henry@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Henry Mensch) (09/18/86)
In article <397@spdcc.UUCP> an anonymous author writes: >I asked him if people he worked with knew he was gay. He said >that he had shared that part of himself with a few friends at work. >I thought that sounded so nice. Share. To me, that was handing out >ammunition, specifically machine guns and hand grenades. I thought >"I could never do that." Funny ... I think of it as defusing a bad situation. If the people around me (in general) didn't know I was gay and someone "found out," that other person could use this piece of information to hurt me. By being "very" out, this information is no longer useful as a weapon. People can say "I'll tell your manager that you're a fag" and I'll say "Go right ahead." Of course, I *do* work at Project Athena, the GAMIT employment agency ... -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Henry Mensch | Technical Writer | MIT/Project Athena henry@athena.mit.edu ..!mit-eddie!mit-athena!henry
wex@milano.UUCP (09/18/86)
In article <402@spdcc.UUCP>, dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) forwarded an anonymous message from "Paul." Paul asked for advice about his relationship with another man. Paul, here is my advice, using quotes from your article. Paul, you've left out two important things from your letter: - how you feel towards the SO (even if you are unsure of exactly how you fee, you might have some general feelings), - relationships with others (are there any other SOs in your life right now?), But, fool that I am, I'll try to advise you anyway. Paul, this man is seriously messed up! He has some basic mental/emotional problems apart from his indecision on sexual orientation. As you say: > Now it gets complicated. He had serious but unrequited > affairs with first one woman, then another. Women seem to > find him cold, brittle, and self-centered. There is indeed > a downside to the person: he has an immense well of anger, > epitomized by a festering, annihilative hatred of his > mother (a sad case in fact, crazy with booze), to whom he > is cruel with a mercilessness that brings tears to my eyes > on the rare occasions when I hear about her. A man that cruel needs to seek psychiatric counseling. I don't want to seem insulting, Paul, but I think here the women are being more sensitive (observant?) than you. I suspect that you've seen the same things that they have, but put them down to preference-based problems. That may not be right. If you accept my hypothesis, there are three things you can do, depending on how you feel about him (and how much of a committment you want to make): 1) Cut and run. He "voted with his feet." Accept it with grace. 2) Recommend that he seek counseling. Help him find a professional who understands the problems of gays and can separate them from his other problems. Be a good listener; see him occasionally. 3) Go into counseling with him. The goal here is to resolve his problems so that the two of you can have a good, normal, gay relationship. The third alternative (obviously) requires a tremendous amount of commitment. It's not something you can start and then pull out of. There's a lot of potential for hurt and trouble. This is especially true if you are not fully `out.' (I assume this from the fact that you posted anonymously.) Of course, the potential rewards are also a lot greater: satisfaction, friendship (possibly for life), maybe a good relationship with an SO, etc. This is starting to get long, so I'll end it here. Feel free to e-mail me at the address below. Or call (512)834-3586 if you want to talk but maintain your anonymity. -- Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex "All that money makes such a succulent sound."
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (09/20/86)
Thanks again to Steve Dyer for helping out with handling messages. The net.gods were not with us on this one, because a problem at hp3 spilled the original post and possible answers on the floor. I did get two responses, for which deepest thanks. On the hope that this experience will help others, I'm asking Steve to post my gratitude and a couple comments. [Note: many unmarked edits.] The first response I got was > his@faron.UUCP (Howard Irwin Solomon): > Date: 18 Sep 86 19:05:29 GMT > Date-Received: 19 Sep 86 11:34:56 GMT who says: > It becomes a matter of deciding how much you care for [the] person. > This person means a good deal to you. You have to decide your own > personal thresholds. You need to decide when to abandon ship. The crux of the matter is, as you point out, to decide how much is enough, to know where one's limit is. > I think that with the previous happiness and closeness between you, > it seems worth taking the chance and pursuing the friendship. It helps me to do reality checks. I'm glad that it came across that I *do* care for this man (present tense intentional), in spite of the many problems we have had. You help me here by confirming that. As for pursuing the matter, taking the chances, I've always thought of myself as an inexhaustible resource, able to persevere and overcome all obstacles by stubborness, if not by skill. But in human terms, one is human, and there *are* limits; as you say, one must eventually decide where they are. I'll ponder that a bit, and (obviously) the limit issue seems to be the main one right now. > You seem to have a good head on your shoulders; you'll > make the right decison, I trust. Thanks. I hope you're right. I learned to live with myself long ago, fortunately--it has given me the strength to live with others :-) > If you need someone to talk to drop me a line. I would be glad > to listen. Thanks for this too, Howard. One thing about this newsgroup is the evident concern we see here for the happiness (whatever it is) and welfare of others. Even though we don't know each other, we care, don't we?! The other response was: > wex@milano.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) > Date: 18 Sep 86 19:01:15 GMT > Date-Received: 19 Sep 86 11:42:42 GMT He says: > Paul, you've left out two important things: > - how you feel towards the SO > - relationships with others I love the man deeply. I resent his inattention, which puts a significant chill on things, but inasmuch as we've had some very beautiful times and I don't know what the present problems are for him, I'm left without closure. This is a key element; if it were clearly over, I'd accept that easily (I can be a *big* fool, but I've never been able to be a *total* fool! :-) As for others, there isn't anyone in quite this department right now. I'm open to new prospects. In any case, my local support groups are all functioning, and there's you guys ... > I'll try to advise you anyway. Paul, this man is seriously > messed up! He has some basic mental/emotional problems apart > from his indecision on sexual orientation. I've advised therapy with no success; seems he had a bad experience in the past with therapy. I've had three periods of therapy that made all the difference in my own life, and am a strong advocate of getting help when you need it. For the consumption of others, my advice on that score is, if one therapist doesn't work out, likely another one will. The therapeutic relationship is usually one of the most affecting things in your life, requiring a certain chemistry to work in the optimal way. I've been remarkably lucky in that way. > A man that cruel needs psychiatric counseling. I think here > the women are being more sensitive (observant?) than you. > I suspect that you've seen the same things they have, but put > them down to preference-based problems. That may not be right. This was a great eye-opener for me! It's so obvious that love is the greatest blinder there ever was, making it next-to-impossible to see the other person as others would. Thanks a lot, this helps! > There are three things you can do, depending on how you feel > about him (and how much of a committment you want to make): > 1) Cut and run. He "voted with his feet." Accept it with grace. > 2) Recommend that he seek counseling. Help him find a professional > who understands the problems of gays and can separate them > from his other problems. Be a good listener; see him occasionally. > 3) Go into counseling with him. The goal here is to resolve his > problems so that the two of you can have a good, normal, gay > relationship. > The third alternative [is] not something you can start and then > pull out of. There's a lot of potential for hurt and trouble. > This is especially true if you are not fully `out.' Of course, the > potential rewards are also a lot greater: satisfaction, friendship > (possibly for life), maybe a good relationship with an SO, etc. Well, a combination of these things with all the other insights gained seems to be what makes sense. Here's how I see it (today, anyway): If it's to end, what I need (for me) is adequate closure. I'll need to talk to him to get it, probably (it always takes two). I need to work out with myself (in advance) where my limits are and communicate that to him in a clear but nonhostile way. On therapy for him, while *I* feel that's *strongly* advised, I know *he* has to choose for himself. I see couples therapy as unlikely, mainly because the notion of couple is weak here; I could feature forming a couple with him, though with some trepidations that would have to be worked out gingerly over time, but I really cannot feature his getting it enough together to do his part in anything more intense than a friendship. *That*, indeed, is my best hoped-for outcome. (My dears, ours is a history of making do :-) Incidentally, I am fully out, a veritable pillar of local gay society. Out at work too, and a pillar in that society as well. I posted anonymously to seek a more detached view of myself. It has worked extremely well, I think. > Feel free to e-mail me at the address below. Or call (512)834-3586 > if you want to talk but maintain your anonymity. Again, people are so often quite prepared to go the extra distance for others. Thanks, Alan. [BTW, my first lover in college was named Alan, and my favorite (straight) man at work is named Alan. Also BTW, there have been five [!] Steves. The present problem is Stu.] When there's something to report, I'll email to those who've helped or post if it seems likely to benefit the broader audience. Thanks all. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU {linus,wanginst,bbnccv,harvard,ima,ihnp4}!spdcc!dyer
wex@milano.UUCP (09/22/86)
In article <406@spdcc.UUCP>, dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) sends us a reply from Paul, who writes: > This was a great eye-opener for me! It's so obvious that love is > the greatest blinder there ever was, making it next-to-impossible > to see the other person as others would. Thanks a lot, this helps! Thank you! This really made my day. I mean, here it is a Monday after a *very* emotionally-draining weekend and I get to find out I've helped somebody. What a lift! > If it's to end, what I need (for me) is adequate closure. I'll need > to talk to him to get it, probably (it always takes two). I need to > work out with myself (in advance) where my limits are and communicate > that to him in a clear but nonhostile way. On therapy for him, while > *I* feel that's *strongly* advised, I know *he* has to choose for > himself. I see couples therapy as unlikely, mainly because the notion > of couple is weak here; I could feature forming a couple with him, > though with some trepidations that would have to be worked out gingerly > over time, but I really cannot feature his getting it enough together > to do his part in anything more intense than a friendship. *That*, > indeed, is my best hoped-for outcome. Hmmm. I think this is a bad idea. I (think I) understand what you mean by "closure". In the cases where I have sought such a thing it has always turned out to be worse. Usually very painful. Sometimes, when a separation occurs "naturally" it is wisest to let Nature take its course and not try to force things. I think that this is especially true given what you've said about Stu. > Incidentally, I am fully out, a veritable pillar of local gay society. > Out at work too, and a pillar in that society as well. I posted > anonymously to seek a more detached view of myself. It has worked extremely > well, I think. Interesting. That's an angle I hadn't considered. I guess sometimes people react to the name at the top of the posting rather than its content... > > Feel free to e-mail me at the address below. Or call (512)834-3586 > > Again, people are so often quite prepared to go the extra distance for > others. Thanks, Alan. No problem. BTW, I should note that this is my work number so you need to call between 9AM and 5PM Central time. -- Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex "True victory is victory over oneself."
suhre@trwrb.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) (09/23/86)
>In article <402@spdcc.UUCP>, dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) forwarded an >> There is indeed >> a downside to the person: he has an immense well of anger, >> epitomized by a festering, annihilative hatred of his >> mother (a sad case in fact, crazy with booze), to whom he >> is cruel with a mercilessness that brings tears to my eyes >> on the rare occasions when I hear about her. I would strongly recommend Adult Children of Alcoholics, (ACA for short). This is a spin-off from Alanon. Alcoholism is truly a family disease and affects everyone around the alcoholic. I could recommend some reading, but I don't have the references here. -- Maurice Suhre {decvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (09/29/86)
I received a reply to my remarks on Biblical attitudes to homosexuality which the author requested I post. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was just going to write you a little note thanking you for your posting, then I decided that I needed/wanted to post it, then I changed my mind when I realized that there might be people around here who might resent my posting and/or who might give my friend a hard time. Do you think that you could forward the following to the net, without using my name or organization? I would appreciate it very much. There's another option which many gay/lesbian fundamentalists choose, which is to believe everything that Swaggert, Falwell, et al., tell them about themselves. I've had a close brush recently with getting involved with a gay fundamentalist who believes that he is (and by implication I, too, am) essentially an evil person. This has hurt me to see, and has left me very much more angry at the fundamentalist preachers than I was before. This boy (he seems so young, though he isn't that much younger than I) desperately needs someone to care about him, to tell him that he really isn't a creature of the devil. I've tried, but I'm so newly out and so insecure myself that I really don't feel I have the strength to take on this battle. There's no question, though, in my mind, where the real evil lies.
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (09/29/86)
[I don't normally submit followups to my own messages, but I think it's inappropriate to edit or add comments to a message which one has been asked to post.] I guess the thing that makes me most unhappy about fundamentalist Christianity (apart from its sometimes anti-rationalist stance) is the tendency to assume that there are two sorts of people: saints and sinners, depending on whether the individual in question has found Jesus. This emphasis can be seen in many of the hymns, which lay great stress on the misery of the individual before s/he was born again. A natural consequence is that anyone who has not found Jesus (or does not conform to "Biblical morality") *must* be miserable, no matter how happy s/he appears to be. The job of the evangelist is then to lay stress on the misery before conversion versus the joy after conversion (watch the PTL Club -- or, in Canada, 100 Huntley Street -- to see reformed drug addicts, criminals, and homosexuals explain on a daily basis how Jesus changed their lives). Since many gays and lesbians are not only reasonably happy people, but also are quite religious, an evangelist who takes saints and sinners seriously must start by making his flock miserable. It strikes me as an evil thing to do. Disclaimer: I am not speaking of all those people who would describe themselves as ``evangelical Christians''; only of those who so misconstrue Paul's Epistle to the Romans that they feel they must create evil so that good (as they see it) can flourish.
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (10/12/86)
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
LOOK OUT! LOOK OUT! LOOK OUT! LOOK OUT! LOOK OUT! LOOK OUT! LOOK OUT!
This article contains a tale of rape and a description of dismemberment.
If such things upset you, stop reading *NOW*!! And, while you're at it,
don't read your Bible, because this is where this tale of rape and dis-
memberment comes from.
Also, this article contains some pretty hefty sarcasm (in parentheses,
just so you can ignore it if you want). Please do not take these comments
seriously. I don't really think this way.
Let me begin be repeating for you a passage that we've all heard at
some time or another:
". . . before they (Lot and the angels) lay down, the men of the
city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and
young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot,
and said, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring
them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door
unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren,
do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not
known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you and do ye to
them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; for
therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."
--Genesis 19:4-8
O.K. We've all seen this passage used by the fundamentalists as
part of the great "the Bible condemns homosexuality" argument. I have
included so much of the story here so that you may compare this it
to the passage below.
Before anyone accuses me of censorship, let me say that I started
where I did and ended where I did because I wish to focus upon the men
whose morals are in question. Immediately following the above passage,
the men of the city are blinded by the angels, and they leave the story.
This next Bible story involves a traveller (who is *not* an angel)
who stops for rest on a long journey. He is invited into the home of
an elderly gentleman. This nameless old man believes, like Lot, that
*OFFERING* a woman for rape is less of a sin than permitting the
rape of a man.
"Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of
city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat
at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying,
Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said
unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly;
seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold,
here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out
now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you;
but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not
hearken to him; so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth
unto them; and they knew her and abused her all the night until the
morning; and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came
the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the
man's house where her lord was, til it was light. And her lord rose
up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to
go his way; and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at
the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And
he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then
the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up and gat him
unto his place.
"And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid
hold on his concubine, and divided her together with her bones, into
twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel."
--Judges 19:22-29
(This story is told to the judges so that they might decide what
action is to be taken in the matter. This man, after all, was forced
to mutilate his concubine, to waste a perfectly good female that wasn't
even used up yet, so he was pretty upset about this matter. The judges
said that it was a nasty thing for those guys to cause this man to
cut his female up, so war was declared against the sons of Belial.)
*NOTICE*--No one ever actually gets raped in the story of Sodom.
The angels blinded the bad guys before they got a chance to rape anyone.
Still, it *was* nice of Lot to make the offer, wasn't it?
My question is this: Why don't the fundamentalists use this last
story as a condemnation of homosexuality? It was, I believe, Jesus
who said that the sin of Sodom was the sin of inhospitality. No one
in the Bible, I believe, said that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality.
Could it possibly be that the story of Sodom is a story of rape, not
a story of homosexuality?
Well, I think I've opened up several cans of worms on several
fronts. I hope to hear lots of discussions stem from this one.wex@milano.UUCP (10/13/86)
In article <426@spdcc.UUCP>, dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) forwards another anonymous posting. The included text is from that person, not Steve, who disclaimed the views. > [tale of Lot deleted, see Genesis 19:4-8] Let me try to give a different view on this. When I took my course in Jewish ethics, this was one of the things we discussed. It was taught to use that this was not a story about rape, but about a special kind of hospitality, called sanctuary. If you are a stranger travelling through a hostile land (Sodom) and you must stay there, a Jew may offer sanctuary. If this is done, the Jew has taken on an obligation to protect you from harm from those around, even his "brethren". It is said that Lot's offer is there as an illustration of how serious this commitment is. People who follow the situation in Central America may know that this tradition of sanctuary is followed by many groups of Christians and Jews who are housing Central American refugees in churches and synagogues. The sanctuary movement has a long history which I won't go into here. One other thing that is of interest in this story: Jewish ethic teaches that Lot *could not* give up the men. The Jew must not participate or cooperate in arbitrary or group "roundups". Thus, if someone comes to me and says "Give us all your tenants who are left-handed redheads", Jewish ethic requires that I refuse. Only if they say "Give us Mr Smith" can I cooperate. Even then considerations of sanctuary may intervene. The point is that you may not be correct in taking this as a men/women distinction. You may also want to consider the wisdom of taking literally anything in a book that can mistranslate "young woman" as "virgin". This is why many people (of many faiths) believe that the Bible can only be read allegorically. -- Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex "I'm a peeping-tom techie with x-ray eyes"
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (10/16/86)
Again, thanks to Steve for posting this. Some of you will recall
a couple postings and several replies about my friendship that
seemed to be going nowhere, my angry straight friend who was very
much out of touch with me. The consensus of responders was that
I should prepare myself for the worst, he had probably rejected me
and that would be that. Well, about a week ago, I sent a postcard
that said I assumed there was a (to him) good enough reason, but
after all those very nice things that had happened over the course
of coming on four years, it was somehow *too* eccentric for me to
fathom why this sudden 3-month hiatus should occur. I sent the card.
That *same* day as I sat at my table reading net news, the phone
rings, Hello this is Stu. I replied Well, I have to say I'm glad to
hear your voice, but you can't possibly have received the card I
sent you this afternoon, so I'm *very* surprised; did you want to
get together and have a good jabber? Yes, he did, and we did, and
it was (he thought) with cause that he'd kept apart for a time, and
he had taken a long time to realize that even though he didn't
understand *all* his own motivations, still he wanted to see me
and spend some time together. Well, I said, I think it works a lot
better for me if the oscillations of near/far that are necessary
to balance *any* relationship don't get *too* wide, because I
think a friendship that is anything more than casual results in
some mutually agreed upon responsibilities, the kind of support
that only a real, three-dimensional presence can supply. When and
how often, and what it is, all that's negotiable, as it were, but
*some* presence one can depend on is a minimum. This was agreed
to as acceptable. We worked through the specific problem without
too much grief, and things seem OK again. If I live to be 100,
I'll never understand men--they are sometimes too weird!
I guess the lesson is (I'm conditioned to think there is
*always* a lesson): take the long view especially if it counts
(or at least you think it does); you never really know about
some things, no matter how hard you try. Thanks again for the
support, encouragement, and understanding I got from netland
during this very odd interlude. --Paul (an altered ego, I
assure you).
--
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
{linus,wanginst,bbnccv,harvard,ima,ihnp4}!spdcc!dyer