|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
| Home | Back Pages | Illustrations | Author Interview | Netshow Links |
There are several topics I wanted to write about in the last few days. Unfortunately, I haven't felt the motivation to write about them. I suppose that's a bit contradictory at face value. Here's the situation. I've got some wonderful thoughts in mind that I want to express here, but rather than properly researching them and writing, I've been more compelled to play video games when I fire up my computer. I've basically been lazy. And it feels good too.
In addition to writing about significant things here, I need to put a little more work into the webcam page too. It's working, as some of you might have noticed, at least late in the evening and at night when I'm home, but it doesn't look good. I'm going to have to start figuring out how to work with Java better so I can make it look nice. I'm also becoming intrigued with the new Cascading Style Sheets. They may be the shape of things to come around here.
I'm in the midst of drinking gin now. It seems just about everybody's got a drunk entry. This might become mine, depending on how long I write for and how much I consume during that time. I've scanned some photos recently, for my pics page, but I think I'll post a few of them here, just for fun - I'm still not motivated to write about all the deep and significant thoughts I've been having over the weekend, so we'll just look at pictures instead, OK?
Let me pour another drink here, and then we'll get straight to the photos.
OK. Here we go. The first shot here on the left is a nice little ego trip for me. This was taken about a month after I got my pilot's license. Me being me, I wasn't satisfied with a mere Private Pilot's certificate. No, I had to work up my high performance endorsement right away. This first pic is of me with my wunnerful Cessna 172RG, a trainer with a variable pitch prop and retractable landing gear.
Our next picture here takes us back a long ways.
This was taken during the winter of my Jr. year of High School. I flew with a group to Washington DC to participate in Close-Up, a program for HS students to learn a lot about government during a week in DC. It was an early expression of my need to travel and explore.
Should have taught me a lot more about myself then it did. I had a blast being so far from home and on my own, while my mother worried the whole time. I also spent a lot of energy secretly checking out all the cute guys on the trip. If only times were different...
Betcha can't tell I had a nasty fever when this picture was taken and was sick in bed for days after. I never let 'em know when I'm weak!
This pic is of my 23rd birthday, which I celebrated at home with my parents and my best friend Chris.
Chris is on the right. This picture is particularly poingant to me. I loved Chris at that time like I'd never been in love with anyone before - except he didn't know it. I didn't even completely understand what I was feeling, not until 1995 after I had told him I thought I was gay (he was the first I ever told) and he stopped having anything to do with me. That still stands as the greatest emotional pain I've ever endured. At the time this picture was taken, I was sure he loved me too but that we were both too closeted to say anything to each other. I guess we just had a very close friendship, not a romance, but it sure sucked hard when whatever it was we had came to a cold, abrupt, end. I was very happy to celebrate my birthday with Chris that day. You can't see it in the picture, can you?
This picture is of me (again on the left) with my friend Rob
Douglas getting ready to go sailing on a Hobbie Cat. Rob was an interesting guy. Not without his faults, but I liked him a lot and had a pretty big crush on him when this picture was taken.
We were both at Auburn for the Summer quarter and had a five day weekend because of class schedules and a holiday. He took me home to his parents' house in Florida. His parents were away on vacation and we had the whole place to ourselves. The house, the Hobbie Cat,and a powered fishing boat to go out on the Gulf and fish from.
I caught the first fish of my entire life on that long weekend.
Here's me proudly holding the biggest catch I ever made. Rob told me it was a fish called a Bonita. It is appearently good for chumming for sharks with, but not a good eating fish. I was just proud I caught something. Rob and I had a wonderful weekend together, fishing, swimming, sailing, and cooking up big meals in the kitchen. There were several moments when I was sure something romantic would happen, but it never did. Never the less, it was a great weekend. I wonder where Rob is now? He was a good friend even if he couldn't be a boyfriend.
The pictures above I mostly scanned for a new feature I'm working on. A sort of 'Journal of the Past' - something akin to this journal, but about what came before. It won't be quite so day-to-day, but I envision it being relatively detailed. There's a lot from my past that I just haven't yet got all hashed out in my brain yet. I think a webpage about old times might help. It will also provide more depth for you web friends who haven't met me IRL yet. I hope you enjoy it.
Wednesday August 4th, 1999
I had a dinner and movie date with Brent last night. It included breakfast this morning. *VBG* We went to see The Blair Witch Project. I didn't think it was possible that I could be more disappointed with a movie this summer than I was with Star Wars Episode 1, but BWP did the job. I was expecting a unique independent film experience - something creative and different that would scare the bejesus out of me. Instead, I was bored by it. Yes, just plain bored. My heart rate probably never rose above 70. BORE-ING!
The filmmakers (the actual ones, not the wannabes in the movie) made a noble attempt. It was a good idea that didn't quite work out. The starring actors shot much of the movie on their own and had enough business on tape at the end of the week to paste together a movie, no small accomplishment for amateurs. They also did a fair job as actors, which couldn't have been easy considering they had to ad-lib the whole movie. They developed their characters well and showed some real depth. I'll give everyone involved credit for trying. They did better than I've ever done with my Hi-8 camera.
But, they didn't scare me at all. I never moved out of the theater and 'in' to the movie. They failed to achieve any suspension of disbelief. The Witch was supposed to have a threatening off-screen presence; Something akin to the original 'Terminator' and the way the audience felt continually hunted by him even though he had very little screen time nearer the beginning of the film. It just never happened in BWP. My mind kept wandering away from the movie and I yawned many times. Dullsville, but a big E for effort. (BTW, the website for BWP is actually pretty cool. Way better than the movie.)
I first heard about the existence of modern day witches when I was still a practicing Catholic. I was rather self-righteous in my religious convictions then. Upon reflection, I think I confused conviction for self-righteousness. I thought Wicca to be evil because it denied the One True God and the only True Church. I didn't think the actual practices of Wiccans were evil (they don't worship Satan or have bloody sacrifices), but I did think Wicca was evil because its followers had their religious needs seductively satisfied by a false religion which placed an effective barrier between the Wiccans and the only one who could truly redeem them, Jesus.
It was easy to knock down Wicca as a false religion because it was so different from my Catholicism. Like Buddhists and Hindus, I felt Wiccans were so way off the mark that their religions were laughable. It was when I first moved to the Deep South and met a new breed of Christian that my mind began to open to new possibilities. American Protestantism, in all its different flavors, used essentially the same bible and worshiped essentially the same God as I did. The disturbing thing I found with them was they came to some very different conclusions about moral behavior and religious rituals than my Catholic cohorts by reading the same religious texts. They came to the most absurd conclusions and believed them with the same self-righteousness that I believed in mine.
It was then that I finally began to doubt my own conclusions. The protestant ministers with their slick-backed hair and tailored suits looked like snake oil peddlers to me. The phony way they prayed out loud ("Jesus, we just want to thank you..." That humble and condescending use of the word 'just' occurs in all American Protestant ad-lib prayers, but never in Catholic ones. We prefer our formal 'thees' and 'thous' instead) was quite silly to me. Then, it occurred to me that the protestants might view Catholic priests chanting Latin phrases in their robes as just as silly. Until that point, I knew the Buddhists, Hindus, and Wiccans were flat out wrong and that Islam and Judaism had lost their way 2000 years ago. I learned in my first few months in the Deep South that the American Protestants were just as loony. Suddenly, sitting in my dorm room late one night I had an epiphany. I realized that the Catholicism I was raised in might not be a privileged frame of religious reference either.
And with that simple realization, my whole religious belief system was blown away like a house of cards in a hurricane. How arrogant I was to categorically dismiss the vast majority of the Earth's population as misguided infidels! At that point it became impossible for me to believe in Christianity any more than I could believe in Voodoo. I no longer needed a redeemer, because the ideas of hell, sin, and judgement before the lord were no more valid to than the idea that sticking pins in a doll could bring harm to your enemies. I was completely divested of religious thought. The irony is that in becoming free of religion I put myself at odds with an even larger portion of the Earth's population than I did as a Catholic.
I am still anti-religious. I can think of no greater engine of bloodshed, deception, and hate than the world's religions. The religious mind is capable of pathological reasoning which, at the very least diminishes humanity, and at the very worst slaughters it. There is a natural tendency for the human psyche to veer toward religious thought in the face of the unknown. I strive to resist the temptation to attribute the whys of the universe to a 'higher power' and simply accept the answers as unknown now, and perhaps always unknowable to the human mind.
I even suspect asking the universal 'why?' is an ill-formed question. I'm not convinced that there is any purpose or meaning in existence of the universe or humanity. There is no real need for a purpose to the cosmos beyond satisfying human curiosity. It can go on without purpose or cause. Even the idea of a 'first cause' - what created the cosmos and its physical construct - may simply be an illusion arising from humanity's limited, linear thought process. Our psychology may prevent us from ever understanding the nature of the universe.
Without offering any answers to the 'true' nature of the universe, I also see no evidence pointing to the existence of a higher power. Only a vacuum of knowledge that is filled the world over with what amounts to superstition. Man creates god out of nothing more substantial than an arbitrary belief motivated by fear of the unknown.
This is the word of Rob.
Sunday August 8th, 1999
I've had a lot of free time lately, as a result of my unemployment while my Federal contract is being renewed to work at the Oceanography lab. I've been putting in some short hours there anyway against unofficial 'comp' time that I should be able to use when my new contract is started. I've also been doing some computer consulting on the side to raise cash money to pay the rent with. I'm getting by, but it's certainly not helping my financial situation.
The extra time has been a nice change. I think after you've been working for a while you stop realizing what a large portion of your life you sell away by the hour to someone else. I like to live my life in spurts of intense activity couched in intervals of almost monastic peace, quiet, and solitude. Maintaining an 8 hour grind week in and week out for years at a time doesn't suit me at all. I prefer, say, two months of intense physical and mental training leading up to a six day mountain climb, followed by a month without any commitments so I can fully absorb the experience. I've been able to do this to a fair degree this year. Its not making me rich or helping my 'career', in fact my lifestyle is detrimental to both, but I'm only going to live my life this one time and I want to make sure I'm living it the best I can. The best I can according to *my* priorities and values, not those set forth for me by society, peer pressure, or even my parents.
This period of unemployment I've been in for three weeks now has given me a lot of time to be both introspective (something I've never had a problem doing) and to read more about the world around me. My entry from Thursday was a product of introspection. Right now I'd like to comment on two articles which were published in the national media this last week.
The first article is titled Can and Should Homosexuals Change and appeared on the AP wire service written by an AP staff writer on the occasion of Exodus International's annual conference. Exodus International is a group of American Christians who claim that they were once gay, but have since been 'cured' or 'saved'. Last year Exodus ran a series of ads in major US newspapers saying that homosexuals can become heterosexual through prayer and Christian counseling. The article was actually rather well balanced. In addition to bringing attention to Exodus' message, the article also had this to say; "Last December, the board of the American Psychiatric Association declared treatment aimed at changing sexual orientation can cause depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior."
I doubt few who read this journal would disagree with the APA's position and could base their opinion on personal struggle. I know I could. So, why is Exodus so interested in making ex-gays despite the expert opinion of the medical community that homosexuality is part of the normal range of human behavior and 'curing' it causes psychosis? Well, personally I believe that the members of Exodus have failed to get past their own internalized homophobia and are renouncing their homosexuality when deep down inside they know its a flat-out lie and they haven't changed one bit. Of course, I can't prove that, it would be my word against theirs, but that's the standpoint I approach ex-gays from. I don't believe them.
That these people are denying themselves happy lives as homosexuals is very sad to me. I put myself in a similar situation for a long time and I would have sympathy for Exodus members, except that they take their sorry mental state to another level when they attempt to hurt others while trying to assuage their own mental problems. Their strategy is not just to lie about themselves, but also to damage other people in order not to get caught in their lies. One speaker at the Exodus conference summed up my point when she said "the gay activist community is very threatened by Exodus. Their civil rights campaign is based on the belief that homosexuality is immutable, yet people have changed. We are here."
Exodus seeks to deny gay people civil rights in our free country! Not only are they destroying their own happiness by lying about their orientation, but they also want to attack gay people who are happy with their lives! I'd like to take on Exodus' position on two points. First, I don't believe them. There are no ex-gays. Second, even if there were real live ex-gays, even if homosexuality was *completely* a matter of choice (coke/pepsi? gay/straight?) those who choose to be gay should enjoy the same civil rights as those who do not so choose.
Exodus is trying to claim the moral high ground of no longer being sinful, and now that they are without sin they have achieved the right to cast the first stone. What I want to know is what kind of person would want to throw stones at another in the first place? Not a very nice one, that's for sure.
The AP article was well balanced. It simply presented the statements of the Exodus officials and made sure it included actual medical opinion on the subject as well. It drew no conclusions and never attempted to answer the questions it raised in it's title.
The second article I read this week and will comment on now wasn't written by a professional journalist as the first was. Rather, it was a press release of the Family Research Council trumpeting results of a poll the FRC had conducted itself. The title was "FRC Poll Finds American People Don't Believe That Homosexuals Qualify as True Minority".
If the title seems a bit inflammatory, allow me to reproduce the opening paragraph:
Now, instead of letting moral outrage fill our heads with unpleasant thoughts, let's see if we can figure out why the FRC feels justified in propagating these statements. First, we must keep in mind the FRC exists for the sole purpose of stamping out all homosexual activities in America. That singular mission is the reason they were organized and is their only function. For the limits of my discussion here, their motive to do such a thing is irrelevant.
The FRC's mission to end homosexuality explains why they went to the trouble of conducting a survey and creating a press release whose title alone disparages homosexuals as being un-American. (Look at it: "American People" is the subject of the title sentence and it's cast as directly opposed to the object of the same sentence "People who engage in homosexual behaviors" - it's clearly posed as Us versus Them). But, how can they back up a claim that the American people don't think gays suffer injustice similar to those MLK fought against?
The FRC presume to speak for the American People in this release based on popular answers to just three survey questions. The release does not disclose the survey methods, survey group, or margins of statistical error. The three questions and responses were as follows:
QUESTION ANSWER 1. Do you believe homosexuals have not suffered No - 80% the same as blacks, such as not being able to vote or get an education? 2. Are the murders of a homosexual and a heterosexual Yes - 98% equally serious and should both be prosecuted to the full extent of the law? 3. Should criminals be punished for their actions Yes - 93% alone, and not their thoughts, and should their victims receive equal protection from the law?
Well, isn't that special? Obviously, the questions above are leading, and the third one is even compound. Aside from the unfortunate phrasing of the questions, it should also be remembered that popular opinion doesn't make something true or right.
In the first question the respondents didn't think carefully before answering, then the FRC compounded the poll participants mistake with its outrageous conclusion based on an invalid response. Homosexuals haven't been specifically forbidden to vote so they aren't a "true minority"? I think the FRC and it's respondents are forgetting that homosexual behavior is a felony in many states and that convicted felons are forbidden to vote. I'm quite sure my education was inhibited because of all the harassment I endured in school. What about gay Americans who are denied the opportunity to serve their country and receive a college education through the service academies, ROTC, and the GI bill?
The second and third questions are aimed squarely at the "hate-crimes" bill now moving through Washington DC. Who wouldn't answer yes to the second question? The problem with the second question and making assumptions about popular opinion on the hate-crimes bill is this; it doesn't address the motive term in its equation. It simply asks for a moral comparison of two murders. Ideally, the murder of Adolph Hitler would be no more invidious than the murder of Mother Theresa. Wouldn't it? Or is a moral comparison of murder meaningless without a motive term?
The third FRC poll question attempts to look at this. Unfortunately, it consists of two separate questions and we don't really know which one the respondents were answering. The second part of the question, the part which respondents will most likely have in mind when they provide their one answer, asks if Americans should have equal protection under the law. That's a no-brainer yes.
Look at the first part of the question - should a criminal's thoughts be punished as well as his/her actions? This is a much more complicated question that deserves some thought. On the surface, we might think that the question is asking if we endorse some kind of Thought Police. That's probably how the FRC intended it to look.
But, when we look deeper into the purpose of the hate-crimes legislation that this question is addressing it becomes quite different. If we, as a nation, are committed to liberty and justice for all, then thoughts and motives must be taken into account. The entire Civil Rights Act package that MLK fought for is specifically aimed at changing racist thinking. The Civil Rights Act is invasive. It denies racists the liberty to act on their views and construes to break the social cycle that creates racists. It does this to improve the social fabric of our country. The hate-crimes legislation seeks to continue and further this process by including homosexuals as a protected class alongside the others.
Of course the FRC is going to oppose any hate-crimes legislation that extends its protection to gays. Such legislation is designed to create an American society which welcomes and cares for gay Americans. This is precisely what the FRC is chartered to prevent.
After reading this disgusting and pathetic press release I'm even more convinced that it's title claim is completely false. Gay rights are in fact precisely the kind of Civil Liberties that MLK was fighting for. I'm also even more convinced that the religious people behind the FRC represent a dangerous threat to America specifically and humanity in general. Sunday August 22nd, 1999
I just looked at the date of my last entry and I can't believe it's already been that long. Things have gotten a little busier for me lately, so I suppose the time just slipped by. Busy in terms of what you wonder?
I'm still technically unemployed from my regular job at the Oceanograpy Lab, but the good news is that my job starts up again in only a week's time. The fact that I'm unemployed there has not kept me from working the last two weeks. I've been doing computer consulting for a private research company during the week - at a higher rate than my full time job! I've also been working at the race track on Saturdays and Sundays. So, that means that since my last journal entry, I haven't had a day off.
I usually write in the evening after I get home from work. The last two weeks I just haven't been compelled to write after consulting. Instead, if I'm home alone I've just been sitting around reading. Three evenings a week I spend with my boyfriend and I'm alone the rest of the time. Not lonely, but alone.
Funny, I can remember just three years ago when sitting around alone was almost unbearable. I was still mostly closeted and depressed. The silence of my empty apartment was stiffling. Being closeted made it worse. Not only was I alone and lonely, but I knew I would always be alone and lonely if I remained closeted. I endured that misery for about four years until I figured out the hardship of being gay couldn't be as bad as the hardship of being closeted. I've got a very strong force of will. In this case, it hurt me. I should have accepted my sexuality years before.
Being alone is different for me now. I can enjoy my solitude, when it comes, as time for myself. I can enjoy it because I have the confidence that my boyfriend, my friends, and my family all love me and need me. Being alone is no longer empty and vacant. Its just a rest.
Maybe that's why I haven't been writing the last two weeks. I have my confidence right now. Its when I loose my confidence and start questioning the world and myself that I write more often. Writing helps dissipate the angst. James Joyce wrote that good art comes from a bad life. My life is going OK right now, so my writing has suffered?
It's my Mom's birthday today. My brother and I are taking her out to dinner. I hope it goes well for her. Things are a little bit strained in our family right now. My mother still loves me, but she loves me in spite of my orientation and makes that point quite clear. For me, being gay is part of me, therefore if you truely love me you must love me *because* I am gay (among other reasons), not in spite of it. Am I making any sense? Oh, well. I'll let all that float today and just try to make her happy. I love her no matter what. She's my Mom.
Monday August 23rd, 1999
The dinner with family went OK. I spent all day Sunday working at the race track with a wonderful group of restored historic race cars (about 275 cars in all) racing once again in all their glorious visual and audible splendor. It was a wonderful weekend at the track, but I had to leave quickly on Sunday evening to get home for a quick shower and meet my family at their house for dinner at 7:00. I drove the four of us in my parents' car over to the restaurant in Carmel, about 10 minutes away.
My Mom was in a good mood so the conversation was pleasant. I told everyone about my weekend at the track and listened to my parents talk about their recent trip to Portland and the Oregon coast. Of course we also talked about the food (French) and the wine (Californian)and the service (adequate). My brother and I split the tab and gave my Mom a card and a small gift. It was nice to see Mom enjoying herself for a change. I'm glad she had a happy birthday.
I spent a good deal of time looking over my Dad's shoulder at a very cute guy sitting at the next table, but I don't think any of my family noticed. I don't think the cute guy noticed either. None the less, he scored a blip on my gaydar and was a nice diversion. He had dark blonde hair with light blonde tips, was very fit, I'd say about 26 years old, and a best of all he had a wonderful smile. Smiles go a long way with me.
This week I'll be spending a lot of time pushig the government beaurocracy to get me back on the books. They've offered me the job, and I've accepted, but they haven't done all the paper work at the main government human resources office for my region. Trouble is, the office is located 600 miles away in San Diego! Its a great example of how poorly government centralization of services works. Its supposed to be more efficient, but in reality its a pain in the butt. I'm scheduled to leave on a research ship for a five day oceanography expedition this Saturday. Its going to cause major problems if I'm not officially back on the payroll by then.
The expedition isn't really on a grand scale or anything. We'll just be out for five days measuring the La Nina phenomenon. The method will be to lower an instrument package into the Pacific at regularly spaced grid intervals. The instruments will measure sea temperatures and salinity down to 4000 meters (about 12,000 ft.). That information alone allows us to compute all kinds of interesting things including predicting large-scale currents in the Pacific and how the weather might be this Fall and Winter.
I won't be able to ftp updates to this journal while I'm at sea, but I can send and recieve e mail. If you'd like to get an e mail from out on the Pacific Ocean via sattelite modem, let me know now. Another souvenier that's fun to make for people is to send styrofoam objects (eg. coffee cups) down with the instrument package. Large cups get crushed by the pressure and return to the surface the size of thimbals! Let me know if you'd like me to put your name on one and send it down. I'll mail it to you when I get back. Might make an interesting conversation piece on your bookshelf.
Tuesday August 24th, 1999
I'm enjoying the last week of my enforced summer vacation as much as possible. Today, rather than doing the consulting work I've been using to pay my bills the last month, I stayed home to enjoy the last of my free time.
Brent came over to my apartment after I finished work yesterday. I took a little time to go shopping first and picked up some essentials to make a nice dinner for us, and to rent a movie for us to watch. I made a salad from prepared Spring Mix (you know the lettuce leaves that come in a bag and look like yard clippings), added some extra virgin olive oil and balsamic vinigar, then tossed in some broken roasted pecans and rasins for flavor. The hors'devours was brushetta, which we munched on while sipping chiantti and putting together the main course. I sauteed some scallops with butter, garlic, olive oil, and Marsala wine, then mixed them in with a prepared basil cream sauce and served it over fresh angel hair pasta. It was great! Desert was some baclava I picked up at the store and served with coffee.
We had our desert cuddled on the couch while starting our movie, Waking Ned Devine. The movie turned out to be wonderful, one of the best I've seen in a while. It takes place in a small village in modern day Ireland. It's funny, filled with interesting characters, has lovely music, and is beautifully photographed. I should have seen it in the theater. It is the epitome of my kind of movie. I give it my highest reccomendation.
Shortly after the movie, we went to bed. We started out cuddled up together and shared a good night kiss. Well, the kiss got to be a bit protracted and one thing lead to another... It was after 1:00 am before we actually went to sleep! *VBG*
We didn't bother getting up until 10:00 this morning. The sleep in felt good as I haven't slept late in several weeks. We showered together, which also ended up taking longer than planned because we wanted to make sure that we washed each other *very* thoroughly. Then we went out for a nice breakfast before Brent had to leave for class. I thought about trying to get him to blow it off, but it's the first day of the new term and he had to finish some registration paperwork so he wouldn't get shut out of the courses he needs this semester. Oh, well, he's coming over again tonight anyways.
Before tonight, I'm going over to the Outdoor Recreation shop for a meeting with some of the other Ski Tour Guides. We're going to start planning for the upcoming season. We've got to recruit and train about 25 new guides before the season begins in late November. This evening's meeting will kick all of that off. I'll be spending a fair number of my Tuesday and Thursday evenings from September through November at the ski shop teaching the new guides everything from how to wax and tune skis to how to set bindings, to how to put snow chains on our big tour vans. We have Red Cross experts come in to get us all certified in First Aid and CPR, and we all have to pass a comercial driver's certification with the State for the year. As one of five senior guides returning to the program this year, I'll be in charge of assigning guides to lead tours through the season. That always works well for me because I can hand pick which tours I want to do myself!
Today's entry hasn't been particularly thought provoking or controversial. It's just an encapsulization of a typical day for me this summer. I just kind of wanted it here to help me remember how things were 50 years from now. Maybe it will help all you internet readers get to know me and my daily life a little better too. Then perhaps you'll be able to read more into my next philosophical diatribe.
Wednesday August 25th, 1999
What are the rules of dating? Are they the same for everyone? Do they even exist at all? Should they exist? I've been thinking about this problem as it relates to my life and to that of my friends. It’s all very confusing.
Let me start off with cases involving friends and then later look at how it applies to me. I'm going to use these cases to ask some tough questions, but try not reading an answer to the questions between the lines. I haven't made my mind up yet which answers I should apply to my life.
Those of you who know Robb, Are aware of the trauma he and his boyfriend have recently been through in their relationship. They've had a good, if occasionally difficult, relationship for close to a year now. Robb made it very clear from the start that sex outside the relationship was possible and Chad, his boyfriend understood this fact. Only recently was this option put to the test for the first time, and the consequences were dramatic.
Robb found a new friend whom he liked, John, and was excited by the new possibilities and probably just the thrill of the hunt. They ended up having sex together. Robb told Chad about it (one of the rules of having sex outside their relationship) and Chad was very hurt and jealous. In retaliation, Chad told Robb that he'd also had sex outside the relationship and Robb was hurt that Chad hadn't told him about it when it happened. The end result of all this was two guys that enjoyed the excitement of someone new to get naked with, but a lot of stress and loss of stability in their long-term relationship. They're still together and still love each other, but things have changed.
The old standard model for dating would have couples not have sex outside the relationship as a rule. Could this old rule have benefited Robb and Chad? Or are things better off for them they way they turned out? The old model requires complete trust and a betrayal of that trust usually means the unhappy ending of the relationship. The stakes are high, but the reward is greater stability. Two people can plan a life together with confidence in each other and not worry about the stress and emotional discomfort associated with perceived threats to the relationship from third parties.
But does it have to be that way? Is a firm rule of fidelity the only way to keep a relationship stable? I don't think I have an answer here, I'm just posing questions. In the case of Robb and Chad, why was Chad so jealous of John? Robb and Chad still live together, Robb still loves Chad, none of that changed. Instead of feeling jealousy, couldn't Chad have shared in Robb's excitement over meeting someone new? Couldn't Chad have been happy at seeing his boyfriend so thrilled? According to the old model, no. Chad could only feel hurt and betrayed if he were living in an exclusive relationship and Robb had sex with John anyways.
But, Robb and Chad were not living by the old rules. What Robb did was perfectly within the paradigm they were attempting to live with. So why did Chad feel hurt anyways? I don't know Chad personally, so I'm not going to attempt to fathom the depth of his emotions or even speculate on them here. I bring up the entire case simply to illustrate the questions that I've outlined so far. And all these questions distill down to one question - Are the rules of open relationships really possible to live by, or are they just a pre-arranged excuse for breaking the rules of exclusive relationships?
The next case I'd like to discuss is that of Kyle, another journaler who happens to share a name in common with me. Kyle's been on vacation and while spending a few days in Portland Oregon, he met a guy named Troy. He and Troy were attracted to each other the first time their eyes met at a coffee house. In the few days Kyle was in Portland he and Troy enjoyed a brief romance, had sex, and became friends. They parted company on good terms when it came time for Kyle to move on to his next destination.
When I read Kyle's story I was flush with excitement and felt the vicarious thrill of a new relationship. It was heart warming to see two people reach out to each other and enjoy one of life's greatest pleasures together. The pleasure of beginning a new and intimate relationship with another. Each understood that the relationship was limited to a few days, and enjoyed it for what it was. Indeed, it may be the beginning of a longer friendship, but these things are never guaranteed.
The old rules would say this brief affair was a mistake. There was never any chance of a long term relationship and short term relationships are devoid of meaning and value. According to the old rules, short term relationships lead to heartache and degrade the participant's ability to sustain a precious long-term relationship in the future. Is a brief fling like Kyle and Troy's merely a satisfaction of carnal needs at the expense of emotional growth?
I cannot accept any rules of behavior by divine right. There is no absolute code of right and wrong behaviors for human beings woven into the fabric of the universe itself. Nature does not declare rules about sex anymore than it declares rules about the proper setting of a table. All these rules come from human tradition and experience. For me to accept a set of rules to live by, I have to believe that they are going to enhance the overall quality of my life.
Rules of behavior (some might use the word 'morals' here) exist to help me make decisions in life when the consequences of those decisions may be so far reaching that I can't work them out. Project Apollo had 'Mission Rules' similar to this. An example, the astronauts on the Moon were permitted to drive the lunar rover no farther away from the Lunar Module than they had air in their tanks enough to walk back, should the lunar rover break down. This rule restricted them from a behavior that might have endangered their lives.
So, when it comes to dating, which rules should I adopt to ensure that in the aggregate I have the most satisfying and profound life possible? I think short term relationships can be fulfilling and meaningful and Kyle's example is a good case in point.
But what about Robb's relationship with John? It was essentially the same kind of short term relationship as Kyle's, except that it was conducted in the context of a long term relationship with Chad. I too am in a long term relationship. Should I adopt rules which forbid me the wonderful experience of budding intimacy with new people to avoid possible conflict in my long term relationship?
Its a hard question for me. Brent, my boyfriend, would be very hurt if I developed an intimate relationship with someone else, even for the short term. I love Brent very much and wouldn't want to hurt him, so for the time being, I've adopted a rule of exclusivity. I see so many things in Brent that make him a good long term companion that I don't want to risk loosing him. On the other hand, I didn't date much before I met Brent. I was only just coming out at that point. Now, I still feel a longing to form intimate relationships with other guys too. I want Brent to be that long term guy for me, but I want the experience of more short term experiences too. Sometimes I think I met Brent a little too soon.
I would prefer to adopt rules similar to Robb's open relationship. The trouble with those rules is I see them leading to even more catastrophic failure for Brent and I than Robb's rules lead he and Chad too. I'm not sure how to address the problem. I'd probably live if I never slept with another guy besides Brent again, but I'm not ready to make that pledge yet. I think I still need to develop and explore my sexuality with others.
For instance, there are several of my friends I'd like to sleep with a few times. I want to explore their bodies, and learn to develop deeper friendships with them. I'm pretty sure the feelings are mutual with them too. Could that be a new rule? Could it be OK to have sex with friends as a matter of friendship and not have it adversely affect a boyfriend type relationship?
I'd also like to be able to experience new people the way Kyle did while traveling. When I'm out of town alone for a weekend of racing, I'm often tempted to strike up a conversation with a cute guy I might make eye contact with. Not out of pure horniness, I know how to take care of that by myself, but out of the possibility of sharing a new and close friendship the way Kyle did.
Everything seems so indeterminate when it comes to dating relationships. I can't see a clear way to accomplish all the things I want to do without hurting others, but in not doing them, I hurt myself which will, in turn, hurt others in the long run too. I'd like a set of rules I can trust in, but I haven't figured them out yet. The very first rule of dating I adopted when I was 13 was that I would never date a guy. I was forced to abandon that rule when it pushed me to the brink of alcoholism and suicide. I need better rules than that. Or do I need rules at all? I just don't know.