Married men with SSA - Should we be publicly open about it?

[Prodigal_Son]

I can’t speak for anyone else, but the only reason that I would like to be more “open” about it, is to provide encouragement for others going through it, especially the young. When you are young, especially in today’s culture, and you struggle with ANY amount of same-sex attraction, then you feel that you MUST be gay, and you either have to fling yourself headfirst into the “gay lifestyle”, or you’re a disgusting, horrible, perverted person who can never have a normal life.

Where are these young people supposed to see examples that there ARE, in fact, some people who struggle with SSA, but who can manage to integrate these feelings/work through it, and develop enough opposite-sex attraction, to make marriage and family possible?? (I never found such examples when I needed them.)

If people see these examples, then they can be encouraged to do the work, seek the counseling, have the hope, etc., that it might really be possible.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To borrow the image from an article linked to earlier, gay people that live out the Catholic Church’s teaching seem something like unicorns. They seem not to exist as not many have ever seen them. But if the role models become more visible, then more people will realize that such a path is possible.

This is **exactly **what I felt like when I found Wesley Hill and Eve Tushnet, two gay people who live chastely. But what is a married Christian with same-sex attraction like? Larry Craig or the like. That’s the paradigm, and it’s not a good paradigm.

I dare say that even the sexual revolution, the rise in the incidence of homosexual relations, and all that can be traced to that repression. What is repressed ends up unaddressed, like a spring coiling tighter and tighter. The Western society, for the past two hundred years, had become more and more repressed, not because they rejected sexual sin (which is legitimately rejected) but because they rejected all notions of talking about sexual topics and struggles, they relegated the topic of sex to the closet, not to be talked about openly even in a respectful way that did not condone sin. Guess what? When closets get too full, everything comes spilling out into the room at once.

So we can go ahead, we can refuse to talk about certain things, we can bury our heads in the sand and act like hiding it makes it go away. Instead of cleaning out the closet bit by bit, which requires opening it and bringing those issues out into the open as they come, we can just keep cramming every little issue into that closet until the door bursts off the hinges and the entire house (society) is filled with trash and junk. And of course, then, in perhaps the biggest stroke of irony, those who commanded the repression, who never wanted the closet door opened long enough to clean it on a regular basis, can blame the ones who wanted to be more open all along for the resulting explosion. Go figure.

Why on earth was *I *talking about writing a book? Looks like we’ve got an author right here! :bowdown2:

 

[mommamaree]

No, I never said that. I said that my desire to have sex with men is less fundamental than my desire to have close friendships that are much more intimate than those relationships commonly found in our culture.

For a primer on what I mean, check out this article by Anthony Esolen: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-07-021-f

Depends on what you mean by “going public”. I am not suggesting doing something relatively “high profile” before I have experienced significant freedom from sexual sin for a long period of time – at least two years. But going public within a safer situation, like a community of committed believers, I don’t think would require years of freedom preceding it.

Do you think civil rights leaders were wrong to put their families at risk? I ask, because (leaving aside other issues involved, for the moment) there are two arguments going on here:

(1) The argument that the dangers outweigh the advantages.
(2) The argument that anything that makes one’s children this vulnerable is wrong.

Argument #2 fails, if civil rights leaders were justified. Then we’re left with Argument #1. I’m interested in Argument #1, and I find it worthwhile to consider. I’m not sure the advantages outweigh the dangers. But Argument #2 just seems to me patently false.

(Biographical detail: I live in a nice-ish neighborhood of a rather dangerous city. This exposes my children to more physical danger than if we lived in the suburbs. Is this morally wrong too?)

Despite all my argumentativeness, thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mommamaree!

Okay, since I am using a tablet, I cannot parse your comments, so I will just reply in order. Sorry for the less tidy approach here.
Are you saying that your desire for intimate friendships with men, because unmet in our sex-obsessed culture, which is both homo-erotic and homo-phobic, has turned into something sexual? Is this one of the causes of SSA? That having an intimate relationship with a man or men, being impossible, becomes tied to a young man’s developing sexuality?
Next point…I think 2 years is not long enough, IMO to be free from sexual sin before you “go public” with book writing. An anonymous blog could easily be started tomorrow, chronicling your journey towards chastity, and could attract a following of those who can both be helped by your journey, and could give you encouragement, too. An accountability group is great at any time. But any leadership, publishing, ministry should not be undertaken for several reasons. Number one, people are usually asked to write a book or participate in a leadership position or ministerial role. They are invited to do so because they are already seen to have something to offer a readership or to people who are hurting. Secondly, you need years, not just two, but YEARS of successfully conquering vice before being qualified to teach virtue. Thirdly, how do you know you will not fall into temptation by deliberating dwelling on these thoughts and exposing your identity to others with the same proclivities who may not be so committed to chastity? Fourthly, your children are still young enough to have this negatively impact THEIR developing sexuality and their proper social development.
To the point about civil rights movement leaders, this is an improper analogy because same sex attraction is a disordered desire whereas civil rights is a just cause. We, as Christians, are called to stand publicly against injustice. We are not supposed to stand up and be counted according to our vices. Not publicly. That is why many support groups devoted to conquering vices are anonymous. As in, you don’t reveal the identities of members of the support group. And you don’t get to be a mentor or sponsor until you are sober for a long time. But back to my main point here, you cannot make a connection between civil rights and married men struggling with SSA.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, you are bisexual. Lucky you. People who are gay must reject the Catholic Church, or never realize their potential sexually. Your lot in life is much easier. Accept Church teachings and stick to your wife, or don’t. Your choice.

Hi there, epan!

According to Catholic theology, sexual fulfillment is not restricted to acts of sexual contact. When you make eggs in the kitchen, you do this as a sexual being – as a man or a woman, both glorious creatures whose very bodies reflect the image of God. When you praise God in church, you are not simply praising as “somebody” – you are praising as a man, or as a woman, and this is a powerful experience.

For the most part, these are the ways that I fulfill my “sexual potential”, by living as fully as possible my distinctive identity as a man. Making love to my wife is awesome, but it is not the end-all, be-all of my own experience of being a sexual being.

This is not to downplay the profound sacrifice those called to celibacy have to make. This is a beautiful choice. I suspect that God is not, like a strict teacher, marking down every sin of the homosexual person against him. These sins are not helpful, and they are serious. But the mercy of God is profoundly powerful. It can find us out, after we have tested the waters of sin, and found in them only false and fleeting pleasures. God knows the fulness of our potentials, both sexual and otherwise, and He longs for us to walk into this potential.

 

[Boundless]

Actually …] If I have to be very blunt about what I think, I think you are engaging in wishful thinking about what the effects on children will be. I think you don’t want it to hurt them, so you are (not deliberately) underestimating the likelihood of harm.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I sincerely don’t believe you’re right about us on this. I could say something about how you yourself could be biased, too, but that wouldn’t be fruitful either. Suffice to say that we just have different opinions here, with no need of suggesting that one side or the other must be wearing blinders (intentionally or otherwise) in order to hold his/her opinion.

First, by changing the question, “Should I talk about my sexual attraction in public” to “Should I be prevented from telling even people I know well about it,” you have drastically changed the argument.

But I’m not changing it to what you say I am. I’m proposing that, whether one knows people well or not, this shouldn’t necessarily be something that people feel the need to hide, as though it’s some sort of grave taboo if others, even the (local) public, should find out about it, whatever the means of the revelation (whether you reveal it yourself or it’s revealed in some other manner).

Second, is SSA so very unlike everything else, that …] only that one has to be talked about or else it’s just too much psychological work?

Here’s an example where being (at least relatively) open can be helpful: I once had a close friend that, only after having grown very attached to him but without having revealed the SSA, I was given strong reason to believe that he found men with SSA disgusting. I would rather, much rather, have just had him reject me when he had only been a passing acquaintance than to be stuck in a situation where I knew that, IF he knew this part of me, he would reject me after I was already attached to him. According to the “don’t tell anyone but close friends” logic, it would have been wrong for me to “weed out” the potential friends who would reject me if they knew this about me. I feel I have every right to try to choose friends who will accept me even with all my faults and temptations, and frankly a part of that is being able to be open with those friends when they are merely acquaintances, before I’m too attached.

…]since my divorce several years ago, I haven’t had companionship of that sort with anyone, which I miss, sometimes intensely.

You have my sincerest condolences on your pain. That’s really all I can say, and my heart really does go out to you, regardless of our disagreements here.

Frankly, it does seem that your SSA is a large part of your life and your general mindset. …] Perhaps men have to talk about sex a lot?

But it’s not about “talking about sex.” And it’s not about SSA being disproportionately a large part of my life. Some of the things I wrote above, among other things, are more the reason that the SSA plays a prominent role. It’s not the center of my life, but it IS there, and it does impact things, in spite of its being only one aspect of my life. It’s that impact, rather than the SSA in itself or its sexual aspect, that makes it play a large role in my life.

I would like to have the right not to have to talk about the sexual attractions (of whatever sort) of my aquaintances

But nobody here is suggesting anything that would unduly force it on you. Nobody here is suggesting billboards or walking around with a megaphone. Even Prodigal_Son’s hypothetical book idea involves something you could choose not to read, if the topic repels you so much. And I don’t believe that Prodigal_Son is even talking about making sure to spearhead every conversation with an acquaintance into this topic; rather, he’s suggesting a more matter-of-fact approach to it, the way you might approach a controversial political opinion: You wouldn’t tell every individual acquaintance about it without testing the waters a little to see if they were receptive to talking about it, but you wouldn’t “hide” it either, you wouldn’t be sure to implore those who knew to “not tell anyone,” nor would you necessarily refuse to ever reveal it in a somewhat public way.

If you’d be willing to be public with the information now, why would you be less willing at some future time, in the EXTREMELY improbable event that it came out?

For the same reason that it’s safe to try to test your wings from ground level; if they don’t work, you’ll just fall flat of your face. Try to test your wings when you’re already suspended in the air, however, and a failure will end up as a much more fatal affair. Likewise, it will cause much more scandal and heartache if a person’s SSA is revealed AFTER they’re involved in some high profile ministry than if it was known all along from the start, when the worst that could happen is that the person wouldn’t get their foot in the door in the first place.

You have accidentally created a strawman here.

But I haven’t; I wasn’t saying you meant “never tell the children at any age,” but rather that such damage could already be done by the age you seem to find “safe.” By age 15, a child with SSA might not already have a string of gay relationships behind him, but he could indeed have absorbed all kinds of attitudes about how the only way to not be alone is to go ahead and join the gay cause, or conversely, about how disgusting and vile he is for even having SSA. I know from experience that attitudes along these lines take very few years, if not mere months, to absorb deeply if you started out without knowing you had somewhere safer and purer to turn to find someone who understands.

 

[mommamaree]

Hi there, epan!

According to Catholic theology, sexual fulfillment is not restricted to acts of sexual contact. When you make eggs in the kitchen, you do this as a sexual being – as a man or a woman, both glorious creatures whose very bodies reflect the image of God. When you praise God in church, you are not simply praising as “somebody” – you are praising as a man, or as a woman, and this is a powerful experience.

For the most part, these are the ways that I fulfill my “sexual potential”, by living as fully as possible my distinctive identity as a man. Making love to my wife is awesome, but it is not the end-all, be-all of my own experience of being a sexual being.

This is not to downplay the profound sacrifice those called to celibacy have to make. This is a beautiful choice. I suspect that God is not, like a strict teacher, marking down every sin of the homosexual person against him. These sins are not helpful, and they are serious. But the mercy of God is profoundly powerful. It can find us out, after we have tested the waters of sin, and found in them only false and fleeting pleasures. God knows the fulness of our potentials, both sexual and otherwise, and He longs for us to walk into this potential.

Maybe you do have something important to say to people regarding sexuality and chastity, heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, married or celibate.

 

[Boundless]

The idea that every sinful thought that enters you head should be public is one that I honestly belive to be terribly wrong.

Again, we’re not suggesting public as in “walking around with a megaphone being ‘proud’ of your sinful inclinations” but rather not being so embarrassed or feeling so taboo about it that you have to swear to secrecy those who do know. We’re suggesting a more matter of fact attitude about these things, not an obsessive determination to shout it from the rooftops. Even the book idea was just the ultimate in feeling comfortable talking about it, not meant to condone making oneself a poster boy for it or something.

But I think I have said all I have to say here. Frankly, I’m beginning to feel that this thread asked a question to which only one answer was ever going to be acceptable, and that is not the answer I could ever in conscience give.

So here is the summary of my advice for ignoring:

That’s your prerogative, but consider that we could just as easily feel that you were simply “ignoring” us too, that you yourself were rigidly unwilling to be swayed from your own position. I’m NOT saying that’s true, but when you assume it of us, you’re implying that we couldn’t just as easily be justified in saying this was true about you instead.

Your advice, including that in your list, has not been roundly ignored. We’ve responded to your advice with reasons that we don’t agree with it. You are unconvinced by our reasons for disagreeing with you, but that no more means we’re “ignoring” your advice without even weighing it than you are “ignoring” our posts when you disagree.

You guys think I can’t know what I’m talking about because I’m not in your situation. I think you are not capable of looking at the thing in an unbiased fashion because you are in your situation. We may both be right.

Actually, speaking for myself, I do not have a problem with your not being in our situation. My suspicion is a mirror image of your own toward us: That you cannot look at the thing in an unbiased fashion because of your own preconceived notions in certain areas (which is not an insult, we all have them in some area or other). And since that suspicion is mutual, I think we can ironically understand and respect each other for holding it.

But I don’t see a lot of likelihood of either of us convincing the other. I believe you mean well but are mistaken. I don’t know whether you believe I mean well, but obviously you believe I am mistaken. We just have to agree to disagree, and you will do what you will do. But please pray a lot about the effects on any pre-adolescent children before doing anything.

Yes, this is true, and I think it’s probably true for everyone posting in this thread, by now. I believe both sides have made very passionate cases, and we’re getting to the point to where we’re all repeating or restating arguments we’ve already made, which is usually a sign that everyone is talking past each other in a way that one or both sides cannot see. Just know, if you read any of these responses at all, that we are not just arbitrarily ignoring what you say out of a hardheaded stubbornness or blindness. We genuinely believe in our reasoning as surely as you believe in yours. If we “will do what we will do” it’s not because we’re stubborn, it’s because, after just as much reason (and yes, prayer) as you put into your own position, we have determined that “what we will do” is the right thing to do.

God bless you,

Thank you, Jen, and I warmly offer my prayers that God bless you too. Even though we disagree, insofar as you’re just genuinely trying to help deter us from something that you honestly feel would bring us to ruin, thank you for your warm concern, and I hope you took me seriously when I said that our disagreements do not come from dismissing your advice out of hand.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Are you saying that your desire for intimate friendships with men, because unmet in our sex-obsessed culture, which is both homo-erotic and homo-phobic, has turned into something sexual? Is this one of the causes of SSA? That having an intimate relationship with a man or men, being impossible, becomes tied to a young man’s developing sexuality?

Yep, that’s what I’m saying.

Secondly, you need years, not just two, but YEARS of successfully conquering vice before being qualified to teach virtue.

OK, then I need to find someone that has those years and convince them to write a book. Seriously, though, I agree with other posters that this book idea has gotten too much play. (I often come up with book ideas, and have yet to write a book). But do I wish such a book existed? Yes, I wish dozens did.

To the point about civil rights movement leaders, this is an improper analogy because same sex attraction is a disordered desire whereas civil rights is a just cause. We, as Christians, are called to stand publicly against injustice. We are not supposed to stand up and be counted according to our vices. Not publicly.

A disordered desire is not a vice!!!

A vice is a habit of pursuing disordered desires. The very fact that good and holy people consider homosexual inclinations to be vices is an indication that something needs to be done here. At the risk of extending the analogy, the second-class treatment of black people was self-perpetuating: since they were discriminated against, they were guilty of a highly disproportionate number of crimes; and this justified discrimination. Since SSA people are considered dirty and vicious among Christians, those with SSA act out sexually in disproportionate numbers. And we hide.

So I’m fine with hiding sins, except in the context of a prudent testimony. But I see no reason to hide temptations, if the hiddenness of these temptations prompts people to sin.

 

[Boundless]

Why on earth was *I *talking about writing a book? Looks like we’ve got an author right here! :bowdown2:

You’re too kind! Thanks!

 

[Doves411]

What an ego the world has given you! Do you seriously think that *any *man feels no temptation after he marries a wife?

…The Psychology of many women is different in this regard, and many women do not feel this temptation while they feel nurtured and cared for by their husband. - it’s so very wrong to assume men’s brains work the same way - it’s just not true.

1. If I were in this position, I would not to offend my husband by saying publicly that I struggle with attraction toward another man. I wouldn’t even tell him privately. It may make him feel or seem inadequate and I would never want to hurt him like that.
2. Some women are tempted too. Women can be attracted to men who are not their boyfriends/fiances/husbands.

I see no need to go public with personal temptations if they are going to hurt someone in the process.

 

[mommamaree]

I thought the point of your going public was to encourage others to overcome vice? Vices are things such as unchastity, lust, greed, etc. Wouldn’t resisting temptation to act on SSA be exercising the virtue of chastity and conquering the vice of lust? Is this not what you have been working on as a married man with SSA? Is this not what you hope to help others do? That is all that I meant in regards to vice. Temptation is not vice, obviously; however, we are tempted to sin, and those temptations happen more frequently in areas where we are more lacking in virtue, and hence are related to the vices we are most prone to. So I don’t understand why the strong reaction to my questions concerning vice.

And for the record, I do not find people with SSA dirty or vicious, whether they are chaste or openly living a homosexual lifestyle. I do think homosexual acts are gross, to be honest. But that does not extend to my opinion of people, of human beings.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I thought the point of your going public was to encourage others to overcome vice? Vices are things such as unchastity, lust, greed, etc. Wouldn’t resisting temptation to act on SSA be exercising the virtue of chastity and conquering the vice of lust? Is this not what you have been working on as a married man with SSA? Is this not what you hope to help others do? That is all that I meant in regards to vice. Temptation is not vice, obviously; however, we are tempted to sin, and those temptations happen more frequently in areas where we are more lacking in virtue, and hence are related to the vices we are most prone to. So I don’t understand why the strong reaction to my questions concerning vice.

And for the record, I do not find people with SSA dirty or vicious, whether they are chaste or openly living a homosexual lifestyle. I do think homosexual acts are gross, to be honest. But that does not extend to my opinion of people, of human beings.

Sorry to come down so strong. The point of going public *is *to encourage others to overcome vice. But, once we distinguish temptation and vice, your point about the disanalogy between race relations and SSA breaks down.

Freeing a society from prejudice is a good thing. Freeing captives from sin is a good thing. Usually, when a person is freed from a besetting sin, it is because there is a system of support that understands the particular temptation. Such systems of support are few and far between right now, especially for married sufferers of SSA. I’m not sure why an action that provided much more support for these people would not be very, very good (thus similar to civil rights). Perhaps a book would be a bad idea to accomplish such a thing, but I do think openness and light, in some way, shape or form, is necessary.

 

[Robertanthony]

Daddy: Hi Christopher, let’s talk.
Christopher: OK, Dad. Can we play baseball afterward? I had to leave the whole thing out for the entire post to be 6000 characters long.

Prodigal_Son, you will not like what I have to say. One thing that strikes me is how your SSA seems to be the central theme of your life, you seem to think you’re on a mission to dispell myths so that others plagued by the same tempation will learn from you. AT BEST you will be an unsignificant drop in an endless ocean of otherwise extremely well-oiled and pervasive gay propaganda. I wonder how making SSA so central and integral a part of your life could not be an occasion of sin, to be perfectly honest.

No dad should EVER have a convo like the one you just described, NEVER. Talk about how you conquered alcohol, your anger at God, your habit to use cusswords, your addiction to food, anything pertaining to your sexual sin/temptation is off-limits. Any child will be troubled to learn (from the horse’s mouth) that his dad is attracted to men., no matter how careful you approach the subjetc. You could have such a convo and have an even worse idea: to ask him what he thinks of the nature of the awkward convo you just had. My guess is that he’d have as much interior freedom to speak his mind as if he were on Ellen (Degeneres) with lesbian “parents” being asked “how awesome is it to be raised by two «mummies?»” The pressure to say what both parents and Ellen want to hear would be unbearable.

At the risk of sounding judgemental and like I’m boasting, whenever I think of stuff I’d like to do, trips I’d like to take, my kid is always central to any of them (I think of what I’d like to show him, what activities he’d like, what we could do as a family that he would enjoy and/or learn from etc.), when you have children, they have to come first in your decisions. Make your children and your future children the priority of your life. Think of what you could do to make their lives better. Your need for intimacy with men will always be tricky would be my guess. I myself have to accept and come to terms with the fact that emotional wholeness will very likely not happen during my stay on the Earth.

You don’t mention in great detail all the symptoms of your various gastric distresses at the table when everyone is eating, likewise, sex should be kept to oneself. The idea that any topic can be talked about as long as it’s tactfully approached is simply wrong. And there is a difference between not letting everyone know about your temptations and keeping something a shameful, hidden secret. You say you have people that you’re accountable to, perhaps a spiritual director, a confessor, at that point it no longer is a “deep dark secret”.

Just wanted to offer my insight, I realize there isn’t much positive in my post, however. It, however, comes from a good place. I simply mentioned what was jumping at me throughout your posts. I think it’s great that you have decided to fight against this particular temptation and has thu far, with God’s help and your cooperation with it, managed to stay on course.

No matter how you try to convince us (and yourself?), a man saying he struggles with eating sugary stuff when he’s stressed out will never be equivalent to saying that he finds black men the hardest to resist sexually. Just won’t happen. You can’t say botht things at a social event and expect the same response. Sexual sins are in a different category altogether, most sexual sins are mortal sins also. Talking openly about one’s privacy/intimacy is an offense against modesty.

 

[Doves411]

No, I never said that. I said that my desire to have sex with men is less fundamental than my desire to have close friendships that are much more intimate than those relationships commonly found in our culture.

For a primer on what I mean, check out this article by Anthony Esolen: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-07-021-f

Okay so I’m sorry I’m kind of confused too. So did you desire to have close relationships with men that usually do not exist in our culture and since you felt this way, you somehow eventually believed you wanted to have sex with men too because the only relationships that exist like this in our culture are that of homosexual men?

So do you desire friendship mostly?

It is very interesting and I think a lot of people would learn from what you have to say. However, If I were you, I would not want to expose my family to that kind of public attention. You never know what the public will say. Perhaps you could publish a book under a pseudonym? That way you can get your message out without having to expose you or your family to possible criticism.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hi there, Robertanthony.

Prodigal_Son, you will not like what I have to say. One thing that strikes me is how your SSA seems to be the central theme of your life, you seem to think you’re on a mission to dispell myths so that others plagued by the same tempation will learn from you. AT BEST you will be an unsignificant drop in an endless ocean of otherwise extremely well-oiled and pervasive gay propaganda. I wonder how making SSA so central and integral a part of your life could not be an occasion of sin, to be perfectly honest.

Well, this does not seem quite fair, for two reasons. First, what is your viewpoint into my life? This thread? Well, surely in a thread about SSA, I would talk a lot about SSA. Second, my attraction to men is something which has been the occasion of sin for me continually in my life, and I am just now getting a significant level of victory over this sin. I don’t see how not thinking about it would help. I will tell you that the times when I have thought the least about my SSA have been the times when I experience and succumb to temptation the most.

As for being a drop in an ocean of gay propaganda, I’m not so sure. A friend and coworker of mine is a leading voice for the gay rights movement. (We have not discussed the issue). From his perspective, he is helping kids who are confused, kids who feel that they have to hide, experience freedom to live rich and rewarding lives. Of course, I think he’s wrong that this is what the gay rights movement is doing; however, I agree with the goal of helping SSA kids live rich and rewarding lives.

Sometimes it seems like people in the Church don’t. If the only thing “going public” would do is allow pastors to pass along hope to kids in despair, or kids in rebellion, it might still be worth it. What IS the Catholic witness to SSA kids right now? It seems that somebody needs to be open about this stuff, since that is exactly the way that “gay” kids will learn what being a faithful adult Christian with SSA looks like.

No dad should EVER have a convo like the one you just described, NEVER. Talk about how you conquered alcohol, your anger at God, your habit to use cusswords, your addiction to food, anything pertaining to your sexual sin/temptation is off-limits. Any child will be troubled to learn (from the horse’s mouth) that his dad is attracted to men., no matter how careful you approach the subjetc. You could have such a convo and have an even worse idea: to ask him what he thinks of the nature of the awkward convo you just had. My guess is that he’d have as much interior freedom to speak his mind as if he were on Ellen (Degeneres) with lesbian “parents” being asked “how awesome is it to be raised by two «mummies?»” The pressure to say what both parents and Ellen want to hear would be unbearable.

You don’t give any *reasons *why the conversation would be so awful, except that the child would be hesitant to speak how he/she really feels. Why would that be the case? Presumably, because there is some pressure brought to bear on the child’s reaction.

Where is this pressure? Is it supposed to be coming from me? Is it that sex, by its very nature, exerts such a pressure?

At the risk of sounding judgemental and like I’m boasting, whenever I think of stuff I’d like to do, trips I’d like to take, my kid is always central to any of them (I think of what I’d like to show him, what activities he’d like, what we could do as a family that he would enjoy and/or learn from etc.), when you have children, they have to come first in your decisions. Make your children and your future children the priority of your life.

I do not think this is the Scriptural model. This leads to an inwardly focused family, rather than a dynamic, Christ-bearing family. Jesus is the priority of my life. The early Church considered the family a place for missionary work. This always involves risk.

Putting your children second is better for your children than putting them first, however. It makes them know that the call on their lives is greater than themselves. We are not on earth to be fulfilled, nor to be healthy, nor even to be virtuous. We are here to follow Christ wherever He leads. As Pope Francis has said, there is a great danger in becoming inwardly focused and self-referential. Here’s Pope Francis:

“Put simply, there are two images of the Church: a Church which evangelises and comes out of herself” by hearing the word of God with reverence and proclaiming it with faith; and “the worldly Church, living within herself, of herself, for herself,” he said, adding that, “this should shed light on the possible changes and reforms which must be done for the salvation of souls.”

You say you have people that you’re accountable to, perhaps a spiritual director, a confessor, at that point it no longer is a “deep dark secret”.

False. I am terrified that someone else finds out. That kind of terror is not from God. If you know any way to dispel this terror that does not involve willingly bringing it further into the light, please let me know.

No matter how you try to convince us (and yourself?), a man saying he struggles with eating sugary stuff when he’s stressed out will never be equivalent to saying that he finds black men the hardest to resist sexually.

Nor did I say it was. Although consider: I think many of us have wanted to kill someone else, or at least seriously injure them, at some point in our lives. Isn’t that more than proportional to SSA? *That *is the analogy I gave in my fictional conversation with my son.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Okay so I’m sorry I’m kind of confused too. So did you desire to have close relationships with men that usually do not exist in our culture and since you felt this way, you somehow eventually believed you wanted to have sex with men too because the only relationships that exist like this in our culture are that of homosexual men?

No, no, no. None of this was conscious. I had an unconscious need for closeness with a man – my dad. I was VERY close with my dad until I was six, and then he was in an accident and was essentially gone. I needed that.

When I got older, I discovered (to my horror) that I was sexually attracted to men. But the fundamental need behind the attraction, in my estimation, is a need for intimacy with men, a kind of intimacy which our culture considers taboo.

It is very interesting and I think a lot of people would learn from what you have to say. However, If I were you, I would not want to expose my family to that kind of public attention. You never know what the public will say. Perhaps you could publish a book under a pseudonym? That way you can get your message out without having to expose you or your family to possible criticism.

Thanks for the idea! Another person suggested this earlier in the thread, and I mentioned that publishing under a pseudonym is very difficult.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That being said, of course men like to have close male friends with whom they can watch baseball and have a few beers and talk about their lives, and occasionally, they might say “I love you, man”. It’s what they call a “bro-mance”. Fine. But the idea of walking into the living room with my husband laying his head on his best friend’s chest as they snuggle on the couch is beyond absurd. I wouldn’t do this with another woman either.

Yes, because culturally, the movement of our bodies have meanings. It’s not appropriate in our culture, since it means “I want to be sexually intimate with you”. But the problem is that nearly every kind of physical contact between men means that. You know as well as I that, in our culture, women are allowed to be **much **more affectionate with each other than men are – combing each other’s hair, massages, nail polishing. Similar rituals have existed for men, in many cultures, because men need men. But our culture has gotten rid of these things. All men, heterosexual or homosexual, are worse for the lack.

Now you mention John and Jesus. Well, first of all, they used to recline while they were at the table, so they would be near each other laying down. Secondly, John was very young, possibly even in his early teens. He probably had sort of a son-father relationship with Jesus, so him laying his head on his chest would not be such a shocking thing. If they were both 33, I think it would have been a bit much.

:ehh:

No one was suggesting that any of these actions were inappropriate, so I puzzled as to why you have to find an excuse for them.

As for David and Jonathan, well, some people think they may have actually been romantically involved. I won’t speculate on it, but David was far from being a sinless man, so who knows for sure? If there is a definitive Catholic teaching on this, someone can feel free to elucidate.

The relationship of Jonathan and David is clearly presented as an ideal. The fact that we moderns think the relationship must have been sexual is a fault of ours, not theirs. If I might be excused for quoting Oscar Wilde, “those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt.” If David’s love for Jonathan surpasses his love for woman, this is surely not a reference to sexual love.

If it were me, I would feel it important to balance the needs of my family with those of the people I was trying to reach. Your family should always come first. This is why I have suggested a blog and not a full-on book tour complete with reality show.

Trust me, I don’t want a reality show.

 

[mommamaree]

churchmilitant.tv/premium/index.php?vidID=vort-2013-06-13

Prodigal_Son,

I know that this is only slightly relevant here, but Michael Voris did a beautiful video talking about the cross of SSA and faithful Catholics. He introduced the idea of a victim soul, and suggested that the faithful Catholic suffering with SSA inclinations is especially loved by God, and that their heavier cross was selected for them with tender care (a very Salesian idea, actually). Anyway, I thought you might like this video. Let me know what you think! God bless.

 

[LaSainte]

Yes, because culturally, the movement of our bodies have meanings. It’s not appropriate in our culture, since it means “I want to be sexually intimate with you”. But the problem is that nearly every kind of physical contact between men means that. You know as well as I that, in our culture, women are allowed to be **much **more affectionate with each other than men are – combing each other’s hair, massages, nail polishing. Similar rituals have existed for men, in many cultures, because men need men. But our culture has gotten rid of these things. All men, heterosexual or homosexual, are worse for the lack.

:ehh:

No one was suggesting that any of these actions were inappropriate, so I puzzled as to why you have to find an excuse for them.

The relationship of Jonathan and David is clearly presented as an ideal. The fact that we moderns think the relationship must have been sexual is a fault of ours, not theirs. If I might be excused for quoting Oscar Wilde, “those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt.” If David’s love for Jonathan surpasses his love for woman, this is surely not a reference to sexual love.

Trust me, I don’t want a reality show.

Ok I don’t know what women you hang out with, but NO woman I know combs my hair, gives me massages or polishes my nails. These are childish things that you do at a slumber party with friends when you are 10. And the massage thing sounds like a setup for a porno. Inhave never gotten a massage from another woman nor have I ever seen it done. In our 20s, when we would drink way too much out on the back porch, we would cram into the same chair and share a blanket to stay warm and occasionally playfully sit on each other’s laps and give each other a hug. BUT, men also huddle to keep warm while camping. Sitting on another man’s lap and giggling (even after a few drinks) is a decidedly feminine thing to do. That’s just how it is. Women are more nurturing and affectionate by nature-it is a part of who they are. I think you know this on some level. Most men simply do not have this need you are talking about.

I’m sorry that you didn’t get the affection you need, and perhaps your mother wasn’t affectionate enough either. I actually have a male friend who questioned his sexuality as he was growing up, and he is still one of the more affectionate men I know. Do you know what made him question his sexuality? His mother coming out as a lesbian. People at school made fun of him and called him gay because of his mom, and he thought “Well, maybe I am”. I think by telling your kids your experience with this, you are setting them up for the exact thing you would banish from your own life if you could-questioning their sexuality.

And I wasn’t “making excuses” for the behavior of Jesus. He certainly doesn’t need it. I just think you are romanticizing a passage in the Bible that just says John was leaning against Jesus like it was snuggle time. John was a kid and they were laying down at the table like everyone did in those days. Men did not just sit around snuggling and playing with each other’s hair.

The closest men can get in this day and age to what you are talking about is the intense friendships men experience in the military, when they are responsible for one another’s lives, like Jonathan and David.

I still believe there is probably a biological component to this. My dad died when my brother was 4. My mom soon married a man who turned out to be a real *** and treated my brother like garbage. My brother was CONSTANTLY craving approval from father figures. Never did he struggle the way you are struggling and he is married now. If your issues were merely the result of needing male intimacy, I would think it would be a predictable issue with men who are lacking a father figure.

 

[Joe_5859]

First, what is your viewpoint into my life? This thread? Well, surely in a thread about SSA, I would talk a lot about SSA.

It always cracks me up to see that type of remark in a thread. Of course he’s talking a lot about it – that’s the topic of the thread.