While I was working on my book, "Finally Out: Letting Go of Living Straight," I received a very angry email about my being gay from a man named "George." I challenged the things he said about me, responding, "You don't know me."
George wrote back, "Oh, but I do know you. You have identified yourself as a homosexual, an immoralist. Nothing binds your conscience. Morality is just a matter of taste."
The best way to confront such prejudice is usually to become a real person to the other person and develop a relationship with them. I made some attempts to find some area of common ground. George could never respond to anything I wrote back to him other than to condemn me.
Some would say George is homophobic. I am not a fan of the word "homophobia." Gay men and women struggled for years and years to free ourselves from being diagnosed as pathological deviants. I see little value in attempting to pathologize those who oppose us by labeling them all homophobic.
Prejudice is based on the "Law of Small Numbers": What is true for one must be true for all. Like George, the rules of "in-groups" and "out-groups" dictate that those on one side attempt to define those on the other by applying stereotypical descriptions while never seeking information that dis-confirms their beliefs.
Do we as gay men and women move discourse forward by labeling those who oppose us "homophobes"?
Contrast what George wrote with this review of "Finally Out," written by a conservative, married, heterosexual, evangelical Christian minister: "['Finally Out'] gave me a deeper understanding of homosexual men. While I may not agree with some of Olson's decisions or actions, I've been in his head now. My heart goes out to him and I think this book would be valuable for any person who finds homosexual acts to be sinful."
Relationships are based on developing an empathic understanding of the other person.
I suppose one could argue that George was homophobic since a phobia is an intense but unrealistic fear of something that interferes with the ability to socialize, work, or go about one's life. George's fear was clearly unrealistic since it was related to characteristics he'd assigned to me rather than things he actually knew about me as a person.
Is George representative of all who oppose homosexuality? Don't we -- those of us in the gay community or our allies -- do precisely the same thing when we paint all who oppose us with the same brush by calling them all homophobic? When we do, we fall into the same trap of the "Law of Small Numbers": We treat our opposition as if they are all alike, irrationally afraid of us, and therefore hating us.
I much prefer the term "homo-naïve." I don't think that my mother and step-father had ever known anyone who was openly gay until I came out to them at 40. They knew nothing about what it meant to be gay. Although they considered my homosexual behavior sinful, like the Christian minister mentioned previously, they were open to accepting me and understanding me.
We must recognize the great diversity of the community of people who oppose homosexuality.
Justin Spring, in his book about the life of Samuel Steward, "Secret Historian: The Life and Times of Samuel Steward, Professor, Tattoo Artist, and Sexual Renegade," wrote, "Each generation of writers reinvents its perception of sexuality through novels, poetry, and autobiographical writing, and in the process rebels against the perceptions and experiences of the generation before."
The responsibility for changing perceptions of the LGBT community must not be left only to those who write about it.
The Institute of Medicine released an important report in April called "Identifying Disconcerting Gaps in LGBT Research and Healthcare." The report emphasizes that the world is not divided into two populations, heterosexual and non-heterosexual. Non-heterosexuals consist of a multitude of sub-populations. In order for research to be meaningful and to make it generalizable to a larger population, each of these sub-populations must be examined as distinctive.
My interest has been on mature men who have sex with men (MSM) but who do not wish to be identified as gay. This group of men is largely hidden and has been studied very little, but I have found that even this sub-population is quite diverse. One research question I believe needs to be addressed: "Is there a higher rate of suicide in this population than there is in the general population?" My hypothesis is that the rate is higher.
This MSM sub-population is much larger than most people know. Most insist they are not gay, instead choosing labels like "bi," "questioning," "curious" or in fact, "heterosexual". If being gay is an identity rather than a description of attractions or behaviors, in the strictest sense, they are not gay. Frequently those in the LGBT community say, "They're gay, just not authentic or gay enough."
A study was recently published in the journal, Pediatrics. The study found that even when controlling for other risks of suicide (depression, binge drinking, peer victimization and abuse by an adult), a negative social environment was associated with increased suicide attempts and that a positive social environment reduced the risks of suicide attempts. In other words, social risks contributed far more to attempts of suicide than individual risk factors in an adolescent population.
Researchers are beginning to pay attention to the study of bullying of gender non-conforming and early self-identifying gay adolescents, and appropriately so. Bullying is another consequence of the application of the "Law of Small Numbers"; gender non-forming adolescents are assigned characteristics and targeted by some of those in the majority population
Little is known about the MSM sub-population who have significant risks factors for suicide: hopelessness, helplessness, worthlessness, and alcohol and drug problems. In addition, they frequently do not practice safe sex according to reports by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Discrimination against MSM is much more subtle than it is for gay adolescents but no less hostile. The process of coming out for mature gay men can be enormously complicated because of the complex networks of relationships formed while passing as heterosexual.
A recent report by Francis and Mialon of Tulane University called "Tolerance and HIV" found evidence that societal tolerance for gays may slow down the spread of the Aids virus and may do so by inducing gay men to substitute underground, risky sexual behaviors for safer sex and may encourage them to "come out."
It is becoming apparent that a positive social environment toward LGBT individuals is a significant public health issue.
In my interviews about "Finally Out," I have been questioned several times about my opposition to the word "homophobia." I have been asked, "Shouldn't LGBT be angry about the ways they are being treated?" Of course, we should. But we should be angry about principles, policies and hypocrisies.
Calling those who see LGBT individuals as deviant or sinful "homophobic" diminishes us and our arguments. It also fails to recognize that there are those people, like the minister I mentioned previously, whose attitudes and beliefs can be changed. Perhaps we cannot expect to be accepted by the "homophobic" community until we accept them even though we may disagree with some of their decisions and actions.
There are two ways that you can experience the intoxicating joy, profound peace and ecstatic wakefulness of the Ground of Being: spontaneously or through effort.
Spontaneously, like an unexpected visit from God, for no particular reason the doors of perception can open, expanding your awareness to reveal a higher and deeper dimension of consciousness. This kind of event often happens in the company of an enlightened master who has access to this unmanifest ground, or in a group of dedicated individuals who have come together for a higher purpose. But you can also experience the ground of being simply through your own disciplined effort, through choosing to step beyond the conditioned mind.
A spontaneous experience is a source of tremendous inspiration because it proves something to you, directly. When you unexpectedly discover the shocking clarity of bliss consciousness, without having made any effort to attain it, it compels you to acknowledge the existence of a deeper, higher dimension of your own self. But extraordinary and miraculous as they are, spontaneous experiences are rarely enough to finally liberate us from an unenlightened relationship to the mind and emotions. More often, they will simply reveal how extraordinary our potential for liberation is, here and how, and simultaneously expose how deluded we are most of the time.
A spontaneous experience of higher consciousness is like a free ride to heaven. But to stay there we have to be willing to pay the price. That means that at a moment's notice, we have to be willing to do battle with the demons of fear and doubt. True liberation is something we all have to be willing to fight for. Sometimes it may be easy, but at other times you will find yourself overwhelmed by fear, doubt, confusion, narcissistic concerns and materialistic desires. So the willingness to make effort has to be unconditional in relationship to your own mind. That willingness is what creates receptivity to higher consciousness in each and every one of us. When you are willing to make the noble effort to liberate yourself, to consistently struggle to make the right choices for the right reasons, it creates a receptive inner atmosphere. Through the disciplined practice of meditation, the conscious, consistent renunciation of the mind and emotions, you create a fertile ground within you for higher consciousness.
In the end, no matter how profound your experience of revelation, the only question that matters is, "Am I going to be ready to change, based on what I have seen, or not?" Only if you are ready to change will the spontaneous experience of liberating insight become the initiation that leads to lasting transformation. If not, it will soon fade into nothing more than an inspiring memory. When you fall back into a state of unenlightenment, in an instant the fears and desires of the ego overwhelm you once again. This is why it is so essential to cultivate the habit of making noble effort. You need to assume an inner posture that is going to ensure your victory. If you are not serious about this, you are not going to make it. That's guaranteed.
Here is something for the ladies and I guess gay dudes too. As threatened, Sarah Palin's daughter's baby daddy, Levi Johnston, posed for Playgirl magazine and here are the first images have leaked online. When Oprah asked Sarah Palin about Levi Johnston's Playgirl shoot, she said, "I call it porn." But is it? The leaked pictures prove that the pictures don't include any frontal nudity. And if Sarah cannot control this kid, how the hell she think she can be President? Anyway, this shoot is without a doublt bordline homo because Playgirl is definitely gay porn magazine now and since day one, so I hope Levi didn't think that a million college girls, incarcerated females and horny housewives will be sending him letters with perfume and used panties. In a more realistic scenario, his Playgirl pictures will be featured at the local truck stop above a glory hole. Playgirl was never a women's magazine because chicks don't ever need to pay to see a penis or get tease by one. Only gay dudes do that... Click pictures to enlarge.
No comments:
Post a Comment