Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Lesson 2: It's okay to long for men.



    This beautiful image depicts, in my mind, one of the most beautiful gifts that two beings can share: desire.
    It also depicts a form of desire that has, for one reason or another, almost disappeared from the fabric of American society: desire of a man for other men. As with the photograph in my first post, these two men clearly don't just “like” each other. They desire each other. There is a partnership and need they share that goes deep. However, unlike the men in the previous photograph (though I can't find anything to confirm or deny) these men, soccer players Aleksandar Kolarov and Edin Dzeko, are highly unlikely to have a gay relationship.
    Do you believe that to be possible?

Homophobia and Male Relationships

    To be honest, I'm having a hard time writing this post because I can't seem to find clear sufficient words to describe my perceptions of male intimacy. This is primarily because the very subject is treated as a joke in our society, and the words we use in our conversations about it reflect that attitude. Male relationships in our society seem to be primarily work- or hobby-oriented acquaintanceships that lead to an exchange of goods and services, but rarely go deep. There is a measure of trust and understanding, but they lack any sort of profound desire. The very idea of them going deeper than that is treated with laughter.
    I want a term that has depth and clarity of meaning, including an indication of a chaste but deep desire of a man for another man. About the closest word I could think of was “bromance.” Bromance/male bonding/etc....they just OOZE discomfort and oddity. Trying to express depth with those words just makes me laugh. The word “bromance” isn't bad, per se, it just oozes immaturity...I can't imagine the term “bromance” having a place in a mature conversation about the subject, though I'm open to that being wrong.
    The word “Homosocial” has merit, but the unfortunate thing about THAT term is that it merely indicates a guy liking, rather than deeply desiring other man. I don't know a guy that doesn't like being “with the guys” at least occasionally, even if he never actually interacts with them beyond a “hey, bro.” I do, however, know a lot of guys that do NOT desire men, and would vehemently deny such a charge if it were ever leveled.
    That, lastly, brings me to the sexualized terms that are the only ones that would describe the sense of depth, dependance and need I'm looking for, but happen to throw in the “oh, they have sex with each other every night” dynamic into the mix. As one who deeply believes in the Law of Chastity and the importance of the nuclear family, this dynamic is not acceptable to me.
    Why this discomfort? What would be wrong with a man desiring men? Society has set up a false polarity in terms of male relationships. Male relationships are either 1) shallow or 2) sexual. The relationships men develop between each other can only be valid if they preserve the masculine “normalcies” of independence and stoicism, which automatically means those relationships cannot penetrate the surface level, as dependence and emotional expression are necessary for desire to be fulfilled and deep relationships to develop. If there's any degree of desire, need, or depth of communication of feeling between men, society automatically suspects a sexual undercurrent.

    In otherwords, desire has become synonymous with lust.

Desire is not lust

    I don't know, but I have to wonder how many of you saw the picture at the top of my post and automatically thought “Oh, that's gay!” I have to wonder how many of you would become uncomfortable and protest or leave if you were to witness two men interacting like this around you. One of the most painful experiences I've ever had was an experience attending church with a gay friend in Utah. He had fallen inactive by that point, and most of his ward knew he was gay and on his way out of living the Gospel. I remember putting my arm around this friend and resting my head on his shoulder for a good portion of both sacrament meeting and priesthood. You would not believe the looks and comments we received. I was expressing desire, to be certain. I desired connection and friendship and love with this friend. But, I was not nor would ever be his boyfriend. I was not trying to express romantic or sexual intent, and yet I could sense the suspicion I was under. I knew there had been some friction between my friend and his ward members prior to our visit, but it still hurt for me to experience it.
    And yet, it was also one of the best sacrament meetings I'd ever attended, because I was able to actually feel a connection to another being there, rather than feeling so abjectly isolated and alone like I almost always have. The intimacy I felt with that friend, whatever his circumstances, filled me deeply.
    I firmly believe that this homophobic polarity is part of what makes the experience of homosexuality so painful in religious circles. Without experiencing depth of mutual desire with other men, I am unable to thrive. But that being homo”sexual,” in conservative religious culture, I generally couldn't find it. Living and believing in my religion, I've generally had to either A) Be religious but accept that I would never be able to go deeply with my male friends, or B) fulfil this deep and persistent need by rejecting religion and embracing a homosexual lifestyle and relationship/s.

It's okay to desire men

    Our culture says that it's okay for men to like being around men and doing things with men...occasionally, and as long as it's sports/work/hobby related. If that works, fine. There are plenty of men for whom that's quite enough at this point in their lives, and that's okay.
    However, that doesn't work for me. It never has.

    Gay men are not superior to straight men, and I'll be the first to admit there are some repugnant aspects of the gay community in the way that they relate to each other. They too, sadly, have largely bought into the lie that for a man to desire another men must be a sexual thing, and exist on the opposite end of the spectrum. However, they have one obvious strength that straight men generally lack: desire. The straight men in my life have largely, though with some exceptions, sent me the message: “We care about you, we love you, but we don't really want you, desire you or need you. Be a part of us, bro, if you want. We'll have your back if something bad happens, and we'll accept you as part of the group if you respect the rules, but we don't really care either way if you decide not to stay.” The gay men in my life, both Mormon and not, both chaste and not, work from the opposite side of the spectrum. They send the message “You are beautiful. I want you, I desire you, I need you, and I love you. I want you to be a part of my life forever.” The first group struggles with distance, the second with codependence; the first with walls and the second with boundaries.

    Why can't we the two be put together? I want to be a part of a brotherhood that has each other's backs, and I want to be wanted, loved and desired, and to freely want and love and desire my brothers without being feared. I want to respect my brothers and I also want to cherish them forever. Is this not the true spirit of friendship? Is not the true spirit of friendship the heart of the gospel?

    I am grateful for my homosexuality. I am grateful for the nuanced understanding I have received because of it. I'm grateful to know that A) my desire for men is okay, B) chastity does not mean devoid of desire, and C) I can find great passion and joy in the fulfilment of my desire within the bounds the Lord has set.

Thank you, Teacher.

No comments:

Post a Comment