response 8 of 84:

Dec 26 20:57 UTC 2001

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

response 10 of 84:

Dec 27 00:26 UTC 2001

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.

response 12 of 84:

Dec 27 02:52 UTC 2001

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.

response 14 of 84:

Dec 27 07:20 UTC 2001

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.

response 16 of 84:

Dec 27 15:44 UTC 2001

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?

response 18 of 84:

Dec 27 19:24 UTC 2001

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.

response 20 of 84:

Dec 27 21:49 UTC 2001

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

response 22 of 84:

Dec 28 15:40 UTC 2001

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.

response 24 of 84:

Dec 29 08:51 UTC 2001

*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.

response 26 of 84:

Dec 29 18:22 UTC 2001

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

response 28 of 84:

Dec 31 00:14 UTC 2001

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

response 30 of 84:

Dec 31 01:03 UTC 2001

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