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

[Prodigal_Son]

And although your response to the loss of your dad was to be attracted to men sexually, the fact that you say that this is “normal” seems a little far-fetched. I’m pretty sure by the way that my brother didn’t have this same experience. We used to find quite a bit of porn on his computer, none of it gay.

Touche. If a Christian guy is SSA and looking at porn, it’s a pretty good bet that you wouldn’t find *anything *on his computer. The terror of being found out is a pretty good motivation to learn the ins and outs of an operating system.

As for being a normal response, I’m not sure why you’re making that point. Surely I’m not claiming that I developed normally, full stop. And surely you’re not simply trying to emphasize that I am abnormal. Actually, I’m not sure why you keep talking about the causes of my same-sex attraction at all. I mean, I suppose, if you have a theory, go ahead and mention it. If not, I’ll stick with my incomplete theory.

And I am quite sure that it was significant that John was right next to Jesus and lounging against Him. I think they probably had a paternal-filial relationship, especially in light of the fact that he sort of had Mary adopt him when He died.

And that is the closest and richest relationship between males imaginable. It is also the one I miss the most. Perhaps Jesus recognized that John needed a daddy. And if that was appropriate, and I too “need a daddy”, then why would it not be appropriate for a mature Christian man (probably without SSA, for simplicity’s sake) to meet that need. I mean, look, I’m just like every other American guy in that I cringe at the awkwardness of being held by another man. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be good for me.

I just find it really hard to believe that men need guy-on-guy snuggle time as a rule, and info think you romanticize something that is in no way the norm.

This is not at all what I said.

I said, if I recall, that most every man in our culture (except, perhaps, openly gay men ) would be better off if they had more closeness with other men. Not necessarily physical closeness in all cases, and certainly not always snuggle time. :hug1: But most guys are pretty standoffish with each other, emotionally. This is NOT a call for sentimentality. It is a call for “being real”.

As pre-pubescent children, we model the future relationship we will have with our spouse on the parent of the opposite sex. I’m not sure where your SSA falls into this, but I would think that there is a lot more to it than losing your dad at a young age. You did after all have a brother, correct? Does he have the same issue?

Neither of my brothers had the same issue, so far as I know. Of course, I agree with you that a lot more goes into it than simply losing my dad. I think I mentioned that above.

Maybe the part of you that says you are terrified about everyone finding out about this just wants to get it over with and be totally open about it, but I’m not sure that is the best reason to “come out”.

Nor is this my reason. Why won’t anyone take me at my word?

Besides, how on EARTH would anyone who is not your very close friend or family member find out anyway unless you told them or unless you go around publicly ogeling other men?

Oh, now that I think of it, I guess I should stop gaping at cute guys around my friends. Then I wouldn’t have to worry.

Seriously, there are a number of ways. One way is that sin leaves traces. When I was embroiled in sin, I worried that these traces might be found. Another way is that, of the people who know about my SSA, some are more reliable than others. A number of years ago I shared my story with a young man who was coming out of the closet and living an openly gay life. I wanted him to know there was another way. Now, who knows, he could “out” me. These fears may not be particularly rational, but nearly every “closeted” SSA man has them.

 

[LaSainte]

Fair enough; I don’t agree on a universal basis, but in our culture it IS weird, in the sense of “highly uncommon/unusual/etc,” so even if I honestly believe there are cultures and time periods where this was not all that “weird”, I can completely agree that, by the technical sense of the word, it’s weird in the modern West. I may not believe that the reasons for its being so rare, and therefore regarded as weird, are justified, but I can’t deny that it is so regarded. You agree that weird doesn’t equal immoral, so we’ve no qualms there.

But actually, that post wouldn’t have applied to you so much anyway, since in your own experience and opinion it’s just as weird (or nearly so) for women, with few exceptions, while my post was regarding those who even acknowledge that women can be highly affectionate with each other while somehow finding it wrong for men to be so. I was thanking thewanderer for not accepting that double standard, and since you think such affection would be pretty weird between women as well as men, you’re not all that guilty of such a double standard in the first place, regardless of whether or not I perfectly agree with your overall opinion in this matter.

On that, on the other hand, I think we agree 100%!

I have to say, a major reason why girl-on-girl snuggling is tolerated and even encouraged is because men find it to be a turn-on. Where that is concerned, there is a HUGE double standard. I don’t think women see a couple of guys giving each other neck massages and then break out the popcorn and start pouring them more drinks to see where it will lead. It is well known that guys in general find the concept of two girls together to be “hot”, and any HINT of that (even if it is totally innocent) gets them pretty psyched. Women also just tend to be more affectionate Inthink because we are more nurturing to begin with, which translated into physical touch.

 

[LaSainte]

Touche. If a Christian guy is SSA and looking at porn, it’s a pretty good bet that you wouldn’t find *anything *on his computer. The terror of being found out is a pretty good motivation to learn the ins and outs of an operating system.

As for being a normal response, I’m not sure why you’re making that point. Surely I’m not claiming that I developed normally, full stop. And surely you’re not simply trying to emphasize that I am abnormal. Actually, I’m not sure why you keep talking about the causes of my same-sex attraction at all. I mean, I suppose, if you have a theory, go ahead and mention it. If not, I’ll stick with my incomplete theory.

And that is the closest and richest relationship between males imaginable. It is also the one I miss the most. Perhaps Jesus recognized that John needed a daddy. And if that was appropriate, and I too “need a daddy”, then why would it not be appropriate for a mature Christian man (probably without SSA, for simplicity’s sake) to meet that need. I mean, look, I’m just like every other American guy in that I cringe at the awkwardness of being held by another man. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be good for me.

This is not at all what I said.

I said, if I recall, that most every man in our culture (except, perhaps, openly gay men ) would be better off if they had more closeness with other men. Not necessarily physical closeness in all cases, and certainly not always snuggle time. :hug1: But most guys are pretty standoffish with each other, emotionally. This is NOT a call for sentimentality. It is a call for “being real”.

Neither of my brothers had the same issue, so far as I know. Of course, I agree with you that a lot more goes into it than simply losing my dad. I think I mentioned that above.

Nor is this my reason. Why won’t anyone take me at my word?

Oh, now that I think of it, I guess I should stop gaping at cute guys around my friends. Then I wouldn’t have to worry.

Seriously, there are a number of ways. One way is that sin leaves traces. When I was embroiled in sin, I worried that these traces might be found. Another way is that, of the people who know about my SSA, some are more reliable than others. A number of years ago I shared my story with a young man who was coming out of the closet and living an openly gay life. I wanted him to know there was another way. Now, who knows, he could “out” me. These fears may not be particularly rational, but nearly every “closeted” SSA man has them.

I think I’m starting to understand your point of view a bit better (maybe?). I think your need for male closeness is really complicated by the fact that you have SSA. It would be hard to explain to my husband that I just need closeness with OTHER guys that aren’t him. That would not go over so well

I really do hope that one day you can get past this as being such a defining part of your identity, whether it is because God delivers you from this cross or because you simply find yourself less and less compelled by your feelings of SSA as time goes by.

I think you are fortunate in that you CAN be attracted to women as well, and maybe there is a very small percentage of guys out there who would benefit from being told that they can still go on to live a somewhat “normal” life. I still think there will be a greater percentage of men who are just straight-up gay who either have to choose between a gay lifestyle and celebacy though, but I don’t know the stats on that.

At any rate, it would be my personal choice to keep this hidden from my children unless I felt that they were also struggling with the same issues. I have a LOT of things in my past that I don’t I tend to volunteer to my children unless I feel that it would specifically help them in some way. They don’t need to see me as perfect, but I don’t think they need to know about all of my personal demons either. Especially because if they believe that you are struggling with SSA (or drug addiction or alcoholism, etc.) it can and probably WILL make them very insecure. Children worry about their parents and their worst nightmare is that someone or something will come between them. You don’t want your children being afraid that you might “fall off the wagon” and leave the family for another man, especially when our society is so full of examples of divorce and families breaking up. It is already something that weighs heavily on the minds of children when they see the parents of their friends breaking up, or Mommy and Daddy fighting. Just some food for thought.

Also, while it is nice to be able to be open and honest with people, there is a very special bond that exists between you and the people who you deem close enough to be vulnerable with about your SSA, namely your wife and other close friends. There are things I ONLY share with my husband that I feel make our relationship that much stronger and more unique, but then again, I have never been one of those women who likes to have a few drinks and go gushing about my sex life or my husband’s penis size or anything like that, so maybe I’m the odd one out here . My husband is my best friend and my confidante, and while in some ways that may even appear to others to be a little bit unhealthy, it is the nature of our relationship that he really is my everything.

Anyway, whatever you decide, clearly you are introspective enough to think it through in excruciating detail, so I have no doubt that with an open mind and heart, you will make the best choices you possibly can for you and your family. May God guide you and bless you and your family, and may your cross become easier to bear.

 

[CaptFun]

I don’t think so. When my wife told me that she sometimes experiences attraction to another man, two things happened: (1) I was freed from a suspicion. I had suspected that she had dealt with attraction to a particular brother, and her talking to me about it – she didn’t tell me who, but I guessed it – increased my trust in her. Her hiding it might have made the very subtle signals I saw increase my suspicion, and pull my wife and I apart. (2) I felt less alone. As is obvious from this thread, I have dealt with sexual temptation, but I really kind of felt like my wife never did. Her openness was freeing.

Wives already know their men feel attraction to other people. Why pretend like they don’t? I mean, sure, it’s not a regular topic of conversation. But there are times of particular intimacy in a marriage, where such a revelation makes a lot of sense.

Actual good results trumps the theoretical every time. Glad it turned out so positive for you.

As for me giving advice … I may be enlightened more by your revelation, but I’d probably still go with the safer “no” and my qualified "yes if … " backup as far as priorities go. I might share your story as well if someone asked my counsel. That way I’d be helping them review their options … and they could make the final call themselves since they know the person and situation.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Anyway, whatever you decide, clearly you are introspective enough to think it through in excruciating detail, so I have no doubt that with an open mind and heart, you will make the best choices you possibly can for you and your family. May God guide you and bless you and your family, and may your cross become easier to bear.

Thank you, LaSainte, for listening and saying what’s on your heart. I assure you I won’t do anything without a lot of prayer and a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from other (non-cyber) people I trust.

God bless you and your marriage!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Actual good results trumps the theoretical every time. Glad it turned out so positive for you.

As for me giving advice … I may be enlightened more by your revelation, but I’d probably still go with the safer “no” and my qualified "yes if … " backup as far as priorities go. I might share your story as well if someone asked my counsel. That way I’d be helping them review their options … and they could make the final call themselves since they know the person and situation.

Makes sense. I appreciate the comparison with Alcoholics Anonymous here. Let me add one wrinkle – a somewhat strained analogy, but it will do.

Suppose that the majority of young alcoholics in this country were being told that there’s nothing wrong with it, that it’s not dangerous, and so on. Should we then keep Alcoholics Anonymous anonymous? The open and unapologetic alcoholics will say that the AA people are just ashamed of who they are, that they should accept their identity. Well then, who is going to tell the public the truth about alcoholism? Wouldn’t it have to be those in AA?

 

[Boundless]

I have to say, a major reason why girl-on-girl snuggling is tolerated and even encouraged is because men find it to be a turn-on. Where that is concerned, there is a HUGE double standard. I don’t think women see a couple of guys giving each other neck massages and then break out the popcorn and start pouring them more drinks to see where it will lead. It is well known that guys in general find the concept of two girls together to be “hot”, and any HINT of that (even if it is totally innocent) gets them pretty psyched.

A lot of guys are like that, yes. I don’t think any practicing Catholics I know would be like that, though, and even they find it more acceptable to have girl-on-girl snuggling, despite that they don’t sit around ogling it. Likewise, at least in many parts of the country (perhaps not in yours, you imply) the girls themselves find it far more acceptable, as thewanderer demonstrated, which is probably for much purer motives than thinking it’s “hot,” which is admittedly explained in your next statement:

Women also just tend to be more affectionate Inthink because we are more nurturing to begin with, which translated into physical touch.

That’s true on average, perhaps, and almost definitely true in our culture for a number of plausible reasons. I can admit that men are at some degree less nurturing than women on average, and in the modern West they are perhaps FAR less nurturing than women on average (though I don’t believe that means it’s a universal reality), but the main thing I would like to acknowledge is that this is only an average, not a standard by which to measure masculinity vs. femininity, and that, left to their own devices without cultural influences, the difference between men and women on the nurturing scale would not be so “night and day” stark as it often is in the modern West.

Those men, not all of whom struggle with SSA mind you, who are more nurturing than the average are not somehow “abnormal” in the sense of “less masculine” (even though in our culture they might be “abnormal” in the sense of “uncommon”), it’s just a personality trait that may happen to be absent in a lot of men in the modern West, but which a man can indeed possess naturally, especially if it isn’t at some point before puberty squeezed out of him because his parents or whomever insist to him that “men aren’t like that” which we must admit often does happen in our culture too. How often, for just one example, is the gentle, affectionate and nurturing boy reprimanded, gently or otherwise, by a father who is afraid he’ll grow up to be a “sissy” or worse if he remains as he is? Enough for it to be a familiar mental image in our cultural psyche even to those of us who didn’t experience it with our own fathers.

It’s perfectly okay, though, that you personally wouldn’t find such a man appealing or attractive to you, if that’s the case. I assume, for instance, that you’re glad you married a man who (presumably) has significantly less need and/or openness for affectionate touch from friends/family than many women do, and that’s fine; but that’s not because there’s anything less masculine about being that nurturing, but rather because you’re entitled to want a man who is compatible with you, and a man with a highly nurturing component to his personality (at least to this degree) might not be, judging from some of your posts. That’s fine, so long as it’s not a measuring stick for what masculinity looks like as opposed to femininity.

Now, I’m not saying you were saying that men who are more nurturing than average, and therefore have that translate into an openness to or desire for more physical touch than the average man, ARE abnormal in the sense of “less masculine” or “something’s wrong with them”, I’m just making this point for the sake of emphasis.

 

[LaSainte]

A lot of guys are like that, yes. I don’t think any practicing Catholics I know would be like that, though, and even they find it more acceptable to have girl-on-girl snuggling, despite that they don’t sit around ogling it. Likewise, at least in many parts of the country (perhaps not in yours, you imply) the girls themselves find it far more acceptable, as thewanderer demonstrated, which is probably for much purer motives than thinking it’s “hot,” which is admittedly explained in your next statement:

That’s true on average, perhaps, and almost definitely true in our culture for a number of plausible reasons. I can admit that men are at some degree less nurturing than women on average, and in the modern West they are perhaps FAR less nurturing than women on average (though I don’t believe that means it’s a universal reality), but the main thing I would like to acknowledge is that this is only an average, not a standard by which to measure masculinity vs. femininity, and that, left to their own devices without cultural influences, the difference between men and women on the nurturing scale would not be so “night and day” stark as it often is in the modern West.

Those men, not all of whom struggle with SSA mind you, who are more nurturing than the average are not somehow “abnormal” in the sense of “less masculine” (even though in our culture they might be “abnormal” in the sense of “uncommon”), it’s just a personality trait that may happen to be absent in a lot of men in the modern West, but which a man can indeed possess naturally, especially if it isn’t at some point before puberty squeezed out of him because his parents or whomever insist to him that “men aren’t like that” which we must admit often does happen in our culture too. How often, for just one example, is the gentle, affectionate and nurturing boy reprimanded, gently or otherwise, by a father who is afraid he’ll grow up to be a “sissy” or worse if he remains as he is? Enough for it to be a familiar mental image in our cultural psyche even to those of us who didn’t experience it with our own fathers.

It’s perfectly okay, though, that you personally wouldn’t find such a man appealing or attractive to you, if that’s the case. I assume, for instance, that you’re glad you married a man who (presumably) has significantly less need and/or openness for affectionate touch from friends/family than many women do, and that’s fine; but that’s not because there’s anything less masculine about being that nurturing, but rather because you’re entitled to want a man who is compatible with you, and a man with a highly nurturing component to his personality (at least to this degree) might not be, judging from some of your posts. That’s fine, so long as it’s not a measuring stick for what masculinity looks like as opposed to femininity.

Now, I’m not saying you were saying that men who are more nurturing than average, and therefore have that translate into an openness to or desire for more physical touch than the average man, ARE abnormal in the sense of “less masculine” or “something’s wrong with them”, I’m just making this point for the sake of emphasis.

I actually have two boys (3 and 1). The 3 year old is extremely affectionate and the one year old is less so. One of my great fears is that the world will stifle his nature, be ause with him being affectionate comes an incredible sensitivity and kindness and empathy that I have never seen in any other child, and he is in no way a “sissy” or “feminine”. In fact, he doesn’t like to do or wear certain things because they are “for girls”. I will say that although he is affectionate with both my husband and I, he is moreso with me, along the lines of the Freudian model ( without the part about wanting to kill his dad just yet). If we believed in reincarnation, I would say he is a very “old soul”

 

[LaSainte]

Thank you, LaSainte, for listening and saying what’s on your heart. I assure you I won’t do anything without a lot of prayer and a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from other (non-cyber) people I trust.

God bless you and your marriage!

God bless you as well, and I’m sorry if anything I said sounded harsh. I tend to go all momma bear when kids are involved I really and truly hope that you find peace in your life and in your family. Keep fighting the good fight!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I tend to go all momma bear when kids are involved

That’s a good instinct.

 

[Fairwinds]

Well that escalated quickly, straight past the hard shove and “Get off of me!” response, straight past even the “We’re not friends anymore and don’t talk to me!” response, and straight to the destroying. Forget “turning the other cheek” if your neighbor smacks you, apparently if your neighbor even so much as snuggles you (even without any explicit proposition that he wants more) that’s cause enough to get straight to the destroying!

That might be a common attitude among modern men, especially in western cultures these days, but not only do you not speak for all men and definitely not for all cultures, you certainly don’t represent a Christian response. Gee, I’m getting a mental image now of Jesus “destroying” Judas, but not for betraying Him, mind you, not for the grave offense of helping to murder God Incarnate, but for the evidently far worse offense of daring to kiss him on the cheek!

And poor John the Beloved–true, he may or may not for the sake of argument have only been a young teen looking at Jesus as a father figure (which I don’t buy as the sole justification for their affection, but let’s grant that for the moment), but even if that’s the case, surely if a grown man snuggling with you warrants “destruction” then even a young adolescent laying his head on your chest would warrant a minor “thumping,” no? I must have missed that particular passage of scripture. Or does the proper response immediately go from “acceptance” straight to the “destroying” the moment an adolescent becomes an adult?

Seriously, though, I hope that despite your “not a euphemism” emphasis you were speaking in hyperbole after all, because there is cause for serious concern if you can’t think of some appropriate response to unwanted affection (regardless of from whom) which would be a great deal more peaceful and civil than “destroying.”

don’t take this personally, I’m addressing a hypothetical situation in general terms.

I’m not speaking for anyone but myself. and no, its not a euphemism and its not hyperbole. I’d beat the tar out of a man who suggested giving me a massage or who tried to “snuggle”. I don’t care if you (the collective you) is gay, bi, or “SSA” (which is sounding more and more like a euphemism for gay or bi). attempt to involve me in this creepy activity at your peril.

and as for "a young adolescent laying his head on your chest "… where on earth did that come from? if this is within your (collective you) experience, and that kid isn’t your son or nephew then you (generically) need a defense attorney as well as a spiritual director.

what’s with all the stupid face pictures?

 

[LaSainte]

don’t take this personally, I’m addressing a hypothetical situation in general terms.

I’m not speaking for anyone but myself. and no, its not a euphemism and its not hyperbole. I’d beat the tar out of a man who suggested giving me a massage or who tried to “snuggle”. I don’t care if you (the collective you) is gay, bi, or “SSA” (which is sounding more and more like a euphemism for gay or bi). attempt to involve me in this creepy activity at your peril.

and as for "a young adolescent laying his head on your chest "… where on earth did that come from? if this is within your (collective you) experience, and that kid isn’t your son or nephew then you (generically) need a defense attorney as well as a spiritual director.

what’s with all the stupid face pictures?

So if a guy said to you, “You look tense. Want a massage?”, you would BEAT him???

 

[Fairwinds]

So if a guy said to you, “You look tense. Want a massage?”, you would BEAT him???

depends on the context. on the other hand, an invitation to “snuggle” from another man is always gay.

 

[LaSainte]

depends on the context. on the other hand, an invitation to “snuggle” from another man is always gay.

Maybe, but does it warrant a beating. Sometimes I go out without my husband and another man approaches me. You want I should punch him in the face?

 

[Fairwinds]

Maybe, but does it warrant a beating. Sometimes I go out without my husband and another man approaches me. You want I should punch him in the face?

you’d have to make that decision yourself.

the situation I’ve described isn’t the same as yours, since this thread is about SSA and my comments are limited to the context of a man making a gay pass by offering to “snuggle” or give a massage.

 

[Joe_5859]

don’t take this personally, I’m addressing a hypothetical situation in general terms.

I’m not speaking for anyone but myself. and no, its not a euphemism and its not hyperbole. I’d beat the tar out of a man who suggested giving me a massage or who tried to “snuggle”. I don’t care if you (the collective you) is gay, bi, or “SSA” (which is sounding more and more like a euphemism for gay or bi). attempt to involve me in this creepy activity at your peril.

and as for "a young adolescent laying his head on your chest "… where on earth did that come from? if this is within your (collective you) experience, and that kid isn’t your son or nephew then you (generically) need a defense attorney as well as a spiritual director.

what’s with all the stupid face pictures?

You seem tense, Fairwinds. Maybe you could use a massage…

The “face pictures” are emoticons that Boundless was probably using to illustrate that he was being somewhat jovial rather than serious (until the last paragraph).

The "a young adolescent laying his head on your chest " was a reference to St. John putting his head on Jesus’ chest at the Last Supper (John 13:25).

 

[Fairwinds]

You seem tense, Fairwinds. Maybe you could use a massage…

I’ll ask my wife for one.

The “face pictures” are emoticons that Boundless was probably using to illustrate that he was being somewhat jovial rather than serious (until the last paragraph).

if someone is going to be rolling eyes or being sarcastic or shruggin, I’d rather see the sentiments expressed in writing. I’m more used to face to face interactions, where eye rolling and shrugging contributes, and not in a good way, to the tone of a discussion.

The "a young adolescent laying his head on your chest " was a reference to St. John putting his head on Jesus’ chest at the Last Supper (John 13:25).

I know where the quote and the culture is from, I wonder why the poster chose to offer it up here, as a justification for adult men “snuggling”.

Its a matter of personal taste. I’d find that kind of offer to “snuggle” both gay and exceptionally offensive. others do not.

 

[thewanderer]

the statute of limitations has long passed. I was indulging in fond and fading memories of college.

I suggest they will not be the same men in 10 years, in all likelihood, they’ll be better men and won’t be giving anyone but their wives massages and hugs.

Oh, I know they won’t be the same men entirely, but I highly doubt that they would refuse to give massages and hugs to anyone but their wives. Their families, for one, will most certainly at least get hugs, and knowing their dynamic, unless they lose touch with each other for a very very long period of time, is not going to allow that to cease completely.

I’m a post-collegiate man, and I hug my guy friends. But they have mostly been my friends since my college days. I’ve never given another guy a massage, though. I cannot quite disconnect massages from…something else…

In my case, most of the guy-hugging is with other Catholic guys. Maybe it’s the shared faith that makes it less “weird.”

Yes! I went to a small very Catholic college. the guys are close friends and developed deep and lasting friendships over their four years there. It really isn’t something weird at all.

Similarly, I have close guy friends from this college who I hug every time we get together. I have guy friends from other places who I feel uncomfortable hugging, but my friends from college? No problem. Its because I know that with my friends from college its entirely platonic, they are not using the hug as a way to “get their jollies” if you will. That is something I cannot be as certain of with male friends from other places. When you know the people and know you can trust them that such an action is platonic rather than sexual it removes that whole barrier to using that as a means of showing your affection for each other.

As for the massage, I guess if you personally cannot make a massage non-sexual then it would be weird to give or take one from anybody except your spouse, even a professional, but if you are able to remove it from sexuality then why in the world would it be problematic or weird? If its not at all sexual and merely a way to help a friend relax and feel better?

I want to thank you, thewanderer, not only for your honesty about what kinds of affection you and your sisters are willing to share, but for your lack of a double standard about whether or not this sort of affectionate gesture and comfort can be okay between males as well as females. I also really appreciate your giving due and emphatic recognition to the fact that “uncomfortable for some/many people” does not make it immoral. Because, especially among those who recognize that such behavior is more readily acceptable among women (which not everyone experiences or recognizes, admittedly), the only reason I’ve seen for why it’s not okay for men despite being okay for women boils down to some variation of “because many men and observers are often more uncomfortable with that than if it were women, and most men don’t seem to need it anyway.” As you point out, that is not a good basis for determining whether something is inherently immoral.

Thanks!

Well, I can’t quite admit to being free of a double standard. If I saw guys cuddling up the way me and my sister sometimes do I would be really weirded out. But thinking about it I recognize that the reason I would be weirded out is because of cultural reasons. I know that cuddling up together can be completely non-sexual. So I know that if two men were doing that it could be something completely platonic, and so, in such a case, would not at all be immoral. But it would still be super weird.

 

[Boundless]

I’m not speaking for anyone but myself. and no, its not a euphemism and its not hyperbole. I’d beat the tar out of a man who suggested giving me a massage or who tried to “snuggle”. I don’t care if you (the collective you) is gay, bi, or “SSA” (which is sounding more and more like a euphemism for gay or bi). attempt to involve me in this creepy activity at your peril.

If the man has had fair warning in advance, that’s extreme but at least fair enough. I’m getting the unfortunate mental image, however, of you assuming that a man should just “know” that you are afraid of certain affections enough that you’d do something more extreme to him than shoving him away. I’d still think beating the tar out of someone was extreme in any context, but at least it’d make more sense if you’d given him advance warning than if you just did so out of the blue.

and as for "a young adolescent laying his head on your chest "… where on earth did that come from? if this is within your (collective you) experience, and that kid isn’t your son or nephew then you (generically) need a defense attorney as well as a spiritual director.

No, it’s not within my experience, and it was just an example of how it happened to Jesus from John, and Jesus didn’t respond with violence toward John, even mild violence; I was suggesting how strange it would be to “destroy” someone for snuggling you when Jesus didn’t even give a mildly violent reaction to John. I know that John may not have been a grown man, but the point was that IF skipping straight to “destroying” or “beating up” a grown man was an appropriate response, surely Jesus ought to have done SOMETHING more negative toward an unrelated adolescent male who laid on his chest, even if John’s (possibly) young age meant he didn’t warrant an all out beat down…but Jesus didn’t do any such thing. The point was, if Jesus didn’t respond that way to John, could we possibly imagine Him reacting to (or condoning such a reaction) to a grown man snuggling up to Him with a beating?!. Even if Jesus had found such a thing wrong, I think His response would be a great deal less violent than what you suggest, and I don’t think He would condone such violence as the response.

what’s with all the stupid face pictures?

Now that I know how badly they annoy you, I will attempt to be respectful by not using them when I am addressing you personally, beyond perhaps the occasional smile. Yes, I used them excessively, but then I was reacting to a statement that I myself (and even other posters who otherwise agree with you, apparently) find quite excessive on its own merits (the idea of beating someone up for, apparently, even suggesting something you find offensive).

I know where the quote and the culture is from, I wonder why the poster chose to offer it up here, as a justification for adult men “snuggling”.

It wasn’t a justification for anything, it was an indication of how, if Jesus Himself didn’t react with “OMG That’s so gay, John, I’ll hit you if you try that again!” then surely even IF adult men “snuggling” is wrong, Jesus wouldn’t advocate outright “destroying” an adult who had attempted it without even so much as a fair warning to them first. There are far less violent ways to reject someone.

Its a matter of personal taste. I’d find that kind of offer to “snuggle” both gay and exceptionally offensive. others do not.

I find plenty of things exceptionally offensive, but I don’t go around “beating the tar” out of people who offend me. That’s the point. I don’t agree with you that the offer of certain close affections would be “gay” nor “offensive”, but you’re entitled to that opinion. That’s not what so concerned me. It was that, when there are plenty of less violent options (simply rejecting the guy would suffice, and if that wasn’t enough for you then you could even insist he not even speak to you again) you could have tried first, you’d skip immediately to violence. That’s not a proper response, especially if you haven’t specifically given that particular guy fair warning instead of just “assuming” that he bought into the same ideas you do about it being “gay and exceptionally offensive” which for all you know he didn’t. He might not have even realized how extreme you felt about it, he might not have even meant anything “gay” by it at all, yet the first thing you’d do would be to “beat the tar out of him” instead of even giving him a warning. That’s an overreaction, no matter how you slice it.

Like yourself, I don’t mean this as anything personal against you individually; but in general if someone came to me saying “Someone snuggled me, and I beat the living daylights out of him” I would have to say that the person was wrong to do so and had extremely overreacted. I would be surprised if a good priest or spiritual director, let alone Jesus Himself, would condone such a thing; even if he believed the other man had been wrong to attempt the unwanted affection, there would simply be better ways to handle the situation.

 

[Boundless]

Well, I can’t quite admit to being free of a double standard. If I saw guys cuddling up the way me and my sister sometimes do I would be really weirded out. But thinking about it I recognize that the reason I would be weirded out is because of cultural reasons. I know that cuddling up together can be completely non-sexual. So I know that if two men were doing that it could be something completely platonic, and so, in such a case, would not at all be immoral. But it would still be super weird.

Oh that’s completely understandable. We are creatures of our culture. Despite actually having had and enjoyed the opportunity for such closeness in recent times, I myself still feel a bit weird at the prospect or reality of such close affection with another man, but like yourself I realize it’s cultural. There’s just too much evidence that in other cultures and times, some of them very Christian, it’s not (or wasn’t) weird at all, at least not excessively so. Logic leads me to believe that, whatever discomforts I personally may feel with it when a real opportunity actually presents itself in a concrete way (despite feeling happy about it at the same time, there is discomfort too), there is simply no reasonable basis for thinking it’s inherently wrong. Even if I personally were to decide that the discomfort combined with the SSA meant I should tone it down, that’s not a basis for deciding it would be inherently immoral as a general rule. So even though I feel that I crave such a thing on one hand, I’m actually in the exact same boat as you with being a product of my culture and feeling a weird about it.