I realize I'm going to ignite a firestorm of controversy, but to quell 
any possible gossip and to set the record straight, I will have to say 
the following:

Although there is a debate on whether or not sexuality is fixed, I 
believe reparative therapy is possible and that there are deep, 
somewhat unconscious emotional issues involved.

I don't suppose it's a big secret that I have struggled with my 
sexuality; interestingly enough, there was a conference here where I 
felt I could find support and understanding.  It was a relief to let 
out some of the hurt and confusion that I was feeling, and to confide 
where I felt safe.

At about the same time, probably a bit before joining the cf, there 
was a Grexer here that seemed to pierce my veil of secrecy, knowing 
the very issue, and immediately showing what seemed to be support.  
The emotional connection was very, very quick-- it was moments until I 
felt swept off my feet.  We soon were talking on the telephone.  I 
felt so loved, not quite knowing I was being subtly manipulated.

He also seemed interested in my religious beliefs.  It was quite a 
shock to find later that he became very jaded, encouraging me to leave 
my church, leave home, etc.  He was even so bold as to state such on 
the conference.

Curiously enough, the Affirmation chapter I had looked over at about 
the same time wasn't much help, either.  Although they professed to 
adhere to the principles of the religion we held in common, 
denigration and ill talk of its leaders was frequent, as were stories 
about cruising at the conferences, from what some had told me.

This was all before I became married.  Finding that my wife was in 
similar circumstances was somewhat comforting, and yet stressful all 
the same, for it became apparent that our issues were very much our 
own, and we needed to deal with them individually as well.

And yet I stumbled about hurting many in my confusion.  We joined a 
GALA chapter, and although there the support was also nice, it still 
made matters worse.  I will preserve my dignity by not speaking about 
the mistakes I made, but I will answer other accusations that have 
been made, one by yet another Grexer.

There was a period of time when I struggled with the conflicts that my 
actions, my professed principles, and my marriage relationship 
presented.  I didn't know how to resolve it all.

One of my aunts felt prompted to call, and soon I had been provided 
with a number of resources that seemed to give some answers.  I found 
out about the Evergreen program, which is a LDS version of other 
Christian programs such as Exodus.

The basis of the theory on reparative therapy is that there was a 
failure to bond with either the same sex parent or same sex peers, and 
that a sexualization of an emotional need occured some time 
subconsciously.  There is often a history of abuse and neglect, which 
can be by either parent.  Such abuse can be physical, emotional, or 
sexual, which need not be by the father-- cases do exist where mothers 
sexually molest their sons.  Frequently, persons feel feelings of 
alienation, shame, or guilt.  It is important to remember that not all 
people respond with such sexualization; behaviors of violence, 
asexuality, or sexual promiscuity can instead be expressed.  Nor 
should all parents or peers be to blame, for it is all hinged upon the 
perceptions of the individual.  A more complete, yet relatively brief 
synopsis can be found at www.peoplecanchange.com, which is 
nondenominational in nature.

It is fairly common to see a cycle of abuse, where the abused becomes 
the abuser.  If the reader will forgive the example, I do remember 
viewing a gay porn video in which all the scripted scenarios were 
likely based on some sort of experience of sexual molestation, such as 
a piano teacher, a relative, or a neighbor.  It was at once somewhat 
arousing, and yet very, very creepy to me, but it seemed to correspond 
to stories of rape and incest that gay friends had related to me.

I have never experienced such outright abuse, although emotional abuse 
at home was somewhat common, and whether I was willing to admit it or 
not, I had let others manipulate me.  I had a long "friendship" that 
was actually predatory in nature and where I allowed myself to be 
used, to be sucked in although I felt things were uncomfortable and 
wrong.  I was desperate for a good friend, and I was scared when he 
encouraged me to do things that I thought I wouldn't do.  Sexual 
contact was relatively minor, but I did feel somewhat violated.

And yet for years I denied that it was true, continually offering my 
friendship and support, even my news that change was possible.  
Looking back, I could see that he had preyed upon others I knew-- 
whether he fully realized it or not.  He was always trying to get me 
alone, to have his attention, or just have me sit around while he was 
absorbed in the Internet.  He was very disappointed when I got married 
and wouldn't accept my wife as a friend.  In fact, he told me himself 
that he felt hostile and vengeful towards his friend's wives, thinking 
they were abusive, and that he could do so much better than they.

Strangely enough at this time, I realized that much was true with the 
Grexer I mentioned, which shall continue to remain nameless by my 
will.  I do remember that someone else I knew was used up by him in a 
one-night stand, and that this particular person who was used has my 
sympathy despite some of the silly things that he has said and done.

My response, myself, was to find anonymous encounters where I called 
and controlled as much of the shots as possible, since I had felt so 
out of control in the aforementioned instances.  I suppose that 
addiction is more a part of my experience than others, but when you 
consider that I'm manic-depressive, and when I explain a continual 
lack of self-esteem, you may understand further why I acted as I did, 
albeit in error.

It has been my experience, unfortunately, that living the lifestyle 
can be much more lonely than not-- although there is and always be 
individuals who reject the stereotypes, there is well.. fatphobia, and 
a pressure to conform to the ideal of masculinity or femininity (and 
yes, the latter exists.)  Terms and phrases such 
as "ultimate," "clone," "fem" and "butch" seem to underscore this.  
There may be pressure to reject those ideals, alternately.  But at the 
very least, there are often political agendas and image expectations.  
Infidelity and neglect can be very common, because of the hunger to 
fulfill the emotional need of which I have spoken.

Following this road can also be difficult and lonely-- much more 
difficult because of the opposition against such a position, and 
somewhat more lonely *because* so few support it.  But at least for 
me, it has been more fulfilling.  Your mileage may differ than from 
what I have said here-- but at least the idea, and the *true* record 
of success (and despite what detractors may say, I have met success 
stories.. I can even name names) is worthy of research and 
consideration.

84 responses total.

so what is reparitive teharopy?

yeah.
dear author of #0,
your terse, jerky, and clinically enunciated style of writing here makes it
difficult to interpret what you're talking about; i'd say something more about
the frustration and anger that almost sneaks through at times, numbed by the
idealism of whatever mission you're on . . . but from what i did gather, i'd
say you have plenty of reason to be frustrated and angry. having said that,
i hope it's clear that i look forward to reading more drama from your
evidently mangled (manhandled?) inner world.
lel

p.s.
if it's controversy you want, and i know i do, try a more direct approach,
like "GAY FAGGITS FUCKIN SUCK", &c.

resp:2 It's true I switched from a first person tense to a third 
person mid-stream, and that I'm sure it's confusing.

Of course there is frustration and anger there.  That was part of the 
experience, and I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer.  Some things that 
were confusing was not mentioning names-- I might have just changed 
them.  The persons know who they are, and I had hoped to speak to a 
few who otherwise knew to add some insight.  That may have been a 
mistake.

Yes, I am idealistic-- there is no doubt about that, but there were 
readers here, more elsewhere, who thought I had a certain opinion and 
frame of mind.  Time has passed and I was given more information to 
consider than I had then.  I had spoke out on another cf, and I felt 
it wise, at least to myself, to redress old perceptions.  There was at 
least one who felt I was making a terrible conflict of interest at one 
time, and I am sure that said person might wish to know I had chosen 
against "having my cake and eating it too."

It is apparent, that although my writing was confusing and unclear, 
lelande, that you never investigated the link.  For various reasons, I 
stumble here for fear of being misunderstood, but I think the content 
of the site is fairly concise and informative.  Which leads to my 
response on resp:1

"Reparative therapy" means just that, for starters-- therapy that 
makes reparations to hurt and pain.  Most of you would probably 
understand it better by another context, in what has been dubbed 
the "ex-gay" movement.

Unfortunately, even "ex-gay" is a bit of a misnomer.  Go back to 
www.peoplecanchange.com and read it again, or for the first time if 
you haven't already.  At the very least, I will say that the basis of 
reparative therapy asserts that some change is possible and even 
helpful.  Its main tenet is that of "deferred detachment," which is 
where a person has somehow been unable to bond with the same sex-- 
often a parent (i.e., son to father) or with peers.  Psychological 
responses may vary, as I said, from violence to asexuality, to 
sexualizing that emotional need.  The emotional need can be so great 
as to affect gender self-image-- say, a preoccupation to assume a more 
masculine or feminine role per se sex of the person, or to reject it 
entirely.  Again, I will say that an explanation elsewhere is probably 
better than what I can give here.  But I will add that the therapy 
never assumes that a complete change is guaranteed, only that 
management can be possible.

I've often been questioned for my LDS beliefs, especially when people 
know that I have attractions to both sexes.  While the LDS church does 
not condemn me for my feelings, it does not permit homosexual 
activity, as do much of the major denominations that comprise 
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.  Again, I wished to address a 
certain person here without public embarassment (forgive me if I 
forgot an e-mail address, but I still thought it relevant to put it 
here.)  I have also discussed this with another; he knows who he is, 
and I thank him for his respect.

Again, lelande, although it may have been a more choice to dramatize 
with personal experience, and inadvertently dramatize solely from such 
instances, I find it very hurtful and inappropriate that you should 
make what seems to be a rather personal attack.  I do not believe that 
gay faggots fucking suck.. well, what it is isn't what I will 
discuss ;) , but honestly, you are rather mistaken if you perceive I 
emote a general hostility.  I still empathize having been there, and I 
feel for their hurts and their struggles.  I no longer believe that 
embracing some sort of bisexual lifestyle is the answer.  IMHO, I 
don't condemn those that do, or that embrace a gay or lesbian 
relationship-- for agency, or choice, that is-- is a right, and it is 
wrong to try and rob it from someone.  I can't wholeheartedly approve, 
but having been an AC/DC, switchhitter, fencesitter, or whatever else 
you want to call it, I can understand people's feelings and respect 
that they have made a choice that they feel they must.  I think it is 
also fair that I can offer an alternative view, and that they are free 
to accept it or reject it as they please.

Once again, I am sorry if I was unclear, but I find your comments 
wounding and unkind.

I think that was the point, which, while I'm used to it from this point from
Lelande, is pretty much a really bitchy thing to do.

(disclaimer:  I haven't read that link.  I'm arguing based mostly on what 
I've heard argued elsewhere, from other fundamentalists arguing the same 
basic point)

Seems to me that the problem with "reparative therapy", or ex-gay whatever,
is that it conflates, if only by juxtaposition and suggestion, two ideas that 
are best understood separately.  Consider: 

  - People who lack self-confidence or are depressed are in danger of 
    unhealthy sexual relationships and leave themselves open to abuse.  
  - People with homosexual tendencies often feel depressed and lack 
    self-confidence.  

It takes a considerable amount of mental discipline, when presented with 
these facts stated together, not to conclude that homosexuality leads to 
unhealthy relationships and abuse.  This is especially true when one has 
personally experienced abusive homosexual relationships, or when one is 
depressed or lacks self-confidence.  
  (disclaimer #2:  From here down, "you" doesn't refer to a person in this
discussion, it refers to a hypothetical third party, so don't take it 
personally, I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth)
  It's pretty slick, how it works.  You want to put a stop to homosexuality, 
so you decide to try to portray homosexuality as dangerous, unhealthy, 
inherently abusive.  So you find some homosexual people who are confused, 
depressed, abused, unhealthy.  You convince them with leading arguments that 
the reason they're in pain is because they're gay, and if they'd just stop
they'd be healthy, stable, normal.  You "cure" them, feed them a meal or 
two, set them up with a job at the local sweatshop, make them feel good
for a week or two, just long enough to get some good testimonials for next
time.  Maybe they apply themselves and really make changes to their life, 
justifying your claim that homosexuality really was the problem all along, 
or maybe they backslide, in which case it's trivial to convince them that 
they've been Thinking Those Thoughts Again.  Either way, you win. You've 
firmly convinced them that homosexuality is dangerous, unhealthy, 
inherently abusive.  They'll probably even be willing to help you 
convert your next mark.  
  So it isn't just poor logic that grates on my nerves here, it's deliberate 
abuse of logic to confuse and manipulate people for your own purposes.  
Even if you truly believe that you're helping them, you're forcing them to 
change in order to receive your help, which is contemptible.  

It doesn't take that much discipline to see through that inappropriate
conflation. What it takes is a clear understanding of the difference between
causation and correlation, which most people haven't been properly educated
in. While I agree with your two indented statements as statements with some
degree of predictive force, the causation implications used don't follow at
all:
 -- Homosexuality causes depression and low self-esteem
 -- Depression and low self-esteem cause people to enter dangerous
relationships
 
Certainly the second statement is true more often than the first, but
initially innocuous or even positive relationships can become dangerous, which
could cause depression and self-esteem issues which didn't pre-exist. And,
of course, it can be more easily argued that it's not the homosexuality that
causes depression and low self-esteem, but rather social attitudes towards
people who are gay (which translates to self-attitudes about people who are
gay).
 
That aside, I believe that it IS possible to change your sexual orientation,
so long as your approach is on personal desires, not on social taboo: That
is, if I WANT to be sexually interested in MOTOS, for instance, and I'm not
currently, then I can work through therapy to identify to blocks that keep
me from being so attracted, and correct them. Note that this will NOT cause
me to be no longer interested in MOTSS, if I were genuinely interested in
them. (An example: I'm more interested in the potential of having a black
lover than I was two years ago, but less interested than five years ago. This
is because I have an oscillating degree of low-level [sometimes high-level]
racism. If I were to work through exposure therapy, identifying positive black
figures and avoiding negative ones, my interest would increase, and I
certainly wouldn't rule out now the possibility of meeting an ooga-yahooga
who happened to be black. But none of this would affect my interest in
non-black partners.)

Of course causation doesn't follow.  I was careful to phrase those indented
statements as predictive correlations; otherwise they would be demonstrably
not true.  But that's a narrow line to walk.  It takes, in my opinion, a sharp
intellect to avoid generalizing from correlation to causation in this case,
regardless of education.  People who know better confuse correlation with
causation all the time, especially when they are predisposed toward that
conclusion.  

Sure. #6 was meant as an agreement and elaboration on #5.

oh. i got it
"i was only gay 'cause i was lonely and depressed"
now i may be the digital version of a hayseed, but let's face it, this isn't
parsing correctly.
considering that homosexuality seems to do alright for it's self in every
culture but the people of the book (and hey, even the reformed jews anrt
to down on it) i'd have to say that "repairtive" whatever (repair: to fix)
what's to fix? the only thing that might require fixing is either a lack
of self esteem (usually fairly simple as far as mental disorders go) to a lack
of good sound judgement (much harder, i liked it better when this was fatal)
if otoh you have someone abused by the opposite sex and they're choosing
homosexuality as a way of removing the opposite sex from the picture 
then you've got a whole lot of thearpy to work through anyway.
so the question remains, what's to be "fixed" other than common mental 
disorders that occur in all segments of the population and that is expressing
in non-healthy ways.
i mean, obviously there are plenty of happy, stable gay couples, so, uh,
whazup with this?
side note: did you know there's no native word for "gay" or "homosexual"
in japenese?

Of course, much of this debate comes down to "credibility," by which I mean
that even sources of evidence cited by the sides comprised of either
Groups (Usually Religion Related) No Approving of Gay Relationships and the
majority of the homosexual community are going to be questioned by the other.
For example, Groups Not Approving of Gay Relationships may argue that those
"happy, stable gay couples" are simply not as happy and stable as they say
they are.  It's all a matter of perspective.

Wow.  Greg and I actually agreed on something.  :)

response #2 was wounding? no wonder you've had such a hard time dealing
with life. i did look through your link and i've been familiar with this
estranged branch of humanity for years, all before writing that response.
i didn't say your #0 was confusing, i said it was difficult to interpret,
and this difficulty comes from the fact that you're having a hell of a
time being honest in your writing, and maybe with yourself. i'm not
claiming to know what it is you're not being honest about. the most overt
example of this is how often you mention that some anonymous grexer plays
a role here in there in your as yet coyly evanescent saga: to give the
sense that there be fiends among us is a manifestation of hostility.

the 'gay faggits fuckin suck' jab was no more than a comment on the
unconterversiality of this entry . . . which is in turn a question: why
are you trying to be controversial?

i have no personal problems with your posts, captain. i just think there's
something you're sidestepping in this confessional item of yours.

meanwhile, i agree generally with the comments made in the past few
responses. i tend to believe that desires precede socialized complexes,
that what one desires is not conditional, while how one feels about what
one desires is. this is an amateurish statement and i'd like to say more
like it when i have more time, although if anyone else could add to it or
spray it with bullets, please do.

more m-net folk should contribute to this cf.

resp:12  It could be interpreted as such-- there is no emotional 
inflection over the Internet.  NOW I did find your comments offensive, 
and if you choose not to acknowledge that, fine-- I can't force the 
issue, but I was hurt.

Estranged branch of humanity.. OK.  Not being honest?  Well, not 
really-- evasive, yes, but dishonest, no.  I feel very honest with 
myself *because*

(read resp:6 again) as brighn pointed out, yes, the focus *is* on 
personal desires.  For me, the reasons were:
1. It worked against my marriage relationship..
  a. despite Julie's MOTSS attractions, she didn't want any 
distractions on my part or hers
  b. I enjoy being married to Julie, and I wouldn't want to risk 
destroying it-- not to say polyamory wouldn't work, and I know brighn 
could elaborate on that subject-- but the option just wasn't there for 
*us*, nor did it feel right for us
2. I am happy with my creed, my way of life, my religion, etc., etc., 
which does not include homosexual relationships, and
  a. I wanted out from the beginning, but didn't think I would be able 
to do so
  b. I wanted the benefits I was enjoying from such-- and there 
apparently was an obvious conflict
3. The help that I was getting did help-- I feel happier now, because 
in part, this helped resolve the two points just aforementioned

Now-- I just admitted that I wasn't writing well-- and I will accept 
the disclaimer in resp:5, however:

flem, you made a lot of conclusions that just aren't so, at least as 
far as I'm concerned.  I think you may be implying that I would be 
saying gay folks can't be happy.  That just isn't true.  My point is 
this: Those that don't want to change don't have to do so, and those 
that do-- well, it is possible to make it so.  My understanding is 
that those seeking change do so in order to live more concordant with 
their established beliefs.  Why should I need to confuse and 
manipulate?  If that's how you wish to interpret it, OK, but that's 
not my intent.

The reason why I shared here was perhaps mistaken, but I feared I 
would anger some folks on the glb conference if I said it there.  So 
no, lelande, I wasn't trying to be controversial, but I feared that 
perhaps that what I said would make some folks upset.  If I may return 
to your claim that perhaps I have been dishonest in my writing or 
perhaps with myself?  My intent was to inform those here whom I "came 
out" to was that I have a different frame and perspective, i.e. I 
don't claim bisexuality anymore.  I thought it appropriate to explain 
somewhat what was going on.

A manifestation of hostility?  Ok, let me name the individual, then, 
to clarify that my frustration and disillusion -in that case- stems 
from the individual, and not from Grex in general.  A quick side note: 
if I really felt Grex was a hostile place, I would have been reluctant 
to visit A2-- but I did, meeting a number of people in person.  
Anyway, a particular kharder that used to be here did befriend me and 
worked to earn my trust, and did express a lot of sentiments 
of "love," which did further endear me-- not romantically, but I felt 
wanted, appreciated, understood, etc.

I was flattered that he was interested in my religious beliefs; they 
do bring me a lot of happiness, and we began discussing it by e-mail a 
little bit.  He suddenly changed his tone one day, apparently after 
meeting some very disillusioned folks that were LDS in "card-carrying" 
name only.  He told me that I should leave my church, leave home, etc. 
etc., and decided that he should say so publicly in the glb forum 
after I had reported having made a more public announcement in my 
personal life.  The others were rather shocked and said that I didn't 
seem unhappy in my religion, or perhaps they may wish to speak for 
themselves.

I was happy in my religion, but I was having a hard time reconciling 
my feelings.  I wanted to change them, but I didn't know how.  I made 
a lot of mistakes.  Someone here pointed out some of those mistakes, 
and the conflict, and I still want to spare that person any 
embarassment-- but I will say that I'm sorry, once again.

When I found something where I felt I could change-- where I could 
stay true to my principles without invalidating my feelings, I felt a 
little more relieved.  I found people who felt as I do.

You must understand that the folks I work with on that point don't 
expect a cure.  Most of us admit that we will still have sexual 
feelings toward men, perhaps until the day we die.  But we support 
each other, and feel confident that we are sticking to our 
principles.  YES there are days where we feel guilt or shame, or that 
things may be hopeless, or that we should give up.  YES there are days 
that are hard to get through.  But for me and a number of people I 
have met, we feel it's worth it.

Again, I wasn't trying to convert anyone.  My sincere apologies if I 
sounded like I was.  I thought, gee, if I said I wasn't living bi 
anymore, would people think I'm in denial?  I don't think I'm in 
denial.. and I wanted to give some background to explain where I was 
coming from.  The drama and specific examples probably weren't 
necessary, or I should have had more confidence in you all to say 
things straightforwardly and in a reasonably objective manner.

I hope I'm not putting brighn on the spot here either, but I felt that 
I left a lot of discussions with him in the glb cf rather open when I 
suddenly left.  I explained a little bit about what I was doing, and I 
was pleasantly surprised to be given respect for attempting to adhere 
more diligently to my principles.  Thanks again, sir.  I hope you 
understand why I didn't talk about things right away.

To be honest, I don't always agree with some of the things he says, 
but he has my respect too, because I know he carefully backs up what 
he says and likewise stands firm with his principles.  I hope that I 
can give that impression.

So.. lelande, did I walk right through it?  i.e., is this less of a 
sidestep?  I will freely admit that I am unhappy with some of the 
treatment I have received in male relationships that had strong 
romantic or sexual overtones, and I will admit that my statements 
could have been made just as clearly without them.  But again, I knew 
I wasn't writing as well as I could, and I felt that providing the 
link would be more informative than what I could write here.

There are a few splinter gay LDS groups who diligently hope the church 
will change.  It is my understanding that it will not, and I feel bad 
that so many are struggling against what I perceive to be a brick 
wall.  I understand that they want to keep their faith, but have a 
change on that one issue, but I suggested either to consider a change 
of desire, or that maybe creating a new faith of their own would be 
more productive.  Note that I wasn't trying to change there-- I just 
thought that I'd offer an alternate point of view.  I'd posted to one 
such site before twice, and again, I didn't want folks to think I was 
necessarily feeling that way still.  I'd gotten a lot of interesting 
mail in the past-- some sad, some intriguing, but all worth it.  Some 
folks who e-mailed me when I wrote to the guest book in the past still 
weren't satisfied.. one said there was still cruising going around at 
their conferences, and that they were expecting that people would be 
more interested in the principles of fidelity that was claimed as a 
common ground.

You should note, lelande, that the word "amateur" comes from the 
French, meaning 'one who loves,' i.e., someone who does something just 
for the simple love or pleasure, as opposed to doing it 
professionally.  So I think the term "amateurish" is appropriate, for 
I do feel passionately about it, at least as far as I'm concerned.  
Your mileage and road conditions may vary.  I never said anything 
about the inherent rightness of my decision, and if that was inferred, 
again I will say that it is working for me, as I did before, and that 
it is working for others.

Again, I should point out that this choice may never completely 
obliterate the desire, so what you say that feelings towards desires 
are conditional are correct.  I will probably desire such things from 
time to time, but my ultimate choice lies with other desires, for 
example, following my philosophy and creed which some prefer to call 
religion.

I hate to use the word religion, too, because so many people 
misunderstand as they think about blind faith, hypocrisy, 
subjectively, denial of empiricism, etc.  I know my experiences.  I 
have felt at peace with the principles I have chosen.  To say 
otherwise is to claim you read my mind.  I can't read yours, either, 
but I can attempt to describe my thoughts and share them with you to 
partake, if you so desire.

I am truly sorry that what I had to say was poorly received.  It was 
emotionally charged, but I wasn't intending a debate.  I was trying to 
inform on my point of view.  Now, your decision to debate the merits 
of said statement is yours, and it hurts me to hear that argument is 
preferred, rather than an acceptance and an understanding of what I 
had said.  Seeking the truth through debated discussion has its place, 
but it is not what I desired here.  I perhaps should have expected it, 
however, because I have read your prior comments on other points, 
which do seem to be caustic at times.

Again, no attack was intended; I have pointed out that in my 
experience, some things were said and done by a certain person that I 
felt was unfortunate.  I will continue to defend what I have said, 
however, only because it was merely a desire to tell some that my 
perspective has changed, and I do stand by it with convinction.  To 
beat the proverbial dead horse, again, I have not said anything in an 
attempt to change anyone, but to relate how my said perspective had 
changed.  If you choose to interpret my remarks as manipulative and 
deliberately confusing, well, that is your problem, although I would 
be unhappy that you would doubt my sincerity.

I only intended this to go so far.  You can respond to me by e-mail to 
Grex here if you wish, but I hope that such correspondence would be to 
exchange points of view, rather than that anyone would endeavor to 
prove my logic flawed or my intents malicious.

resp:13 not a bad idea, I guess.. I haven't been to M-Net for a long 
time, and I wonder how much things have changed since I was there.
*shrug*
but alternate points of view are always good.

One thing that confuses me, Jack: I understand your motivations for wanting
to have strong MOTOS attractions, but why do MOTSS attractions (in addition)
need to be any more distracting from your relationship than, say, attractions
to both brunette females and redhead females? If you wish to be in a
monogamous relationship (as you are), and your SO doesn't want you to be
distracted by others, why should your therapy be focussed on a specific set
of distractions, rather than *all* distractions? Why not attend, instead,
marriage workshops that focus on finding your needs through your mate, and
leave the distinguishing between distractions aside?

Yeah...what he said.  :)

i'm a little confused, too, jack, but for as much as you write with as little
attention as you pay to the posts of others, i'll just skip the confusion.
first, the idea that writing is devoid of emotion is so ludicrous as to be
passed off as another one of your sidesteps. meanwhile, the rest may have been
more straightforward -- in which case i'd say, that was easy :) -- but one
thing remains: if you were writing this just to be informative to a few
select folks, you could've just emailed.

if you really thought internet was emotion-devoid, you probably wouldn't have
taken what i wrote to be so hurtful. sucker.

Lumen, perhaps I should have been clearer, but I thought I did make it pretty
clear that I wasn't talking about you.  I don't think you're trying to convert
anyone, nor that your reasons for avoiding homosexuality are invalid.  I'm
just saying that I've known people in the past who tried to "convert" others,
and that 1) they used poor logic and 2) they didn't necessarily have their
subjects' best interests in mind.  

If you want to know what I think about *your* situation, read brighn's #16,
which says what I was going to, but more politely.  

otoh this has given us a wonderful chance to discuss something i didn't know
was going no.
err, on

resp:16 good point, except that other issues are intertwined.  For me, 
preference for redheads and arousal to homoerotic images or situations 
just isn't the same.  In other words, if I were able to completely 
filter out any socialized complexes, i.e., abuse, addiction, emotional 
baggage, etc., etc., etc.

but you have to understand that my therapy DOES include other 
distractions-- I'm working to give up dependence on pornography, which 
was quite the addiction for me.  I'm not sure if generalization or 
distinguishing of distractions matter, except it's easier for me to 
examine things separately.

furthermore, if the theory of deferred detattachment *is* assumed 
valid, then no, brighn, marriage workshops alone wouldn't help.  Yes, 
indeed, I can learn to get my *sexual* needs from my wife, but the 
therapy is designed to promote male-to-male friendships, to fulfill 
that emotional need that said theory presumes is sexualized.

Let me try saying that again.  For me, I think I want to relate to men 
with strong, fraternal friendship, but for some reason or another, 
I've responded sexually.  The theory presumes that the sexual response 
is there where the emotional response should be.  This seems to fit 
for me.

resp:19 I think I'm familiar with that, but then, the large 
organizations with which I'm familiar-- Exodus International, which is 
an interdenominational organization, and Evergreen International, 
which is more specific to LDS folks, seem to have done careful study.  
It's unfortunate that others-- individuals, groups, what have you-- 
haven't taken the time to do the research.

resp:18 A claim that I'm ignorant of what others have posted.  What do 
you think now?  Secondly, I wasn't saying writing was devoid of 
emotion or that the Internet was devoid of it, either.  My point was 
it is difficult to be emotion-specific in writing, and so one 
statement can be interpreted in a variety of ways.  Sorry, lelande, 
but your assumption of what I have said is incorrect.  Thirdly, 
addresses changed, and I couldn't get a hold of people directly (or 
I'm just *damn* lazy-- got a problem with that?), and do you know how 
many people read the conferences?  Here on backtalk, that's anyone.  
What is said can be like blowing feathers to the wind.  I intended for 
some elements TO be public in order to reach that unknown segment as 
well.

Ok, that makes sense. Actually, I think most men could stand to have some sort
of intimacy (agape) therapy. I have difficulty expressing and handling
non=sexual love, and I daresay most (if not all) American men do.

I agree.  I think it's a moderately serious (that is, widespread and decidedly
inconvenient without threatening to destroy society) problem with men today
in our culture.  I know a lot of guys who strongly prefger being in large
groups of members of the opposite sex to large groups of members of the same.

*shrug* it might be a matter of personality type.

I'm not sure if you've heard of the color theory of organizing 
personality types, i.e., red defines those who value competition, blue 
for those who value relations and diplomacy, white nonconfrontation, 
yellow fun and excitement-- and it would seem that much of what is 
defined as masculine culture may favor the first two types of 
personalities, i.e., red and blue, and more particularly red.

From what I have read and discussed with others, the dominant drive of 
male culture *seems* to be competition.  This works really well in 
capitalistic business, and some of the mythos surrounding the founding 
of America-- rugged individualism, for example-- may foster such a 
drive.  It would therefore be difficult to surround yourself with 
those you would perceive to be rivals.

but that's one way of looking at it.

I know a lot of girls who have more male friends than female friends.  It goes
both ways.

My impression is that workplaces with an awful lot of women can be a stressful
place to work for those women.

*nod* I figured the opposite was true, but wasn't quite sure as to 
reasons why.

i find it odd that this "sexuality" conf is more about psychology than
sexuality with lots of sweeping gender generalizations. 

So contribute your views if you don't like it.

humans are humans. women have cunts, men have cocks. drop the guilt, stick
it where you wanna and LIKE IT.

i like oval:)

I vote yes!

I don't think it's odd that the sex conf is more about psychology and gender
issues than actual bumpin' and squishin'.  There's only so many times you can
say "I like to cum on young girls' tits" before everyone stops caring.  

or stops bothering to call you a pedophile:)
but yha, it's all about the squishy luv thing
or at least about how fucked up you are

The real discussion comes from more complex issues that don't have easy
answers.  Questions like "do you like it up the ass?" typically elicit
one-sentence answers with little room for elaboration.  The question needs
more meat to it.

and I suppose it can be amusing sometimes to think senna meant 
something more when he said "more meat to it."

But seriously, I think we get enough of the joking and crude comments 
that may come from misinformation about sex, or perhaps the attitudes 
that surround various taboos.  We're just attempting to talk 
intelligently without feeling the need to coat it with raunch.

However, analyzing the issues to death is extreme in the other 
direction; thus, I suppose, we attempt to discuss without psychobabble 
or detached clinical stances.  Honesty is good, but I think we are 
trying to find a balance.

30 oval
what happens when a human born a male is given a cunt through surgery as an
infant? what is this human, then?

does he keeo the cock?

his cock got keyed, actually. all scratched. needed a new paint job.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss