Monthly Archives: February 2012

Bugs me most when brought up by those antagonistic, but also a great deal by those who might be or think they are, sympathetic

Gay men are not hyper-sexual.

1. It might seem convincing because how do we all think of places where gay men go to meet up? I know my culture well enough that what is popping to mind are clubs, bars or (God forbid) public restrooms. A stereotypical encounter of two men hooking up is still, within the mimeticĀ  understanding of society, the set-up for a gay porno. Even I catch myself viewing homosexuality as a seedy, indiscriminate fuckfest, while my attitude toward heterosexuality has a more old-fashioned courtship frame of mind. But that is not how it works. How to gay men meet and date? Usually through mutual friends, work/school, online or… you know… the exact same way straight people do.

2. Gay men are hyper-sexual beasts because sex was both A. a reason for homophobes to disparage homosexuality and then B. co-opted because an over-driven sexuality has been a time honored way of expressing pride and a lack of resentment in feeling that same sexuality. But these of course are not reality, but forms of speech.

3. Flaunting a sexual nature? Hollywood is the worst. What was the last movie you saw that wasn’t thematically based on homosexuality that had a gay sex scene? For that matter, name a movie that had an inter-racial sex scene with the same conditions. This is why homosexuality with men is seen and has to be so over-driven. There is an absolute bias toward standard (or even kinky) heterosexuality that is so normalized it goes unnoticed. Put a heterosexual rape scene in a film and it’ll get the standard “exploitation” reviews (and that’s another issue) but film “Brokeback Mountain” and only then do you create a film with deep content about sexual behavior.

How homosexuality can even begin to create the talk and controversy in as far as rape does is to me not a good measure of our sense of ethics. “Brokeback Mountain” seemed to offend some as much as “Boys Don’t Cry” and that is all fucking messed up.

4. Four, the nice number, gay men want someone they can talk to, who will support them in bad times and be a great friend along with lover. There have been good attempts in pop culture to display this. I don’t care what detractors say about the bad jokes or cliche characters “Will and Grace” was a valiant example of trying to normalize what is actually normal behavior in the gay community (more Will than Jack, of course.) Treating homosexuality as if the best part were blowjobs in a gloryhole… all guys like blowjobs… but we also like a committed partner (most of us) who might also make us soup when we’re sick. Maybe after a bad day at work watch a movie with an arm around you–that is the Gay Agenda.

5. Homophobia actually deprives gay men of being able to have or feel okay with their sexuality. I had sex my last year of high school with girl. It was mostly a nightmare of not understanding safe sex practices, nerves, religious upbringings and me not knowing what a clitoris was. But we didn’t have to worry about being found out and teased for being “fags” at school. We didn’t have to sneak around. We were able to be open about it.

But if you are gay, you lose all such privileges. You cannot be public, you cannot disappoint your family, you might even get blamed for hurricanes and the WTC terrorists attacks, but yet this is somehow supposed to compel you to become a sex maniac? I suppose their is the aspect of rebellion, but that there does not place sexual nature on gay men, but on the society that is trying to quash it altogether.


I caught on with this video. This really just basically sums up precisely how I feel and what I struggle with.


Last couple of days I’ve been having a hard time, but I’m trying to kick my ass to just deal with my disease and do right. I think in the video really hit on the “self-image” thing. If only by watching other people in their lives it makes me convinced that I really have no fucking clue who I am. I can barely even remember a single event in my life from over two years ago let alone talk about myself. I have no plan for my life, but I hate that feeling. I have this false pretense that I am just someone who wants to help the unfortunate and do good, which I do, I’m not as pathological as the status quo here, but I am also trying desperately to create self-worth that I don’t know how to find in whatever internal or existential sense everyone else gets it from. I know that I definitely have a need to feel “loved” very badly, but I cannot honestly even say what I want from my loved ones or quite understand what they want from me.

I have only known my own experience, that is the only real reference I have, but I just don’t feel I know how to process an emotion the way normal people do. I hear people say that that something happens and then an emotion follows, but I don’t think I have that. I get emotions and then I try to find a situation to explain it. Why am I scared? I feel things, often painfully strong, and then have to find a reason why I feel that way.

The intensity is the other half of the problem. I am an “acting-in” borderline. My extremest emotions are always self-directed. When things happen and people tell me that they are upset with me… no, I really cannot empathize. All I feel is really sharp, very intense pain at having caused someone harm. I think I can feel love in a genuine way, but I can’t feel guilt. It’s an intense, often physical pain, really intense self-loathing and it cripples me.

Making a rational sense of emotions, not wanting to die the moment I make a mistake (and I make a lot in no part to the BPD), feeling physically sick when I feel emotionally hurt… I am trying to push it into my brain that I am not irresponsible for the harm I cause others, nor am I myself fully responsible. Tomorrow I have my second therapy appointment–might go back anti-depressants or even anti-psychotics. I want this to work, because I’ve got the most amazing girl who loves me, and I love her so much. I have to teeter the line between “blame me totally” and “I am not at all to blame.”

Hard. It’s hard. But a loveless life is certain death. So I have to figure this out.

Swearing. Cussing. Dirty words.

I was surfing the net and naturally I came onto the topic of racism and naughty words.

I get sick of hearing comics make apologies about how they “make fun of everyone.” No, they don’t. They always have a particular sexual, racial or social demographic that they single out. And maybe, just maybe, comedy should do that. Pointing out the nature of prejudice in a way that solicits laughter is not necessarily bad, it puts our defenses at easy to then actually deal with the gravitas of said joke.

But the apologies, that spoils it all. That is saying, “yes, I am saying something that is totally racist and probably bullshit, but I want you to not pass judgment on me because I think if racism is equalized than it’s okay.”

Here’s where WordPress deletes my account… If I tell a joke, “how many niggers does it take to change a light bulb?” but do so with forthright irony and brutal satire I may actually be forgiven by the community. If I can elicit a real problem of racism by my tongue-in-cheek joke with understanding and a no prisoners attitude, then I am dealing with the larger issue of racism. If I say, “how many niggers does it take to… but before I finish lemme just say I’m not a racist because… to change a lightbulb” then the path to any sort of comic redemption is lost. I am asking to be portrayed as a racist but pleading to not be seen as portrayed as a racist which is, the PR goal of all racists.

But you wont actually hear me tell a “how many… does it take” joke like that because I frankly do not have the comedic talent or balls to step over the line. I lack any of the sophistication of comics who can tell jokes with the tongue-in-cheek degree needed to make it satirical instead of cheap and falsified. That’s a rare gift. Few people doing comedy–professionally or very amateurly–have the skills to portray the opposite of what they mean with very controversial subjects and not look like apologetic assholes. Especially, when they work the apology into the routine.

You’re all just acting like a bunch of (ethnic slurs) who (ethnic stereotype) another (ethnic thing.)

Every once in a while I make some stab at a meaningful, theological statement here. Here’s one coming at a sleepless 6am, which I’m sure I’m going to wish to retract once I’m more mentally awake.

The GOP, those good pawns of Christian morality, you’re all living a lie. Did Jesus or does the Bible lay out a bullet-pointed plan for a proper moral code that can be implemented into a political platform? Absolutely not. And I’m happy to see so many of my co-conspirators of an orthodox understanding of Bible and God coming out on this.

Remember when Jesus said to hate your parents? How Paul said we live under no law but that of being in Christ? Or going back, did not David and Isaiah point out the flaws of strict adherence to the letter against the spirit of Mosaic law?

My interpretation of what Jesus said was not a moral code, but the fundamental destruction of all moral codes that are not based upon a vertical human-to-God love and a horizontal human-to-neighbor love. Neighbor, I might add, interpreted in the old, Israelite sense of being someone who is fundamentally strange, unorthodox, foreign, perhaps sinful and Samaritan. The idea of the “neighbor” isn’t the person who owns property next to your house, it’s not the sycophant you agrees with you at every step.

I mean take the great “Sacrament” of marriage. Paul says to marry so long as you can’t otherwise avoid the temptation to bone mercilessly. How sacred can that possibly be? “We got married because we were too horny as per Saint Paul’s injunction.” One gets the very real sense through the epistles that marriage is not so much sacred as safety net.

I am a very calm person, a quiet person, you might even say a over-whelmingly shy individual. I never yell; I always have a “library voice.” I just generally have a lamb-like tranquility.

But that is so hard to keep with two fundamental issues that come up over and over again in my life. I can barely contain myself to civility when I hear shit like…

1. “As a Christian I am morally against…”

So lately this has come up time and time again with one thing: gay rights. I’ve had several friends and a loved one talk about a protest against Starbucks because Starbucks has sided with a general gay rights “agenda.” But what really sparks my rage in this situation is that some Jesus pundits had the nerve and the gall to suggest that a Starbucks boycott would bless the United States.

This deeply, deeply offends me as a Christian. Take your stereotype of a fundamentalist Christian and have them watch an inter-racial and Muslim gay couple making out and imagine their reaction. That is how I feel.

First of all, God ain’t never going to bless America because God doesn’t care about our stupid nationalities. Whatever happened to our only kingdom being heaven? Why is it when someone says “God bless America” they get cheers, but when I say “God bless Armenia” I get weird looks? Oh, do we not want blessings for Armenia (God loves all his children, right?) or is it that patriotism has taken on a sickeningly religious attitude where we believe God could and would prefer America above all other persons?

Secondly, and I will carry this torch until Judgment, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is ABSOLUTELY NOT about homosexuality. The story goes that angels visited Lot in disguise and an angry mob of men descended and wanted to “know” them. The conservative Christian interpretation of this story is that homosexuality is wrong. They casually but rather importantly leave out the issue that maybe it’s just wrong to come to a host’s house and request to gang rape the visitors. Put simply, here is the conservative analysis…


And the Bible itself is not ambiguous on this. When Jesus references the Sodom story, he’s not talking about gay people, but telling his disciples about the consequences for cities that show inhospitality–like gang raping visitors, you know.

So basically, the real Sodomites are those who are disrespectful to visitors/outsiders. Hmm… see where I am going with this? As to why I think the Bible explicitly condemns the idea of a nation gathering together to think God will bless them for rejecting those they feel “aren’t us?”

I dislike the concept of accusations of sin–in itself a very un-Biblical idea–but were it to happen, I would cast my stones toward those who rally politically against the LGBT in this country. I just rather want to press to them, and those that come to despise Christianity because of them, to stop bastardizing the Bible for a political cause.

2. “Doctors Who Get Abortions Should Get the Death Penalty” (said by Catholics)

There’s a sort of conception going round the fields that in order to be a truly *true* Catholic (or Christian for that matter) you have to have a general moral attitude that conforms with that of much of the right-wing movement. Christians know it, non-Christians see it. The more “I hate gay people, abortion and Muslims” you are the more you’re seen as someone who really, really takes religion seriously.

So not true.

It occurred to me last night that while a lot of anti-Muslim groups in America target Islam as responsible for terrorism, they block out the idea that perhaps religious fundamentalism was the actual problem. Because I stick to the latter, this means something to me. I think Islam is swell. I’ve studied it a bit, talked to people who are Muslim about their faith, it’s nice and also really damn normal too.

But this conception of what is a “hardcore” or “fundamentalist” Christian in America is absolutely false. If we’re going to use the word “fundamentalist” in its literal sense, then that means ascribing to the ideas and concepts that God revealed to us in Jesus Christ. That *might* align with the general agenda of conservative movements, but if it didn’t, they’d just be a very, very outspoken group of heretics doing lip-service.

Because here’s the catch, the Vatican is just as explicit about the death penalty as it is on abortion. Call me a Cafeteria Catholic if you like for sticking to my pro-choice guns, but if you aren’t morally opposed to capital punishment then you’re carrying the same tray. The Vatican has also come out on being anti-homophobia (carefully defined), pro ecology, anti-poverty and generally anti-war. There is a lot of reasons to see a sort of left-liberal bias to the Roman Catholic Church, but somehow conservatives still feel that being pro-life is the only card they need in their hand to being legit.

So here is my call to Catholics, Christians and non-Christians alike. The definition of what is a “Christian” is not defined by those who proclaim it most strongly in the media. There are millions of us who see something as poverty as far more morally outrageous, far more anti-Christian values, than if two men get a marriage license in Washington state. And frankly, I really do believe that if the definition of “Christian” gets too co-opted by the right-wing, there will be a reaction.

3. “Buddhism/Wicca Is a Peaceful Religion.”

Now, I’m going to turn against the general demographic who up until now might’ve been sympathetic to me. With all the war, social hatred and strife how could I possibly hate on Wiccans/neo-pagans or Buddhists? Simple answer: they are still human.

Hear me out.

No. I’m not accusing either of abuses (Buddhism has had some ugly history but not to get into quabbles.) But insofar as the Abrahamic religions are scorned for their content, I think it’s best to judge why so, and what causes such.

Christianity and Islam are mostly held accountable because some adherents take a legalistic view of passages of scripture. The main criticism I hear and I myself make of Christianity is that people do really bad stuff because it’s “in the Bible.”

But to me, there’s more at stake. Suppose that Buddhists were, in some kind of alternate reality, assume the majority. No harm, right? Buddhism doesn’t have a lot of scripture to analyse and it’s mostly peaceful. HOWEVER, one of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism is to adapt a sort of passive attitude toward the world. This carries within it a very possible method of abuse if it were made politically. “This is just how the world is, accept it with quiet resignation.” Capitalism already does this, more or less, but given a religious twist it could have drastic and very real social consequences.

Wicca. Wiccans have never done anything wrong. Their neo-pagan counter-parts… well… a lot of them turn out to be white supremacists in prison for hate crimes, but over-all there isn’t a lot of evil in the movement. But there could be. One of the fundamental aspects of these new revival religions is that you essentially create your own. You choose what gods/goddesses you like, you interpret how you think the basic harmony of the world is structured, etc. I know some might disagree with me on this, but I think this is really the primary appeal to Wicca/neo-paganism: you get to make your own rules.

I think this parallels also one of the biggest flaws in our society today, the idea that what one believes is one’s own and is above the judgment of society. I do like and cling to my own personal preferences, but I have to realize everyone else does too, and for any sort of social function there have to be some rules guiding how to manage conflicting wants (the whole premise of political philosophy.)

But Wicca could therein provide the basis for abuse, so long as the abuse could be categorized as something “personal” to the abuser and therefore with sacred protection. As there are no higher rules to follow, except whim, why not?

I realize these hypotheticals are a stretch, but I think it still underlines that religions may not in a fundamental way also be responsible for their abuse. For me, crimes of religion always carry some larger goal–political, economic, etc.–and the drive for power or money is no going to just disappear under the auspices of some other religious ideology (or an atheist ideology, as in Stalinist Russia.)

Give me the Girl Scout’s code to follow and the opportunity to seize another country’s riches or get into political office, believe me, I’d make it work.