Telling parents about having SSA

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobballen_18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
Those who went by the other side - when they were well clued up - were of his own people. Their love would not have been misplaced.

Jesus is giving a case where the man was loved by the outsider.
Click to expand...
And should be. He was demonstrating how widespread are our “neighbours”. He was demonstrating what the rule should be, not pointing to an exception.
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
Randomuser, “homosexual” other than as an action is a Freudian invention and prurience is a Freudian-Buchmanite innovation.

The term “SSA” doesn’t come from the Church, it comes from the people who know it. It can be desexualised.

Agapewolf, SSA isn’t a “disordered struggle” if it’s not sexualised.
Click to expand...
I like you posts! :pray:t2:👍
 
OP, I am very happy for you. May your family have a blessed Christmas.
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
The term “SSA” doesn’t come from the Church, it comes from the people who know it. It can be desexualised.

Agapewolf, SSA isn’t a “disordered struggle” if it’s not sexualised.
Click to expand...
The term SSA refers to the preferred (perhaps exclusively preferred) form of sexual relationship to which one is attracted. If entirely desexualised, we should speak of a preference for same sex friends, rather than SSA.
 
Rau said:
The term SSA refers to the preferred (perhaps exclusively preferred) form of sexual relationship to which one is attracted. If entirely desexualised, we should speak of a preference for same sex friends, rather than SSA.
Click to expand...
Why would homosexuality be preferred? :confused:
 
Describing oneself as a celibate gay person seems to be the way to go.

You get the “no action” part in, you describe the attraction, and you explain other things as well.

I think there is a whole series of characteristics that one can ascribe to "being gay’ that are much more than sexual attraction.

AND, we have told our kids (late teens early-mid twenties) that they could tell us something like this at any time and we would totally accept them. We don’t have suspicions, but I think it’s important that your kids know that they have your unconditional love.
 
Rau said:
Who can say? The cause is unknown, but for some, that is their situation.
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m just purposely arguing here, haha…but even though I have same-sex attraction, it has never been something that is “wanted” and definitely not “preferred”. I think I know what you’re trying to say here, which is why I feel silly arguing with this…but going by your statement - “The term SSA refers to the preferred (perhaps exclusively preferred) form of sexual relationship to which one is attracted.” - my situation would not fall under the term “same-sex attraction”, because I am not attracted to the idea of a sexual relationship with another man. Being aroused by another man by no means means I want to have a sexual relationship with him - in fact, I think it’d be safe to say that I actually “prefer” and am “attracted” to the idea of a sexual (and otherwise, for that matter) relationship with a woman.

When I use the term “same-sex attraction” as it relates to myself, I’m not talking about the kind of sexual relationships I prefer or am attracted to - I’m simply saying what the term itself says - I am (sexually) attracted to people of the same sex as myself. I don’t know, maybe some people use the term “SSA” to refer to what kinds of sexual relationships one is attracted to or prefers…but I don’t. I use it just to describe my sexual attractions, though perhaps also, in a sense, I use it as something to describe my “overall experience”, which does include more than my sexual attractions - but it still never describes which sexual relationships I prefer.
 
bobballen_18 said:
Maybe I’m just purposely arguing here, haha…but even though I have same-sex attraction, it has never been something that is “wanted” and definitely not “preferred”. I think I know what you’re trying to say here, which is why I feel silly arguing with this…but going by your statement - "The term SSA refers to the preferred (perhaps exclusively preferred) form of sexual relationship to which one is attracted. - my situation would not fall under the term “same-sex attraction”, because I am not ***attracted ***to the idea of a sexual relationship with another man. Being aroused by another man by no means means I want to have a sexual relationship with him - in fact, I think it’d be safe to say that I actually “prefer” and am “attracted” to the idea of a sexual (and otherwise, for that matter) relationship with a woman.
Click to expand...
I guess in this you are overlaying the underlying sexual attraction that you experience with a further thought process that rejects it.
When I use the term “same-sex attraction” as it relates to myself, I’m not talking about the kind of sexual relationships I prefer or am attracted to - I’m simply saying what the term itself says - I am (sexually) attracted to people of the same sex as myself. I don’t know, maybe some people use the term “SSA” to refer to what kinds of sexual relationships one is attracted to or prefers…but I don’t.
Click to expand...
I kind of sense that there might be a touch of hair-splitting happening here! However, in the interests of word-smithing, and If I understand you, your underlying sexual orientation is one that sees you “attracted” sexually to the same sex, though your intellectually arrived at position is that a sexual relationship of such a kind would not (ought not?) be preferred. The interesting question is: what stops you “embracing” a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex?
 
Rau said:
I guess in this you are overlaying the underlying sexual attraction that you experience with a further thought process that rejects it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’d say that’s accurate.
I kind of sense that there might be a touch of hair-splitting happening here! However, in the interests of word-smithing, and If I understand you, your underlying sexual orientation is one that sees you “attracted” sexually to the same sex, though your intellectually arrived at position is that a sexual relationship of such a kind would not (ought not?) be preferred. The interesting question is: what stops you “embracing” a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex?
Click to expand...
Lol, yes there is probably some “hair-splitting” going on - like I said, I think I know what you meant.

Actually, regarding what I bolded from your quote, I would say it’s the opposite. My “underlying” (read: “true”) sexual orientation is the same as every other male’s (i.e., God created man and woman to be complementary and for the marital act to bring together man and woman, so every male’s “sexual orientation” is towards a woman…and I probably didn’t put that in the best terms but I’ll leave it at that) . I’d say that what I experience is a distortion of my true “sexual orientation”. This is the basis of my coming to the intellectual position that a sexual relationship based on distorted experiences of my sexuality indeed ought not be preferred.

I guess I kind of already answered your question then. What stops me from “embracing” a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex is (what I believe to be) the fact that my experiences are examples of my distorted sexuality, and that I have no desire to base a relationship on something not based on my sexuality. In my mind there is only “sexuality” and the various forms of “distortion of sexuality”. For that reason, I actually do desire a wife and family to love and serve (if it turns out I am called to that) - and despite my SSA, it is totally normal to want that, in the sense that it is in accord with that towards which my (true) sexuality is ordered. Sure I’m interested in building (chaste) relationships with men - and in fact, I think I need to do so in order to improve my current situation - but despite whatever I experience with my SSA, I really do not desire to have a sexual relationship with another man. Not that I never sin or whatever in matters related to SSA, just that I seem to have successfully “trained” my mind that a sexual relationship with another man just is not desirable.
 
Rau said:
The term SSA refers to the preferred (perhaps exclusively preferred) form of sexual relationship to which one is attracted. If entirely desexualised, we should speak of a preference for same sex friends, rather than SSA.
Click to expand...
Rau, the term SSA, which was invented by people who know it, refers to an emotion.

Let me tell you a true story.

I was with my friend in his kitchen. His 8 year old son was there. He said, “Dad, am I gay?” His schoolmates had called him that. His dad gave him an explanation.

Now what about those millions whose dads can’t give them as good an explanation? When they get to 21 or even younger are they going to say “well I am supposed to etc etc”, when the connection with that course of action is nowhere near as strong as that and they are supposed to use their real discretion?

If you can’t explain to your needy acquaintance, maybe a younger friend of your family, that SSA is an emotion, whether or not they adopt homosexual activity, and that emotions are there to be accepted, without fuss or drama, you’ll be letting them down.
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
Rau, the term SSA, which was invented by people who know it, refers to an emotion.
Click to expand...
Lol, what does that even mean, “invented by people who know it”? Anyway, I both agree and disagree that “SSA” refers to an emotion. I mean, there’s a sense in which you’re correct, that experiencing sexual attraction towards one of the same sex could possibly be an underlying desire to emotionally connect with the person. But I can assure you that even if this is the case, there is certainly sexual attraction there, not just emotional attraction. People don’t just make up that they’re sexually attracted to the same sex. That would be rather absurd. Lol.

Unless all you’re claiming is that sexual attraction is just an emotion.

Do men who experience sexual attraction to women just call their attraction an emotion? I don’t think so. Again, I’m sure that in many cases there is desire to express emotion towards the object of the attraction, but that doesn’t negate the attraction’s existence.
If you can’t explain to your needy acquaintance, maybe a younger friend of your family, that SSA is an emotion, whether or not they adopt homosexual activity, and that emotions are there to be accepted, without fuss or drama, you’ll be letting them down.
Click to expand...
Again, as I’ve hinted at above, you’re not entirely incorrect, but “SSA is an just an emotion” is not the whole picture. If SSA was “just an emotion” - if there was not an aspect of being sexually attracted to the same sex - personally, at least, I would not be in the situation I’m in today, because experiencing “emotion” towards a person of the same sex is not nearly the same “shaming” experience as experiencing a sexual attraction (especially for someone such as myself who was correctly taught proper use and purpose of sexuality from a relatively young age, and therefore knew there was something amiss with experiencing sexual attraction to the same sex).
 
bobballen_18 said:
…Actually, regarding what I bolded from your quote, I would say it’s the opposite. My “underlying” (read: “true”) sexual orientation is the same as every other male’s (i.e., God created man and woman to be complementary and for the marital act to bring together man and woman, so every male’s “sexual orientation” is towards a woman…and I probably didn’t put that in the best terms but I’ll leave it at that).
Click to expand...
Then you are describing 3 levels:
  • the underlying “truth” (as implied by the body);
  • the experienced orientation;
  • the intellectual rejection of that experienced orientation.
The discussion we are having is more about the meaning (or common usage) of words, than any particular understanding or disagreement over the nature SSA. Personally, I (and I think most people) would regard sexual orientation as the experienced “direction” of one’s sexual attractions, and the “expected” orientation as that which the body implies (ie. man for woman, woman for man). That the experienced differs from the expected is, to this point in time, rather perplexing, but the observable facts make clear that something “real” is going on to bring about a distortion.
I’d say that what I experience is a distortion of my true “sexual orientation”. This is the basis of my coming to the intellectual position that a sexual relationship based on distorted experiences of my sexuality indeed ought not be preferred.
Click to expand...
I understand. I note that when we speak of SSA, we speak of that which is actually experienced.
I guess I kind of already answered your question then. What stops me from “embracing” a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex is (what I believe to be) the fact that my experiences are examples of my distorted sexuality, and that I have no desire to base a relationship on something not based on my sexuality. In my mind there is only “sexuality” and the various forms of “distortion of sexuality”. For that reason, I actually do desire a wife and family to love and serve (if it turns out I am called to that) - and despite my SSA, it is totally normal to want that, in the sense that it is in accord with that towards which my (true) sexuality is ordered. Sure I’m interested in building (chaste) relationships with men - and in fact, I think I need to do so in order to improve my current situation - but despite whatever I experience with my SSA, I really do not desire to have a sexual relationship with another man. Not that I never sin or whatever in matters related to SSA, just that I seem to have successfully “trained” my mind that a sexual relationship with another man just is not desirable.
Click to expand...
While I understand your reasoning, I can imagine such expression of it might cause considerable confusion were such to come up in a passing conversation. 🙂 However, I think you and I do understand each other clearly.
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
Rau, the term SSA, which was invented by people who know it, refers to an emotion.
Click to expand...
I don’t see a strong reason to reject that expression, even if it might be a tad understated! I guess I could accept that the sexual attraction of a man to a woman is an emotion too. It’s just that - for the particular emotion concerned - the latter is what we’d expect given the physical bodies of each, and the other is somewhat perplexing.

Friendship would seem to be an emotion too.
 
Rau said:
Then you are describing 3 levels:
  • the underlying “truth” (as implied by the body);
  • the experienced orientation;
  • the intellectual rejection of that experienced orientation.
Click to expand...
OK, I suppose that sounds accurate.
The discussion we are having is more about the meaning (or common usage) of words, than any particular understanding or disagreement over the nature SSA. Personally, I (and I think most people) would regard sexual orientation as the experienced “direction” of one’s sexual attractions, and the “expected” orientation as that which the body implies (ie. man for woman, woman for man). That the experienced differs from the expected is, to this point in time, rather perplexing, but the observable facts make clear that something “real” is going on to bring about a distortion.
Click to expand...
I can agree to all of the above. Though in my case, not that I “have it all figured out” but there are aspects of my own situation which are not perplexing at all. Lol.
While I understand your reasoning, I can imagine such expression of it might cause considerable confusion were such to come up in a passing conversation. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, possibly it could cause confusion, even if only because the average “passing” person these days probably has such a wacked up understanding of sexuality. Though maybe that’s uncharitable of me to make that assumption and to give the impression that my understanding is perfect.
However, I think you and I do understand each other clearly.
Click to expand...
I think so too. 🙂
 
Rau - please read my post 112 - IN A HURRY.

Rau and Bob both, slow down!

And no I have not “claimed” A SINGLE THING. I have described. I have reported things others have described.

As to full explanations, I sometimes post a short post as an eye-catcher to see when it catches an eye - and alas when it doesn’t.

When people are in the rhythm, I can feed them the next stage in the argument. A bit like giving people the chance to say “uh” or “oh” or “ah”!

Bob you didn’t really say how “well” your conversation with your parents went (if you like you can say after we’ve continued this present discussion, not before). At any rate with outsiders I can show you how to stand your ground. I’m coming back after I eat. Part of your post is very helpful and ultra-clear. I think I have got the other ultra-clear part that goes with it.
 
Rau,

I was over-reacting to you in this instance.

You are both doing fine-ish.

It seems to me there are 5 stages:
  • emotion towards a person of the same sex
  • beginnings of sexual attraction towards a person of the same sex (what Bob seems to describe)
  • lustful feeling towards a person of the same sex
  • planning of homosexual acts
  • homosexual acts
The world calls all five of these “gay”. The Freudian approach which unfortunately has sometimes made inroads into the Church calls the last four “homosexual”.
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
A pair of ladies adopted that description to help others calling themselves gay, and after they had themselves been sexually active.

aqueercalling.com/2015/10/30/if-youre-gay-and-celibate-why-tell-others/
Click to expand...
One of these ladies admits, on the site, that she is not sexually attracted to the woman she calls “partner”. aqueercalling.com/2014/07/30/i-am-not-asexual-and-why-i-care-what-others-call-me/ She uses the word partner in an authentic way, rather than its modern day interpretation.

I make no criticism of them. But one could reasonably consider their relationship to be a truly deep friendship (for it is absent sexual attraction) between 2 persons who in general experience SSA. The ladies do regard themselves as lesbians, but their relationship with each other is without sexual attraction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top