Embattled love

[vaneramos]

Today a friend posted an account of how he fell in love with his wife, and what outside abuse they experienced together because of it. Their relationship broke her culture's traditions and her relatives set out to punish them for it. The story reminded me that gays are not the only people who face prejudice because of who they love.

In defending homosexuality, many people quickly point to research suggesting it is genetically based, but the results are far from conclusive. On the other hand, anti-gay psychology depends on developmental causes that supposedly can be counteracted, despite a lack of evidence that people can change their orientation at will.

Sexual preference probably arises from a variety of factors. Recently I have considered whether I might be bisexual. Past experiences have caused me to feel certain aversion to emotional intimacy with women. This is not true of all gay men, but in my case it could be argued that my orientation has arisen partly from psychological causes. As I experience healthier and happier friendships with women, the possibility of heterosexual attraction does not feel as remote as it once did.

Still I choose to love men because I like it better. So what if it's a choice?

Since our ancestors descended from the trees and slouched into their smoky caves, humans have set up legal systems and religions forbidding all kinds of harmless acts. Our world still holds taboos against loving people of a different race or the same sex, or loving more than one person. These rules have nothing to do with human nature or harmonious community, only with establishing a heirarchy of power. The institution of marriage submits to this authority. No relationship should be accorded privileges, excepting a child's relationship with his or her parents.

I have chosen to love a man and hope our relationship will continue for the rest of my life. I don't care whether this choice is ordained by my DNA or a consequence of early childhood experiences. To love him is as valuable as loving anyone else.

I have other people with whom I experience lesser emotional and sexual attachments. Likely other relationships will someday rise to eminent levels and play significant roles in my life. Cultural heritage suggests polyamory is immoral or abnormal, but nature persuades me otherwise.

Integrity and respect seem like useful tools for conduct. Within those constraints I expect to break the rules shamelessly. But shame is another matter, difficult to recognize and overcome in all its forms. It's the most obscure power society enacts against the individual.

Comments

[daisydumont.livejournal.com]

there's a test i've taken a few times, which you may be familiar with, called the Klein Grid. it allows for rating all sorts of factors of orientation, much more articulated in approach than the old Kinsey Scale. there are so many gradations of desire, both physical and emotional. i think bisexuality is a fluid thing, with possibilities of going up and down the scale (so to say) at various times for differing reasons.

it seems natural to me that there should be choices to make. the old kinsey scale had purely gay and purely straight at opposite ends of the line, with again a fluid range in the middle, where many choices could lie.

i'll shut up. this is interesting to me, though.
klein grid briefly explained

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Interesting DD, and I hadn't heard of it before. I agree that sexuality is fluid. I've thought that way for years, but only recently felt any fluidity in myself. I would be interested in taking the test, but the site doesn't seem to provide any links to one.

[daisydumont.livejournal.com]

hmm, yeah, you're right. it was just a little illustration. here's the test, or close to it, better laid out. i'll take it again later on too. i don't see a key to it -- as in, if you get this score or that score, you're definitely bi (or whatever) -- but i think the taking of it is in itself revealing as an activity.
klein grid, again

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

Still I choose to love men because I like it better. So what if it's a choice?

Yeah. Although a possible genetic basis for sexuality explains many things and has political uses, an analogy to religious freedom (including freedom from religion) is equally useful. Should I decide to become a Buddhist tomorrow, one would hope I would not be persecuted for my choice.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Besides, genetic arguments can easily be turned upside down and inside out. Some genes are inferior, right? Whether or not sexual orientation has a genetic component, we must still argue for value of expressing it and the freedom to do so.

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

Yes. And consider the whiff of internalized homophobia in the statements some people make when claiming a genetic basis for homosexuality: "I can't help it, I was born this way," for example. Er, ewwww.

I *could* stop sleeping with men, actually. But my life would be seriously diminished.

And it would not necessarily lead to MORE sleeping with women. Indeed, my sexual experiences with women have been more numerous and more fulfilling since coming out and developing healthy relationships with men. Knowing that, why would I *ever* talk about my sexuality as if it were some sort of curse or flaw, unless I were talking about some specific unhealthy thing (if I could think of one) that I needed to focus on?

As Bill points out, we're really talking about a complex phenomenon anyway (human sexuality in all its diversity), not something coded for on Chromosome 16 at one particular location.

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

I think one of the problems with trying to find "the cause of homosexuality" is that it's a bogus category. Many diverse behaviours and motivations (and therefore causes) lumped together for convenience in oppressing. :)

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Yes, and arguing about the cause is overly defensive, like reinterpreting the Bible to prove that it doesn't condemn homosexuality. Really we ought to think outside the box, rather than sorting out the oppressive mess inside it.

Orientation

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

It will be interesting to try that test myself, out of curiosity. But for my experience and looking back, I know I was developing my orientation way back in adolescence/pre-teens. I was also very asexual up until 3 years ago when I had my first gay encounter, with a bisexual guy I had been chatting with.

I do distinctly recall thinking then how gross to be "violating" the woman's vagina and therefore could not see myself doing sexual intercourse, but have since done so with a man I was dating from last September until this past February.

I have never thought of myself as bisexual and while I do have lots of respect for women, I just don't see them as sex objects. When out and about, it's the good looking man I notice first over all else, have been this way for years.

It's those kinds of clues that lead me to believe we, who are gay, are born gay and have some kind of gene, one that isn't inherited, but we all have it to some degree and for some, it's greater than others and it's those of us who do, have a greater chance of becoming gay.

However, it's a choice to reconcile that part of ourselves and live our true selves or to deny it and never aknowledge that it even exists.

The interesting thing about my coming out experience is that I found out that I had a fetish before I knew I was even gay. The development of the fetish can be traced back, as far as I know to 1976/1977 time period. Before that, I didn't like dress shirts etc and after a strange incident with a former childhood friend (he touched his dick to mine, briefly, I was horrified, needless to say), I suddenly found myself looking at the Sears and/or Penny's catalogues at the men's dress shirts, ties and suits. My first actual playing with my clothes came in 1978 when I played with a navy blue 3pc suit I had, and the rest, as they say, is history.

anyhow, this is indeed an interesting argument and I would venture to say that I'm pure gay as I most prefer to be with a man in a sexual/erotic/sensual situation over all else.

To quote Michael "Mouse" Tolliver, "I'm as queer as a 3 dollar bill." :-)

Re: Orientation

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

I used to have that same feeling of grossness you mention, which I described in my post as aversion to sex with women. Now I believe that feeling reflected the conflict I felt over my own sexuality. As time went on and I became more content in my own sexuality, those feelings of disgust vanished. In becoming more self-accepting, I am also freer to view women as sexual beings.

[leafshimmer.livejournal.com]

Beautifully stated and phrased.

Didn't somebody once write, or sing: "The love you take is equal to the love you make"?

It's how I *choose* to live my life.

hugs, Shimmer

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

I like that quote. It reminds me that a year ago I wasn't receiving much love, and I felt closed, selfish and guilty about my sex life. Feeling loved has opened me to becoming a more generous lover. I'm grateful to those who have loved me, and also to myself for being dissatisfied with selfishness and seeking a more giving path.

[apel.livejournal.com]

You know I agree with you. As others have said, the issue what "causes" homo- or hetero-sexuality is a smokescreen. What matters is that love, affection and mutual respect are good things in and of themselves. Love does not need to be cirumscribed by irrational rules that create more misery than they prevent.

But then again, this is exactly the kind of reasoning you'd expect from a priestess of Aphrodite, isn't it? Ah, I'm so debauched. ;-)

[apel.livejournal.com]

"circumscribed" even.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

On first glance I read "circumcised!"

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Is that who you always refer to as Goddess?

You Got Me Thinking.

[walterwz.livejournal.com]

Can there be any better integrity and respect as the basis of a relationship. Rising above the blind determinism of our cultural programming is a good thing I think.

I definitely went off a bit so I though I would add a link to the main thing:

Living At Higher Levels of Awareness (http://www.livejournal.com/users/walterwz/63355.html#cutid1)

Re: You Got Me Thinking.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Interesting indeed. The more I become aware of my own feelings, the more I must think outside the box and discover new meanings.

[writer00.livejournal.com]

I thought your post was moving and well thought out. I’ve been thinking a lot about the nature of relationships as well. As someone who is interested in Buddhism, and in a committed marriage, it brings up all sorts of issues for me. There were a couple of things I wanted to try and explore, though.

Cultural heritage suggests polyamory is immoral or abnormal, but nature persuades me otherwise.

This was probably the sentence that gave me the most to think about. I think that there is nothing wrong with polyamory, although I think that it becomes more problematic when there are children involved. I don’t think it is any more natural, though, than monogamy. There is a lyric from a Love and Rockets song that goes:

You cannot go against nature
because when you do
go against nature
it’s a part of nature too

What I will say about polyamorous relationships is that I have yet to meet anybody in these relationships who are truly happy. Now I know a whole group of people who are into this, and many of the problems they experience may be unrelated to polyamory at all, and may just have to do with the dysfunctions we all grow up with in a western, monotheistic, and monogamous culture. And of course, I certainly do believe that there are many people out there who have absolutely wonderful and fulfilling polyamorous relationships. I guess it is simply that different models work for different people based upon their own particular experiences, starting from the nature of their parents’ relationships, on to their own. And I have my own biases that I try not to apply to others, but that I certainly apply to myself in my life because of my own particular experiences.

Now I mentioned Buddhism because there is this whole idea of releasing attachments in order to reach enlightenment. And in some ways, I have been powerfully attracted to this idea of turning inward until I am able to pierce the nature of this thing we experience and find more essential truths. I have a friend who is extraordinarily wise about things, and is amazingly insightful about people. I don’t always agree with her, but I often do. And she basically said that she’s never seen a marriage that wasn’t in some way rooted in unhealthy attachment, or was in some way deferential to the ego. I have thought about this a lot, and I think there are three issues here:

1. I think that there is obviously the biological imperative most of us are hardwired with. Our lives are in some ways spent perpetuating the species, and in particular, our own particular genetic packages.
2. Many of us are emotionally dysfunctional because of this unbelievably violent and cold world we’ve created. And human relationships provide us a sense of warmth, a sense of love, and a safe harbor in which to escape the madness.
3. There is a spiritual issue here, that in my own opinion (and I stress this is my own) transcends the issues of gender, especially in the monotheistic idea of a masculine god. Really, if you believe that there is some sort of a spiritual path out there, then it seems logical that as we evolve, we will lose gender distinctions and be more about communicating essence to essence. This sounds more “new agey” than I intend it to, but I am not sure I have the vocabulary for my thoughts. What I think I mean is that there is there are Buddhist (and other spiritual) monks and enlightened people who approach everyone equally, in joy and with a desire to help that person become better and evolve as well. So this idea of cleaving (to use a biblical word) to one person, or even to multiple people, becomes unimportant and a distraction to this idea that we all share the same destination. It is a kind of interaction that transcends gender and sex and even love as we understand and experience it now.

I don’t know, does this make any sense? I have to think about your post a LOT more, and then maybe I’ll continue my thoughts in a post of my own.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Thanks for such an interesting and thoughtful reply.

First, I have a question about Buddhism that pertains to a remark I made in this post. I believe it teaches that there are four impulses which lead to sinful action, one of those impulses being aversion. Perhaps I have distorted the idea somehow, so correct me if I'm wrong. I'm also want to know what the other three impulses are. I'm curious, because although I don't really believe in right or wrong as absolutes, I can see how aversion has affected some of my relationships adversely.

I don't think polyamory has to be a problem where children are involved, although it might cause problems if carried out the way North American society would typically perceive it. Children are hurt when their environments are characterized by strife and instability, but that is not necessarily a factor in polyamorous families any more than monogamous ones. Dysfunctional relationships tend to give rise to sexual infidelity, but that is a different thing.

I can't argue with you about polyamorous relationships, because my experience is limited in time to the past year or so. I have known many people in all kinds of relationships who were unhappy. I have known very few people who were completely happy in their romantic relationships all the time. The point has been best explained in this comment by classics_cat. I only know that I have never felt as stable and as loved as I do now in an 11-month relationship with a man who also has a partner of about eight years. I have at least three polyamorous families represented on my friends' list, and all these people seem relatively happy. This does not count gay male couples who might identify themselves as "sexually open relationships but emotionally monogamous." In contrast, I prefer to restrict my sexual relations to people with whom I have some familiarity and emotional connection. I don't suggest my way is better or worse, but personally I find it more meaningful and satisfying.

Your friend's point about unhealthy attachment is an important one. I'm prone to that, but find that my current relationship has forced me to think differently. It began not with infatuation as all my other relationships have done, but with enjoyable companionship. As false dependencies began to arise later, I have seen them for what they were, and I'm learning to challenge them.

Over the past few years my spiritual path has moved away from the imperative of having a life partner toward a deeper sense of relationship with myself. It is possible and hopeful that my relationship with Danny will endure, but my sense of security is less dependant on that. Rather, I have a sense that I am lovable and beloved, which he reinforces. It strengthens and inspires me. I don't expect him to be perfect, in fact I expect another lover or lovers will come into my life who will complement me in ways he cannot, but I would not want it to restrict me from continuing to love him.

Understand that these ideas are new to me, I'm in the process of working them out, and here is perhaps the first place I have written some of these thoughts. The ideas are my own. Danny experiences our relationship differently. I don't know if it makes sense, but it's where I'm at.

[writer00.livejournal.com]

Regarding Buddhism, I believe you are talking about the Four Noble Truths.

Life is suffering

All suffering is caused by craving

Suffering can be overcome and happiness attained

There is a path that leads to our ability to overcome suffering

This link is to a PDF file with a basic introduction to Buddhism, which spells out the Four Noble Truths, and other basic concepts. It's fairly well written and informative. It is especially worth checking out because I am so very new to all of this, so you can't trust me to explain things clearly.

Gee, maybe we're all a bit THAT WAY

[queenmomcat.livejournal.com]

My guess about this whole orientation thing is that, just to completely throw a monkey wrench in the genetics vs. free choice debate, it's not a matter of choosing a) hetero b) homo or c) bi (or however many choices there end up being) but something more like one of those bell curves. A really really bumpy one. We're human beings in all our incredible confusing wonderful complexity, not light switches or electrons, and it wouldn't surprise me if, 100 years from now, psychiatry FINALLY realizes that while most people fall toward one end or the other of the spectrum, there are rather a lot of people in the middle.

Re: Gee, maybe we're all a bit THAT WAY

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Well said! If we had less shame attached to our sexualities in general, we would probably be more aware of it already.

Re: Food for thought

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

Interesting: before I met Danny I was beginning to wonder whether I fell in that category (unable to have a relationship with even one person), but I'm feeling a lot better about myself now.

I've always been puzzled by the phrase "emotional monogamy," which gay couples frequently use. I can't see cutting myself off from getting emotionally involved with other sexual partners, in fact I prefer to feel some connection. But I realize that wouldn't work for everyone.