as he is, instead of matching ourselves us to some ideal image of the perfect mate, I do try to get two things across, the first about my politics because I know that’s a deal-breaker for some gay leftists and the second about monogamy because his eagerness for an open relationship would be a deal-breaker for me.

The question always arises that, once you start dating, when does the monogamy attach?  Obviously it hasn’t yet attached to the (first) date I had this weekend where I did broach the monogamy issue (but not the political one). So, I assume it attaches when we define ourselves as boyfriends, agreeing to be faithful to one another.

Some wait until they have had a ceremony, but the point is that there is a clear, definable moment when monogamy attaches. And that leads to the question, when does it “detach.” And that’s not always so clear.  If two parties plan on divorcing, need they wait until the divorce goes through?  Or can they start seeing other people once they make their intentions clear?  And  say a married couple separates, should each partner then remain celibate?

It would seem that in some such cases, celibacy would be unwarranted. And that makes Senator Ensign’s affair a bit less problematic, but it doesn’t excuse Mark Sanford. While the South Carolina Governor has been separated from his wife for “about two weeks,” all evidence indicates the affair had begun long before that separation. Ensign, by contrast, was separated from his wife while sleeping with a campaign aide and ended the affair when he reconciled with his wife. Even so, his lady friend was married at the time, so while his marital vows may been on hiatus, hers were not. It was definitely adultery.

Despite this wrong, there is no evidence the Nevada Senator abused hs position as a public official.  Sanford, however, appears to have used state resources to fund his tryst.  So, I’m with John Podhoretz on this one, he really has “no choice but to resign.“

But, this all leads me to wonder if the media would give the Nevada Republican a pass if he had had different partisan affiliation?

UPDATE:  Glenn links a great article this morning on Reason where Steve Chapman offers some thoughts on adultery which pretty much parallel my own.  He does not, however, address the separation “conundrum.”  Since Sanford was not separated at the time his affair began, he was clearly violating his marital vows.   Chapman pretty much echoes my views, holding “Sex without marriage is OK. Sex in violation of marriage is not“: (more…)

On Saturday night over dinner, a friendly acquaintance and I had a wide-ranging discussion about a number of topics, including gender difference, sexual ethics and marital fidelity.

For both of us (I learned in the course of the evening that he was gay), monogamy is non-negotiable in a relationship.  When I mentioned that I knew several gay men in open relationships, he asked me if I thought their relationships were fulfilling.

I commented that such friends seem happy, that it wasn’t for me to judge.  He pressed me on the point and I really couldn’t answer, having never probed those guys about their relationships’ well-being.  A small “l” libertarian, valuing freedom and recognizing human difference, I thought they could be.  But, another part of me, knowing human nature, wondered if that were so.

And then, as is my wont, when I’m not certain about my answer, I rambled a bit, illustrating my point, but each illustration seemed to pull me further from the more “libertarian” answer I had offered to such questions in recent years:  an open relationship is not the choice I would make, but who am I to say that such an arrangement wouldn’t work for others.

In an open relationship, at a difficult time when you’d want to stray, you might more readily seek satisfaction with someone else rather than face those difficulties.  A partner in a monogamous union would likely still be attracted to other guys, but in rejecting their advances would be affirming his feelings for his partner, a sign of how much he valued their bond.

Such were my thoughts and the more I articulated them, the more I realized how monogamy fosters intimacy, helps deepen the connection.  Later, as I considered our conversation (especially as I watched Spanglish), I wondered if perhaps I had shifted my once firmly-held belief that monogamy was essential to a fulfilling relationship so as not to appear out of sync with the reigning ethos of gay world.

Ever a libertarian, I still believe people must be allowed the choice to remain faithful.  But, I wonder if, in making that choice, they deprive themselves of the full benefits of their relationship.

In a comment to my post on the absence of a serious debate on marriage in the campaign against Proposition 8, a reader asked, “to hear your reasons why you support same sex marriage or don’t, and your reasons why you support Prop. 8 or don’t.“

While I have some concerns with the campaign against the initiative and have some sympathy for the arguments of some of its proponents, I plan on voting “No” on 8 next Tuesday.

I want to see the state Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage overturned. At the same time, I don’t want the traditional definition of marriage enshrined in the state Constitution. But, the only way to overturn that decision is to amend the constitution.  We can’t achieve one without the other.

Hence, my lukewarm opposition.  The constitution will remain free of the offending clause.  A bad decision will stand.

Simply put, I don’t believe it’s the province of the judiciary to decide the qualifications for marriage in a particular state.  That responsibility belongs to the legislature and, here, in the Golden State given our liberal initiative policies, to the people.

In 2000, the people voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman (Proposition 22).  Fewer than five years later, the California legislature voted to recognize gay marriage.  Instead of defying the people they served, our legislators should have referred the matter back to them, asking citizens to repeal 22.

Had the citizens done so, then the legislature could have taken up the issue.

In some ways, I see Proposition 8 as our chance to weigh in on 22.   I vote “No” on 8, as I would have voted “Yes” to repeal 22.

So, if we do defeat 8, then the people will indeed have voted for gay marriage.  It would not have just been the court mandating social change.

(more…)

Every now and again you chance on an article on a cultural trend which draws some larger meaning out of it. A few days ago, a reader e-mailed an article from Out magazine asking whether Manhunt, a web-site to facilitate sex hookups for gay men, has destroyed gay culture.

We are all aware (that is, we gay men) how numerous websites like Manhust (and internet chat rooms) have made it easier for gay men to meet for sex — and sometimes hopefully more. Instead of just describing this phenomenon, writer Michael Joseph Gross tries to understand its social, cultural and personal significance as this paragraph near the beginning of the article makes clear:

Manhunt would be your perfect weapon, a heat-seeking missile for the weaknesses that have plagued us for decades. Perry Halkitis, a New York University associate dean and professor of applied psychology, says, “Manhunt is a symptom. It does well because we don’t know how to relate to each other and we don’t know how to take care of ourselves.” Dan Savage, author of the sex column “Savage Love” and editor of Seattle’s The Stranger newspaper, says, “Manhunt is a tool. Big, bad Manhunt doesn’t make guys drag themselves to the webcam and take all those pictures of their dicks.”

Halkitis and Savage are onto something.  It is a symptom of the difficulty we have relating to each other, an attempt to connect while avoiding the challenging and often messy means of building deeper, lasting and more sustaining relationships.

While understanding the phenomenon, Gross also offers some criticism of what it can do to us:

Too many of us, too much of the time, are cruising online because it’s easier and feels safer than mustering the courage, patience, discipline, and imagination required to help ourselves and each other become the men that, in our strongest moments, we want to be.

Well said, very well said.  It is easier, but it doesn’t necessarily provide what we really want.  It provides only a moment’s release, opening a window perhaps to a real connection, but one which we, all too many of us at least, close all too readily.

This is one article where you really have to read the whole thing to see where the author is going, to discover his attempt to understand the social, cultural and even personal implications of the phenomenon of internet hooking up.

Perhaps we could use the comments section here to get a serious conversation going about sites such as Manhunt and those implications mentioned above.

Related:  Gay Men, Vulnerability, Relationship

Among the many troubling things the non-monogamous “married” man Eric Erbelding said to the New York Times was his repetition of the refrain we hear all too often, particularly from gay men, that “Men are pigs.“

Granted, given our natural inclination to (for lack of better term) to “spread our seed,” we men do seem to find it more difficult to control our sexual inclination. But, control it we can. The pig of this metaphor cannot.

Yes, monogamy is a greater challenge for men than it is for women. There just seems to be something in the makeup of our gender which we see readily when comparing gay men to lesbians, the former more eager to hook up, the latter to nest. I guess one reason I relate well to lesbians is that I just don’t get those who want a sexual encounter to end with the orgasm. But, many men do.

The point is that we men do have this instinct, but we also have the ability to control it, to see the body with whom we seek pleasure as human being with whom we can relate on more than just a physical level.

Marriage has long existed as an institution which channels our sexual instinct into a fulfilling emotional relationships. The fact that so many married men have remained faithful to their wives proves that men, unlike that metaphorical pig, can indeed be tamed and can commit to a monogamous relationship.

Indeed, many men elect monogamy even without the benefit of matrimony.

The expression, “men are pigs,” becomes an excuse to prevent men from the challenging and often embarrassing work of intimacy. That intimacy, getting to know each other often, as Rabbi Meier observed, causes us to reveal our weaknesses and vulnerabilities to our partner. And some men want to use our gender to dodge these challenges and avoid this exposure. And as an excuse for our sexual exploits.

If that’s how some men want to exercise their natural instinct, that’s their choice. But, recall that marriage is an institution which, for as long as we have recorded knowledge of it, has served to tame that instinct.

If men are pigs, we are not worthy of marriage. But, I’m not one who subscribes to that narrow notion of our gender. To be sure, we do have piggish qualities, but we also have more noble ones. And marriage helps bring the latter out. At least it should.

Related: Gay Men, Vulnerability & Relationship

Before Andrew Sullivan decided that the purpose of gay marriage was to confer “dignity” on gay relationships (a definition ironically bought by the California Supreme Court), he made perhaps the most solid social argument for extending state recognition of marriage to same-sex couples.

In his landmark 1989 essay, “Here Comes the Groom,” what he called a “socially conservative” argument for gay marriage, Andrew claimed the institution is “good for gays” as it “provides role models for young gay people who, after the exhilaration of coming out, can easily lapse into short-term relationships and insecurity with no tangible goal in sight.”

If the experience of Patrick Range McDonald, an openly gay writer for the LA Weekly (and correspondent of Bruce and myself) is any indication, the recent spate of gay weddings in California appears to be proving the point Andrew made now nearly twenty years ago. After covering the gay weddings this week in West Hollywood for his paper, Patrick wrote me (and granted me permission to publish his comments):

The wedding on Monday touched my deeply. I don’t feel any peer pressure to get married, which I think some gays may be feeling these days, but it made me realize how nice it would be to go forward in life with another man as my husband. Life turns into something bigger than yourself, and I like the idea of that.

Maybe gay marriage will indeed promote the cultural change Andrew once (and may still) advocated.

Yet, other evidence suggests that for many gay men, marriage does not impose the same requirements on them as it has on heterosexual couples. According to the New York Times, one “married”* gay man, Eric Erbelding says, “men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything,” adding that while “most married gay couples he knows are ‘for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.’”

Sorry, Eric, that ain’t marriage. If you want to engage in occasional threesomes or any other extramarital liaisons, you should certainly be free to do so, but once you do, you can’t call yourself married. Nor should a swinging heterosexual couple call their non-exclusive union marriage.

(more…)

Last night, as I was working on a post on bad advice (a particular bane of my adult life) which I decided not to complete or publish as it was becoming too personal, I was thumbing through a book I had read about a decade ago, Rabbi Levi Meier’s Ancient Secrets: Using the Stories of the Bible to Improve Our Everyday Lives to find something (I thought) he had written on the perils of giving advice.

While I was unable to find that passage, I did chance on something Rabbi Meier said about sexuality which corresponds to some thoughts I’ve been offering occasionally on this blog (most recently here):

This is the biblical teaching of how to develop a deeper level of intimacy, what might be called “afterplay.” The Bible is saying that the sexual experience is so important that both individuals should take time out afterwards just to be together. They can talk with each other and get to know each other on the new level to which the intimacy of sex has brought them.

Not that often when the Bible speaks of people having sex, it uses the verb “to know,” as in “Now Adam knew his wife, Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain.”

This is meant to be taken literally. Sex should be a way in which one person gets to know another, in which both parties discover each other’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities, each other’s strengths and hidden talents. How important is this? It is the very secret of a stable, happy marriage.

Let’s hope the gay and lesbian couples rushing to the altar in California in this and coming weeks bear that Biblical wisdom in mind (as do all married couples).

Even those of us not in committed relationships should keep that in mind as we explore our sexuality.

Tonight as Jews around the world celebrate Shavu’ot, a holiday honoring the giving of the Torah, my congregation, Kol-Ami, will be holding a special study session at 7:30 PM to discuss Judaism and sexual ethics. Please join us at 1200 N. La Brea for what promises to be a fascinating and insightful discussion about an issue I believe we gay people should discuss with greater frequency.

On this holiday, many Jews engage in all-night study sessions, considering the meaning of Scripture and its various commentaries, often relating those lessons to struggles we face in our daily lives. Thus, this discussion fits right into this ancient Jewish tradition.

As those who regularly read this blog know, I have occasionally weighed in on the struggle gay people (particularly gay men) have in trying to draw the boundary dividing appropriate from inappropriate sexual behavior. It seems that all too often all too many believe that sex is okay provided we play safe, that the conversation ends there.

But, I believe sex should be more than that, more than just pleasuring ourselves with another as we satisfy this natural human instinct. It should serve as a means to connect us in a deeper way to our fellows. Note the use of “should” in this paragraph. This is my idealistic notion of sexuality, my recognition of its potential.

As part of the category 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 sexual ethics.

I offer further thoughts on this topic (in many ways just rehashing points I have made previously) below the jump: (more…)

Sometimes there’s wisdom in snark.

Yesterday, Pajamas linked me to this post by Amy Alkon which, at one point, had me laughing so loud a nosey nearby neighbor might have questioned my sanity. This Angelena comments on a New York Times Magazine piece about “a Harvard girl with her legs crossed so tight, it’s a wonder she doesn’t pop veins.” (Sometimes, I wonder if Amy’s style influences our own Vera Charles–or vice versa.)

While I may have more sympathy for this co-ed who has sworn off premarital sex (having myself once made and kept a vow of celibacy for several seasons), I think Amy makes a great point when she contends that the general theme of the piece, that being “obsessed with not having sex” is worse that being obsessed with sex. I don’t entirely agree with her here, thinking both obsessions are equally bad.

The idea is to find the proper balance, that ancient Greek concept of moderation and harmony.

Anyway, Amy takes down a sanctimonious student and makes a great point about sex. Her post is well worth reading — and pondering. Perhaps, that celibate co-ed will find a harmonious notion of sexuality when she weds. After all, she’s still young.

Finally, don’t let my celebration of Amy’s snark suggest that I discount the value of celibacy. I tried it once–and it offered me a broader perspective on gay culture and relationships. While I do recommend celibacy for a period of time, I don’t consider it a reasonable lifestyle choice.

It seems that every winter, a number of publications release their lists of recommending holiday reading, assuming their readers will be in a book-buying mood when they shop for holiday presents. Indeed, it the National Review’s Symposium on Christmas shopping, that journal’s editors noted that its list (collated from “regular contributors and friends) “as often is the case . . . is book heavy.” The folks at Powerline linked the Claremont Review of Books Christmas reading list. But, it doesn’t seem the Weekly Standard has offered such a list since 2004.

Doubting that there exists a gay conservative reading list, I thought I’d offer my own list of gay books that I recommend. Some of these writers’ might be surprised to find their books on the reading list of a gay conservative. Indeed, one of the authors raises money for the Democratic National Committee.

Back when I was trying to publish my novel, I used to read gay novels with great regularity, feeling it my duty to familiarize myself with what was out there. But, I found that most of them were self-indulgent, without focus, theme or moral, except to blame society in general and conservatives in particular for the plight of gay men. One novel even took infidelity as a matter of course in gay (male) relationship.

And that said, I did discover some gems. I’ll get to those in due course.

i wanted to start with the book (that I believe) is the most important book on gay culture or as its author subtitled it, “The Gay Individual in American Society.” That book is of course Bruce Bawer’s, A Place at the Table. It was the first gay book I read which addressed concerns I had as I was coming to terms with my feelings. I underlined numerous passages, scribbled notes in the margin, noted important passages in the flyleaves.

Among the many insights Bruce offers is this observation on “professional gays,” among whom “there has been too much invective and too little effort to explain and clarify.” Seems like some of these people have turned up in our comments section.

He suggested that the “vociferous emphasis on ‘gay pride’” was a sign “that, deep down, many subculture-oriented gays don’t really have very much pride in themselves as individuals; for it would never occur to an individual with pride in himself to feel a need for group-oriented pride.” And this wonderful line: “I hate to see people cocooning themselves in victimhood and straightacketing themselves in stereotype.” For that and other insights, I highly recommend Bruce Bawer’s, A Place at the Table.

I have only read a few of the essays in Bruce’s BEYOND QUEER: Challenging Gay Left Orthodoxy. For those essays alone, the book is well worth the cost.

While most readers who have read both of Andrew Sullivan’s first two books prefer the first published, Virtually Normal, I found that tiresome and repetitive. I think his second book, Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival, is the superior, largely due to his essay on friendship. There he observes:

For a gay child or adolescent doesn’t really have a friend in the true sense of the term until he has a gay friend who knows and accepts the fact that he is gay. When he finds this friend, who is almost always gay himself, the relationship has a significance often far deeper than the first friend a heterosexual child discovers. Because, in a way, it is only when the gay child finds his first true friend that he can really exist at all. Until then, only a part of him exists, the public part, the part that has learned to act and portray a real person, while the essential person, his deepest self, remains hidden from view, even, in many cases, from himself and almost always from the people he cares about the most, his family.

Indeed. Now, just get the book to see that while Andrew’s latest writings may be angry and unhinged, he once had something to say and said it quite well.

(more…)

WARNING–SPOILER ALERT If you haven’t seen the movie and don’t want to know what happens, don’t read any further.

It’s been a week since I saw Beowulf the movie and I still can’t get out of my head all the changes they made to the original (and wonderful) story. The biggest change being the transformation of Grendel’s Mother from a speechless and hideous underworld demon into a seductive and seemingly omnipotent sprite.

In the comely form of Angelina Jolie, she entices both Hrothgar and Beowulf, spawning two of the monsters that the supposed hero (well, he’s a hero in the real story) battles. The ending suggests she’ll succeed in seducing Wiglaf, that monster-slayer’s heir and most loyal compatriot, likely producing another murderous beast. Thus, it seems the moral of this story that seduction breeds beasts.

It’s almost as if the screenwriters grafted a notion from a Victorian novel onto a medieval tale. In such novels, unmarried women who engage in sexual relations meet unfortunate ends while the scandal often destroys (or otherwise humiliates) the man who seduced her.

But, here we have a movie adapted from a story with no sex scene and a character whose very qualities would make it easy for him to resist even Angelina’s otherworldly charms. Not only that, in the movie, unlike the original story, she had killed all but one of his fellow Geatish travelers. It is unbelievable that a man, particularly one of Beowulf’s caliber, who having learned of the slaughter of his troop, would let the perpetrator of that atrocity seduce him.

While there is no sex scene in the original tale, there is, to be sure, a suggestion of sexual tension between Beowulf and Wealtheow, the young wife of the aged King Hrothgar. In the movie, that comely Dane does marry Beowulf after her husband’s untimely demise (a demise which does figure into the poem’s primary narrative). Perhaps, the filmmakers enhanced her role because, they recognize as did John Sullivan in that wonderful film about his travels that “There’s always a girl in the picture.“

To keep that girl in the picture–and remain true to the story–the filmmakers could have built on the romantic tension between Beowulf and Wealtheow, perhaps having the two attempt a tryst. But, just as they’re about to consummate the act, Beowulf, realizing the debt he owes Hrothgar and the duty he owes his host, would turn away from this lovely lady, telling her he couldn’t squire the wife of a man who saved his father.

As he rebuffed he would telled he loved her. He would retain the image of here beauty throughout his life. And at the end of the poem, as he prepares to fight the dragon and realizes he may die, one of his retainers (possibly Wiglaf) might ask him to reflect on his life. He realizes that the cost of his duty was the loss of romance in his life, perhaps then seeing his death as a means to unite himself his beloved, herself then long since dead.

But, I, like the Beowulf-poet, digress. While Wealtheow did enjoy a larger role in the movie (than in the poem), the more voluptuous vamp is the girl (I mean, you see her and not Robin Wright Penn (who played Wealtheow) on billboards promoting the movie).

With the monstrously seductive Angelina as the girl, the film develops a notion of sex which makes Victorian notions seem quaint. For when she seduces a man, she spawns a monster who murders his people. And it’s not just Angelina. The first man, the movie’s Hondshew, who attempts to seduce a woman, becomes Grendel’s first Geatish victim.

While I do believe that the best sex involves human relationship, I do understand the power of our sexual urges. And they are not monstrous, but quite human. Here, we don’t even have a married man cheating on his wife. At the time of the seduction, Beowulf has yet pledged his troth to Wealtheow.

Maybe the reason I can’t let go of the movie’s turning a female monster into an invincible seductress. It’s not just that it’s out of place in the Beowulf-story — bringing it themes at odds with the story’s themes and having the character do things at odds with the character. It’s that it makes human weakness appear monstrous.

While I do believe that married men and women must remain faithful to their partners, I’m still wrestling with what kind of pre-martial sexual behavior is appropriate. As I’m sure as are many people, aware of sexuality’s power and their own longing to make of it more than a mere grinding of loins. It may not be entirely right for an unmarried man to sleep with a seductive inhuman sprite, but it shouldn’t be considered monstrous.

And it’s unfortunate the latest Beowulf flick suggests as much.

Among the many interesting people I’ve met at Breaking Stories, Breaking Waves, the LGBT Media Summit and National Convention, has been an individual I least expected to meet here. Allyson Smith, a Reporter/Researcher for Americans for Truth, a “national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda,” has been attending the convention and even sat in on my panel, “The Right Approach: Covering LGBT Conservatives.”

A few hours ago, while chatting with the Washington Blade’s Kevin Naff in the hotel bar, we saw her walk back and asked Miss Smith to join us. Not only did she agree with alacrity, but when she spoke with us, she offered conversation that was both interesting and engaging — and of particular note, given one of my primary concerns, she was above all quite civil.

Her views of the conference were similar to my own, saying that “everyone has been very nice to me.” Wayne Besen, who moderated our panel yesterday and has written extensively on ex-gays, noted her attitude was similar to that of many such conservatives. When Allyson, Kevin and I discussed her civil reception, we all agreed that often we let political disagreement create animosity.

“If we disagree with people,” I said, “we feel we have to hate them.” Fortunately that wasn’t true with this representative of a group which holds a view of homosexuality at odds with the reality of the lives of so many gay men and lesbians.

Smith noted the amount of destructive behavior in the gay community, with people having promiscuous sex and often not taking precautions to prevent the spread of STDs. Kevin and I acknowledged that such behavior persists in the gay community, but noted that it is not limited to gay men—and that a number of straight men (and women) are also promiscuous, often destructively so.

And I pointed out that while there are exceptions, lesbians tend not to have the same self-destructive sexual behaviors as gay men, havings relationships which correspond with the heterosexual married ideal.

When she talked about how Christian values offer an alternative to homosexual behavior, I countered that gay men can bring (indeed many have brought) such values into their relationships with other men. Somewhat agreeing with her point defining a monogamous marriage between one man and one woman as the ideal, I pointed out that gay people could also be inspired by that ideal. (I even noted how I have blogged about it in posts filed under this category).

We did agree that promiscuous sex can lead to shame and emptiness.

And I pointed out that while there are exceptions, lesbians tend not to have the same self-destructive sexual behaviors as gay men and tend to for relationships which correspond with the heterosexual married ideal.

In all, it was a good conversation. I regretted having to end it so I could attend a panel which was considerbly less interesting than our exchange.

I very much appreciated her coming to the conference and taking the time to listen to a great variety of gay perspectives here. While we disagree strongly, I hope our conversation helped her see that there are gay men who define our orientation as involving more than immediate and frequent gratification of our sexual desires. That many of us are seeking the same sort of things that straight people are looking for, including socially conservative individuals of faith.

Given my commitment to civil discourse, I have offered Miss Smith a chance to respond to this post. I will post it as an addendum, even if I disagree with her ideas. And invite you to reply to her thoughts in the same manner (and tone) that she offers them.

ADDENDUM FROM ALLLYSON SMITH:

I appeciated the opportunity to speak with you and Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff at the NLGJA conference today. Our exchange was interesting and civil, and I was pleased that we were able to discuss our respective views in a respectful manner. And everyone else whom I’ve personally encountered at Breaking Stories, Breaking Waves has treated me with civility and kindness, which I didn’t expect and deeply appreciate. Thank you.

Even though there are many issues we will likely never agree upon–some of which arose in our conversation–I was happily surprised to find we concur that promiscuous sex persists in the homosexual community. “Our side”–we Christian conservatives (CCs)–often feel that when we point out such a fact, we are labeled with epithets such as “haters” or “bigots” or worse, when all we are attempting to do is point out the truth in love and concern.

[The rests of her addendum continues below the jump:]

(more…)

In my previous post, I noted how, in Greek mythology, the goddess Athena helps guide that culture’s heroes, serving as a model of the feminine influence young men need in order to “fulfill their role as responsible adults.” In The Iliad, she restrains Achilles who, in his anger, wishes to kill his fellow Greek Agamemnon, telling her strapping favorite that she comes to “check” his rage, promising him that if he holds back, “one day glittering gifts will lie before you,/three times over to pay for all his outrage.”

With this action, the gray-eyed goddess demonstrates two of the qualities she seeks to instill in her male favorites: restraint and strategic thinking. For it often seems that without such feminine influence, we men might be more inclined to focus on the present without considering the long-term consequences of our actions. Had Achilles fulfilled his desire to kill Agamemnon, a civil war would likely have broken out among the Greeks, preventing them from accomplishing their (and Athena’s) ultimate goal — defeating Troy. His restraint in the crisis at hand will lead to his glory later in the conflict.

In his rage, Achilles lost sight of the real goal. And it’s not merely in our martial endeavors where we men have difficulty restraining ourselves. It’s also in our sexual pursuits. Too often, we want to gratify our immediate urge for carnal pleasure without considering the long-term consequences of our actions.

For all too long, I was swayed by the arguments of my fellow gay men (including nearly all my gay male friends) that it was okay to “hook up” for casual sex. But, then I began to wonder if my occasional hookups compromised my chances to find what I was ultimately seeking — a long-term monogamous relationship with one man. I resolved that it would serve me better to ignore their advice. And that has not always been easy. For the appeal of the carnal is strong, particularly among us men.

Only in thinking about what I really wanted — and calling to mind the subject of my dissertation — was I able to hold myself back. Once again, this is not an issue of judgment, but of my own personal choice. If others have different goals, it is not for me to decide how they should meet them.

It’s how I came to realize of the importance of Athena — and the principles she represents — to the conversation on gay marriage. For traditional marriage is based upon uniting individuals of different genders, with the woman usually serving as the force of restraint, preventing the man from straying. The issue for gay man becomes how to incorporate the qualities that women bring to marriage to unions which lack a female presence.

With their high regard for that often armor-clad Olympian, the Greeks recognized that a female force was often necessary to help civilize men. Perhaps, we gay men who do not seek to connect with a woman in our romantic (and sexual) lives can, by understanding how Athena served Greek men, find a means to bring those qualities into our lives that women have traditionally brought to marriage.

(more…)

Looks like it’s been slow blogging here for a while. As I mentioned in my previous post (which, I believe, attracted more comments than any prior post on this blog*) busy last week finishing the first draft of my “concept paper” for my dissertation, focusing on how Athena primarily serves men in Greek myth.

Well, today (it’s still Wednesday on the West Coast as post this), I shared that paper with my dissertation formulation seminar where, I am delighted to report, it was well-received. For a while I had debated not continuing on with my program, but, as I realize that my topic is not only an important one, but one which interests people other than myself, I am ever more eager to press ahead. And I’m enjoying the research as well. The more I delve into this topic, the more it fascinates me — as it seems that the Greeks were not the only ones to see a female deity as providing the civilizing influence in patriarchal society. In The Epic of Gilgamesh, quite possibly the oldest extant myth, goddesses set in motion the chain of events which help transform the eponymous hero-king from a tyrant abusing his authority to a more humble–and self-conscious–king.

I intend to explore how certain goddesses in myths serve to civilize men — and how they represent the feminine attributes we males need to become mature adults. The Greek Athena (as her Roman counterpart Minerva) counseled restraint and provided guidance to her male favorites, but, remained herself a virgin. Unlike her sister Aphrodite, she was always depicted fully clothed. Through Athena (and other similar goddesses), I will attempt to understand the power of the non-sexual feminine in men’s lives, something of which, I believe, we gay men are particularly in need. Given the nature of my program, I may well be able to explore this notion in my conclusion.

I hope to be back to regular blogging by the end of the week and have a number of things to say about items in the news, particularly how the MSM seems to be spinning the president’s trip to Europe by focusing not on the growing consensus between the president and our European allies on a number of issues, but on the areas of division. They seem to be using the same template to cover his foreign policy that they have used since former French President Jacques Chirac found common cause with then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in opposing the liberation of Iraq.

Yes, there are differences, but there is more common ground — and with Chirac and Schroeder no longer leading their respective nations, it’s clear that it wasn’t as much the president’s policies which created friction with our allies, but the determination of certain world leaders to oppose him at any cost. (This is not to say he didn’t make my mistakes, but to note that the president’s policies have not caused as much damage to our nation’s image as many in the MSM and in the Democratic Party allege.)

And I hope to do a post looking at both an Australian ruling allowing a gay pub to ban straight patrons and a lesbian’s suit against the dating service eHarmony “for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.” Suffice it to say that I take the side of freedom in both cases. And expect to blog more about this in the coming days.

Finally, I’m not sure what to make of Bruce’s recent post. I would not have posted that picture for a great variety of reasons.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

*probably due to the absence of new content on this blog for several days.

My greatest fear in doing the posts on sex and morality (here and here) is that some people will assume I have become judgmental, faulting those who do not live up to an idealistic vision of sexual expression. Were I to be that person, I would have to be critical of the behavior of most of my friends (at one point of another in their lives) and even myself. For not only have we all (well, most of us, including yours truly) failed to live up to our ideals, but we have also had to learn by trial and error what works best for us.

My point in doing the posts was to stimulate discussion. As anyone has learned who has tried to understand his sexuality, it is a very complicated issue, one for which the morality of right and wrong only has limited usefulness. There are clearly things which are wrong (i.e., sleeping with a man in a committed relationship), but on most issues, we have to stumble around in the dark before we find what is right for us.

On both threads, there has been some serious conversation and, alas, some who would rather fault this blog for its political leanings than address this non-political topic which, I believe, all gay men (indeed, all men and all women) should consider. And should consider in a thoughtful manner. For just as there are many Republicans, including some of our readers, who do have (and live) a moral vision of their sexuality, there are numerous Democrats (and others on the left) also committed to such a lifestyle.

This is not a political issue. And let me repeat, the morality I propose is not judgmental, but rather transformational — or perhaps inspirational — reminding us to see our sexuality in a context that transcends its carnal aspects.

At the same time, I draw readers’ attention to a comment a reader made to my first post on the topic:

horniness can be analogous to pain we feel the need to do something (i.e., masturbate or have sex) just to cease the “pain” in our brain. (Is this why we call an orgasm a “release”?) Of course, that doesn’t excuse us from behaving irresponsibly to others and ourselves.

We all need to understand that many of us see (or have seen) sex as a means to feel less alone, to connect, if just for a moment, with another human being.

The basic reason I have been writing these posts is not because I have the answers, but because I believe the questions are important ones, ones which all of us, gay and straight alike, should address so that we might better understand ourselves and live more meaningful lives.

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.

Several years ago, while browsing in a bookstore in an outlet mall in North Carolina, I chanced upon Dr. Ruth Westheimer’s Sex and Morality: Who Is Teaching Our Sex Standards. While I have never read the book, it has sat on the shelves in my various apartments for the past decade or so. I keep it as much because I intend to read the book as because its title intrigues me.

In the past week, particularly as I have followed the media reaction to the revelations that Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, recently honored by CPAC, had once done gay porn, that issue has once again come to mind. In the comments to Bruce’s post on the topic, a reader linked Kevin McCullough’s Townhall.com column explaining Why Christians Embrace ‘Gay’ Porn Stars. And while I disagree with many of his conclusions, I do think he gets a few things right. But, alas that he paints with too broad a brush, ruling out all gay sex.

On some issues, he does address issues essential to the conversation on sex and morality, issues which, I believe, we need to bear in mind. He suggests that the “thought of personal sexual restraint is foreign to” certain “homosexuals.”

Sexual restraint lies at the heart of any notion of sexual morality. And even while acknowledging — and one day hoping to act upon — their own longings for same-sex physical intimacy, gay people are capable of restraining themselves sexually. It’s just that our culture, alas, does not seem to promote such restraint, indeed, encouraging us to “let go” sexually just so long as we “play safe.”

Too often gay people turn away from discussion of morality in our considerations of sexuality because too many people, like Mr. McCullough, have cast sexual morality in such black-and-white terms. Merely by acting on our same-sex sexual desires, these people claim, we will be committing a sin.

But, the real issue of morality is not one of judgment, but one of personal/spiritual transformation — how to turn our longings for carnal contact into something more than a mere grinding of loins (to paraphrase Catullus). A friend once said, morals exist to help us live happier lives. I second that and add that they also help us live deeper, more meaningful lives.

(more…)

If I watched Grey’s Anatomy more often, I might know the names of the characters. On the show tonight (Thursday, February 22, 2007), I caught a conversation where a female character asked her boyfriend (or at least I assume he was her boyfriend) to go sixty days without sex with anyone. He seemed to balk at first, but eventually agreed.

It does seem harder for us men to go without sex than it is for our female counterparts.

So, my questions for the thread–Is this guy going to make it all sixty days? Can men go so long without sex? Should they? Have you ever done that? And was it a good thing for you?

UPDATE (Friday 02-23 @ 12:15 EST (blog time): I had waited to give my own answer to the question. Yes, I think the guy can make it all 60 days and that it will change him as he will learn to appreciate his girlfriend more, realizing that one can indeed go so long without sex. For when we go so long without, we learn to focus on other aspects our relationships.

While I don’t think people should eliminate sex from their lives, the Jung quote in this post pretty much sums up my views. I think there are times when it is good for us to go without sex. And whether it is sixty days — or six hundred — each individual should figure out for himself what works best for him.

As I’ve been busy today catching up on errands I neglected to run over the weekend and collecting notes for a paper due next week, I chanced upon a passage in Carl Jung’s Psychology and Religion, a most excellent book, upon which I had intended to blog:

A mere suppression of the shadow is just as little of a remedy as is beheading against headache. To destroy a man’s morality does not help either, because it would kill his better self, without which even the shadow makes no sense. The reconciliation of these opposites is a major problem, and even in antiquity it bothered certain minds.

While I expect to say more about this in a subsequent post, I think this passage really gets at the essence of our sexuality. On the one hand, we have religious fundamentalists who want us to limit our sexuality, those who see beheading as remedy against a headache. And on the other we have the “sexual fundamentalists” who see morality an unnecessary limitation on our sexuality.

One would have us repress our sexuality, the other our morality.

Jung understand that neither side had the answer, but suggests that each of us must find it in reconciliation these (apparent) opposites.

Something to ponder.

Not too long ago, as I was driving home from a meeting, a friend called and asked me to come over. When I got to his place, he seemed upset, but gratified to see me. He had just had a job interview for an opening which had seemed promising. But, his prospective employer had not been very accommodating. Noting that this once-promising opportunity evaporated, he expressed concern that his job search could lead to naught.

In telling me the story, not merely venting about the difficult interview, but also expressing his anxieties about the job search, my friend acknowledged his own vulnerability, something which all too many of us seem to reserve for our conversations with our therapists. Afraid to let any chinks appear in our masculine façades, we don’t want to let others see our pain, our fears, our anxiety.

I have often wondered why some gay men (just like our straight counterparts) project this image of masculine toughness as if we fear any indication of vulnerability might make us appear weak or too “feminine” and so make us less attractive to others. But, when my friend told me his story, it only drew me closer to him. I saw him as a more complex human being, sensitive, alert to his feelings.

I find the men who come across as too icy, too tough as far less attractive than those men who manifest a little bit of vulnerability underneath their masculine exterior. Yet, all too often, I see gay men who, after offering a hint of vulnerability, instantly close up.

I wonder sometimes if that’s the reason so many of us cut ourselves off from the guys with whom we “hook up.” Acknowledging that we find someone attractive, that we desire him, indicates a certain vulnerability to his beauty. (Perhaps, we don’t like giving him that power.) Yet, after we have (for lack of better term on a blog open to the public) found our pleasure with him, too many of us cut ourselves off from the man who just moments previously we had so desired. Is it that we are afraid to acknowledge his power over us, to acknowledge our own vulnerability?

Instead of seeing sex as a means of connection, that desire represents (in part) a longing to bond with another human being, we dress it up so as not to let on that we feel alone. We see it as just sex, serving only our own pleasure. And not perhaps an indication that we are dependant upon others for certain things in life.

(more…)