Thursday, February 8, 2018

CATHOLIC CHURCH AND GAYS AT THE TIME OF POPE FRANCIS

I have not written about the relationship between the Catholic Church and Gays for a long time. Pope Francis undoubtedly didn’t fuel crusades against homosexuals as his predecessor Benedict XVI had done many times, and this fact ignited hopes for a hypothetical change of course of the Catholic Church on the issue of homosexuality and hypothetical openings of Pope Francis himself towards the gays. I say hypothetical because, before becoming Pope, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires he expressed himself with very clear words against the legal recognition of homosexual unions (http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-pope-bergoglio-and-homosexuals), and also the Synod on the Family, had resolved in a fire of straw and in a substantial reaffirmation of the “magisterium” of Benedict XVI in the matter of homosexuality. I don’t believe that Pope Francis has ever had real openings towards gays, but admitted and not granted that he had them, what is certain is that, as it was absolutely obvious to expect, in fact, nothing has changed. The Catechism, as was obvious, has not been modified and the so-called openings have manifested themselves for what they were, that is, as attempts to save face.
I have always been amazed by the insistence with which the homosexual Catholics have sought the approval of the Church, an essentially impossible approval, which would require a profound revision of doctrine and the renunciation of the Church to the dogmatic claim to be the infallible interpreter of the will to God. The Church is a historical reality that of the message of Christ has often made litter and that, like all historical realities, is deeply conditioned by its own tradition that ends up overlapping the Gospel message and becoming confused with it, obscuring it.
I would like to propose to your reading a document signed by the Archbishop of Turin, with which the Archbishop suspends a seminar that is part of the “pastoral care of homosexuals” because its meaning would have been misunderstood. I don’t go into the fact that the meaning has been misunderstood or not, but I want to emphasize that the document is a clear proof that nothing has changed in the Church and nothing will change on the subject of homosexuality.
Below you can read the text of the message from the Archbishop of Turin, as published by the Diocese website (http://www.diocesi.torino.it/site/pastorale-degli-omosessuali-intervento-di-mons-nosiglia/)
“Pastoral care of homosexuals: intervention by Msgr. Nosiglia
Statement by the Archbishop of Turin on 5 February 2018
Below is the declaration by the Archbishop of Turin, Msgr. Cesare Nosiglia, of 5 February 2018, regarding the pastoral care of homosexuals and the interventions that have appeared in recent days on some media:
«Regarding some media interventions on the pastoral commitment of Father Gianluca Carrega, priest of the Diocese of Turin in charge of the pastoral care of homosexuals, it is appropriate to clarify some points.
The Diocese of Turin has for several years promoted a pastoral service of spiritual, biblical and prayer accompaniment for homosexual believers who meet with a priest and reflect together, starting from the Word of God, on their state of life and their choices in subject of sexuality.
This is a service that has proved useful and appreciated and that corresponds to what the Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” of Pope Francis affirms and invites us to do: ” We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence. Such families should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives. “(No. 250).
This is the purpose of the spiritual journey of accompaniment and discernment proposed in the Diocese. It therefore wants to help homosexual persons to understand and fully realize God’s plan for each one of them. This does not mean approving homosexual behaviors or unions, which remain for the Church morally unacceptable choices: because such choices are far from expressing that project of unity between man and woman expressed by the will of God the Creator (Gen. 1-2) as a mutual and fruitful gift. But this does not mean not taking care of homosexual believers and their request for faith.
This is why the path that the Diocese has undertaken does not in any way legitimize civil unions or even same-sex marriage on which the “Amoris Laetitia” clearly states that “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family “(No. 251). Some publications have provided, in these days, different interpretations – often superficial, sometimes biased – that make it necessary to clarify the characteristics and limits of work in this pastoral context. Since we are dealing with people in research who live delicate and even painful situations, it is essential that the information that is published corresponds to the truth and to a correct understanding of what is proposed, with a spirit of profound evangelical charity and faithfulness to teaching of the Church in matter. For this reason I believe, together with Father Gianluca Carrega of which I appreciate the work, that it is opportune to suspend the initiative of the retreat, in order to carry out an adequate discernment.
Mons. Cesare Nosiglia Archbishop of Turin”
Someone was amazed at what was written by the Archbishop of Turin, but it should be emphasized that the Archbishop’s document merely refers to the Amoris laetitia of Pope Francis, who deals in a very short way with homosexuality only in two points, which literally you can read below:
250. The Church makes her own the attitude of the Lord Jesus, who offers his boundless love to each person without exception.[275] During the Synod, we discussed the situation of families whose members include persons who experience same-sex attraction, a situation not easy either for parents or for children. We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided,[276] particularly any form of aggression and violence. Such families should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.[277]
251. In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, “as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”. It is unacceptable “that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex”.[278]
[275] Cf. Bull Misericordiae Vultus, 12: AAS 107 (2015), 407.
[276] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358; cf. Relatio Finalis 2015, 76.
[277] Ibid.
[278] Relatio Finalis 2015, 76; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons (3 June 2003), 4.”
The document of Pope Francis refers to the Bull of Indiction of the Jubilee of Mercy, to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and to the Final Report of the Synod of Bishops on the Family of 2015, which in turn dedicates to homosexuality only n. 76:
“76. The Church’s attitude is like that of her Master, who offers his boundless love to every person without exception (cf. MV, 12). To families with homosexual members, the Church reiterates that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his/her dignity and received with respect, while carefully avoiding “every sign of unjust discrimination” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4). Specific attention is given to guiding families with homosexual members. Regarding proposals to place unions of homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family” (ibid). In every way, the Synod maintains as completely unacceptable that local Churches be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies link financial aid to poor countries to the introduction of laws to establish “marriage” between people of the same sex.”
The Final Report of the Synod of Bishops explicitly mentions the “ Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons ” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of 3 June 2003, signed by the then cardinal Prefect Joseph Ratzinger (http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-gays-from-prejudice-to-human-rights). The Church’s doctrine on homosexuality therefore remains exactly the one sanctioned by Benedict XVI.
I wonder how, today, homosexual Catholics can maintain an attitude of subjection that involves the subordination of individual conscience to a “magisterium” which in substance has nothing evangelical and does nothing but perpetuate claims of pure prejudice in stark contrast with the scientific truth and with the daily experience of homosexuals.
I have been dealing with homosexuals for many years and I know many homosexuals and many homosexual couples, frankly, to think that God’s plan for these people involves the obligation of chastity seems to me a truly obscene statement.
If anyone has ears to hear, let them hear!
__________
If you want, you can participate in the discussion of this post open on the Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-catholic-church-and-gays-at-the-time-of-pope-francis

Sunday, December 24, 2017

SEXUAL PLAY AND GAY SEX

This post is dedicated to analyze the connection between play and sexuality and aims to highlight the different meanings of sexual play in relation to sexual orientation of the people involved.

A large number of guys, if not all, sooner or later take part in or attend to episodes of play with a more or less evident sexual background, that is episodes of play which involve more or less overtly sexual content or content concerning nudity. 

The play usually begins with only the verbal content, for example playing "truth or dare" when it comes to “truth phase” about sexual content, then passing through physical contact not specifically genital, as in the wrestling for fun, that, for example, when you are on the beach and wrestle with only the swimsuit on, involves a very direct physical contact, sometimes also embarrassing, and can also end up with sexually explicit play that also includes the possibility of touching the genitals, or implicates that one of the participants is expected to remain naked at the end of the play (strip poker).

The sexual play can be simple, that is it can arise without any explicit sexual purposes, but can also be programmed precisely in order to create a sexual involvement. In some cases, the sexual play verges on the edge of violence, when it comes to group play imposed on an unwilling victim. This is the case of "pantsing/de-pantsing", a play that sometimes involves also behaviors of sexual violence and is practiced in schools or universities against freshmen or in military environments. The "pantsing" usually consists in yanking down quickly and unexpectedly the underwear of a guy in order to leave him exposed in front of everyone, but sometimes the “pantsing” means stripping a guy in group, obviously against his will, blocking him and preventing him from defending himself, often the others may touch the genitals of the victim even if in a playful way.

The violent meaning of this play is considerably reduced because the rite is performed as if it was a joke and those who have been “pantsed” can change role the next time. It should be emphasized that this sexual play is characteristic of environments dominated by men (male barracks and classrooms). Today, with the obligation of mixed classes (male and female together) and also of mixed teams of physical education, the “pantsing” has almost gone and only remains in college dorms only for guys.

Among the games that are on the border between play and sexuality there is the tickling, that starts trivially as a play but allows two guys to familiarize with themselves, with mutual physicality and especially lowers the threshold of the defenses and makes the behavior less controlled. When the laugh becomes uncontrollable, physical contact is accepted in a dimension of play and fun. It is not unlikely that a gay guy gats a hard on being in a similar situation, which doesn't happen just as easily not even in explicit sexual contexts.

The laugh is the Trojan horse of sexuality that allows a guy to accept in this way, what explicitly he would not accept. Through the tickling and through sexual play often occur early signs of gay sexuality in young people who have been deemed always straight.

However, participate in sexual games between persons of the same sex does not mean being gay. In an all guys class “pantsing” was a typical straight play. I emphasize that it is not the participating in the game that determines sexual orientation but, according to sexual orientation, participation in sexual play is experienced in different ways. The straight guys, participating in a sexual play with friends of the same sex, see it as a game, as the most uninhibited game, but not as a sexual activity, on the contrary gay guys, participating in a same sex sexual play, consider it precisely as a sexual activity.

The difference in the way to participate is reflected in the fact that a straight guy who is involved in a sexual play with other guys will not load the memory of that episode with sexual meanings, what on the contrary a gay guy will certainly do. The gay guy will transform the memory of that episode, which for him is clearly a sexual experience, into a strong masturbatory fantasy and that episode will be printed indelibly in his mind.

The difference in experiencing the participation in the sexual game between a straight guy and a gay guy can create big problems in the event that the gay guy falls in love with the straight one and between the two guys the atmosphere is so uninhibited to actually allow sexual plays, what is quite common.

Each of the two guys projects his own personal view of the sexual play on the other guy, so the straight guy thinks that for his friend the sexual game is just a game with no real sexual significance, therefore feels uninhibited because assumes that the other guy is also straight. The gay guy sees the participation in sexual plays by his straight friend as if it was a real gay sexual activity and begins to fantasize about the hypothesis that his friend is not really straight but in reality is a latent gay guy who sooner or later will realize that he is really gay because "if a guy participates in sexual activities with another guy clearly cannot be straight."

Understandably these types of projections can create sexual expectations, hopes and, later, bitter disappointments. Sexual play is often used by gay men, consciously or unconsciously, as an attempt to involve their friends in a sexual dimension. For a gay guy is actually very difficult to understand that a straight guy is going through a sexual play in a completely different way. In this sense, try to involve a friend in a sexual play is definitely not a sensible system to verify his possible being gay. To find out if a guy is really gay there is only one way, that is, talk to him explicitly, what is often very difficult, if not impossible. To use various substitutes of the explicit direct speech means to choose unreliable methods.

A common feature of sexual games in which a gay guy tries to involve his friend to test his homosexuality or to lead him to homosexuality (what is absolutely meaningless because or you're gay or you're not), is the “graduality” which is a typical characteristic of not spontaneous but planned sexual play. In this situation, a gay guy who does not know the sexual orientation of his partner tries to involve him in forms of sexual play in which the sexual dimension is only just visible, if the participatory response of his friend is spontaneous, after a while the gay guy experiments a play in which sexual contents are more explicit, only if also in this case the participation of the friend is spontaneous it becomes possible to program another step towards an even more explicit sexuality.

From the point of view of the gay guy, when his friend has accepted an openly sexual play, doing so he has clearly shown his homosexuality. This strategy of small steps moves ever forward the limit that separates the play from sexuality.

There are rare cases of straight guys who are willing even to be masturbated by their friends supposed to be straight. Such a thing is automatically interpreted by a gay guy as a manifested admission of homosexuality on the part of his friend. This conclusion derives from an assumption, namely, that what matters to identify a gay guy are external behaviors, i. e. that there are "behaviors" typically gay that a straight guy would never put into practice. In fact, experience shows that to identify a gay guy you must know his own interpretation of his own behaviors and of those of others. In other words, it is not the behavior itself that defines a gay guy but the interpretations that he gives of that behavior.
__________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-sexual-play-and-gay-sex

POPE, RABBI AND GAY REALITY

I got a comment on the post GAY FRIENDSHIP AND GAY LOVE VIA CHAT like follows:

“What matters is the source of your wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Man must not lean unto his own understanding but in all his ways, his comings and goings, acknowledge HIM and HE will direct your path, and he is THE CREATOR OF THIS UNIVERSE. God despises homosexuality. It’s sickening and disgusting. Satan bought that sin into the world. He came to kill, maim, and destroy mankind. You have free will. You have a choice. Go to the BIBLE it’s the true source and the road map to everlasting LIFE. SATAN IS A DECEIVER.....Peace and Light.....”

Of course everyone is free to believe what in his eyes looks better, but the use of judging reality on the basis of the Bible led to the Inquisition, to the torture and to the  burning at the stake those who, following their conscience, think differently.

Already in the statutes of the city of Bologna, in 1259, citizens were urged to denounce the sodomites and the sodomites themselves were punished with exile, while those who offered hospitality to homosexuals in their home where punished with death.

Throughout the thirteenth century, laws promulgated in Germany, France and Switzerland punish homosexuals condemning them to the stake. In 1277, in Basel, Emperor Rudolph does burn a homosexual at the stake, and this practice is also attested in some regions of France. In 1293, in Italy is attested the first sentence to the stake against a homosexual, when Charles II of Anjou does impale and burn at the stake the Count of Acerra, accused of sodomy, although the reasons underlying were purely political in nature.

In Siena the constitution condemned homosexuals surprised to commit acts “against nature” to a fine of 300 pounds, and to the hanging by the genitals "in the event of non-payment."

The Papal State punished pimps, who offered guys for money, with lashes and perpetual exile, while sodomites were burned at the stake.

Throughout the fourteenth century, the death penalty through the stake is adopted throughout Italy, and will be maintained in the fifteenth century. In Milan under the Sforza, people who denounced homosexuals were rewarded with money. In Venice in the early fifteenth century a scandal that involved in questions related to sodomy the highest offices of the “Serenissima Republic” caused a violent repression of homosexuality.

A special case is the Florentine republic, where until 1400 homosexuals were not punished with the stake, but with monetary fines joined with the "castration" and the cutting of the right hand if the offender was relapsed. However, they were burned at the stake foreigners who committed sodomitical acts during their passage in the Florentine territory. In 1430, following an unpleasant event that shook public opinion, even the law of Florence became more severe, with higher fines but burning at the stake was only required in case of recidivism.

I don’t know if these are ways to oppose against the work of Satan and comply with God's will, frankly, I think these things are horrendous crimes of homophobia that have been masked under the guise of law, as unfortunately happens in some countries also today.

What is certain is that religions have in all this a great responsibility because contributed to incite hatred against homosexuals and continue to do so. Saints such as St. Peter Damian and theologians as the Bishop of Worms Burchard have supported and encouraged with their attitude, anticipating the Inquisition, hatred against homosexuals. I invite you to read an article of this blog dedicated to Liber Gomorrhianus of St. Peter Damian.

I quote here below the passages more interesting for Homosexual Persons of the Message of Benedict XVI for the World Day of Peace XLVI, 1 January 2013, on the theme: "Blessed are the peacemakers."

“Even the natural structure of marriage must be recognized and promoted as a union between a man and a woman, compared to attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role.
These principles are not truths of faith, or are just a tap of the right to religious freedom. They are inscribed in human nature itself, identified with reason, and therefore they are common to all mankind. The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, regardless of their religious affiliation. Such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offense against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice and peace.”

After reading such statements it is natural to wonder if freedom itself constitutes "an offense against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice and peace."

But the positions radically discriminatory against homosexuality are frequent, I quote just an example. In late 2008, the Holy See has taken a position strongly opposed to the project of a universal decriminalization of homosexuality presented at the UN on the initiative of the French Presidency of the European Union, and accepted by all 27 European Union countries. According to the Holy See it is legitimate that homosexuality is prosecuted as a crime.

But the discriminatory attitude doesn’t belong exclusively to the Catholic Church. The Chief Rabbi of France argued that the recognition of gay couples is "at the expense of the public interest and for the benefit of a tiny minority." The speech of the Chief Rabbi was widely quoted in “Osservatore Romano” (the newspaper of the Holy See) and also the Pope quoted some excerpts of that speech.
For those who think that freedom and equality in a moral dimension but absolutely secular and independent of revealed truths of any kind, are the foundation of any civil society, the idea that someone can promote a crusade against the recognition of the rights of others is unacceptable.

Among other things, the speech of the Pope and that of Chief Rabbi are not limited to the adoption but aim immediately, in Italy and in France, to avoid the legal recognition of same-sex couples, which is really inexcusable outside a confessional logic.

At the base of the speeches of the Chief Rabbi and of the Pope there is the assumption that the Bible is the foundation of anthropology, that the world is not as it really is, but as it is described in the Bible and that the world should conform to what the Bible says, statements that to a layman are absolutely immoral.

To say that gay rights are "at the expense of the public interest and for the benefit of a tiny minority" is completely gratuitous, because homosexuality is an anthropological absolutely objective and undeniable reality (gays exist even if someone does not like them and are not a tiny minority) and if someone consider gays as a "tiny minority" he probably doesn't even know exactly what he is talking about and simply repeats dogmatically what the Bible says as if the Bible and not the reality was the basis of anthropology and of civilized life.
__________
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-pope-rabbi-and-gay-reality

GAY FRIENDSHIP AND GAY LOVE VIA CHAT

This post aims to clarify some of the focal points of the virtual relationships (chat, e-mail and forums) that may arise between gay guys. About the definition of love and friendship in general terms many books have been written and it is not my intention to discuss the Two Chief World Systems, but if you want to give to the word love a connotation that is not too abstract, it must be assumed that falling in love may not be limited to intellectual affinity or to sharing moral values but must necessarily involve physical-physiological feelings related to sexuality in a profound way.

At this point a remark is necessary. When, in real life, a gay guy falls in love with another guy, his falling in love doesn’t start from the intellectual level or from the possible cultural affinities but from the physical attraction, i.e. by a whole set of factors that depend on the physicality of the other: smile, physique, voice, body attitudes, the tendency to behave more or less seductive.

This is so true that often gay guys fall in love with straight guys far away from them in every way, but able to embody "physically" their ideal guy. If a guy seems physically attractive we begin to ask ourselves questions about him and seek a closer contact in terms of dialogue, in practice we are interested in that guy. This mechanism of falling in love, which is typical of real life, cannot operate through the internet where everything remains detached from the physical dimension. In these situations is involved a projective mechanism that makes us imagine the guy with whom we are talking in chat according to our categories.

I stop for a moment to clarify what is a projective mechanism and how it may be conditioning reporting a concrete example.

There is a way to test the sexual orientation based on the reading a story “not sexually connoted”, i. e. that does not have in the text in any evidence to clarify with certainty whether one of the characters is a guy or a girl (lack of pronouns such as he or she, him or her and so on). The text then, in itself, is neutral.

When the story is read by a straight guy, that guy interprets it according to his categories as a straight story. But when the story is read by a gay guy, reading is not so automatic and often the guy comes to notice that the text hasn’t any sexual connotation, what a straight guy almost always doesn’t notice. On this basis it’s possible to construct projective tests for the determination of sexual orientation that have a concrete reliability. The projective reading is basically the reason of the charm of literature or the cinema because we project ourselves in the events and interpret them according to our experience.

An exchange of mail, a conversation via chat or a dialogue on a forum creates a text, more specifically a text written “with four hands”. This text has the characteristics of literature, even more accentuated by the fact that it is built with four hands, that is the better situation for projective readings but while the projective reading of a book is not aimed at the construction of an interpersonal relationship and everything remains inside the mind of the reader, in exchanging texts via the internet the projective inclination must sooner or later come to terms with the fact that on the other side there is another guy with his projections on the same conversation. There is basically the risk of misunderstanding, compounded by the fact that many chats remain at extremely symbolic and sublimated level and therefore are extremely open to projective interpretation. The projective mechanisms in contacts via the internet can be so important to bring even to put aside the idea of meeting the other guy in person because that could disturb or destroy the projective mechanism which in itself is apparently rewarding.

I would add that often in conversations in chat among gay guys is common the mechanism of the "drift towards the language of love" that is, the gradual and automatic indulge in a language that looks more and more like a language of love. It’s not at all uncommon that two guys who have never met in person end up talking like lovers. The emotional investment in these mechanisms is often very high and the projective dimension is so strong that the risk that the conversation is only the starting point for the construction of stories that exist only in fantastic projections is very real. Basically we create a partner to our measure, completing in a projective way the real elements (often of very low significance) that emerge from real dialogue. This is so true that a gay guy gets to fall in love with a straight guy, reading every single element that does not appear 100% straight as a sign of possible homosexuality and devaluating all those elements, usually very clear, showing that the guy is 100% straight.

But I must underline that the mechanism also operates in relationships between gay guys, that is, between guys who know with certainty that the other guy is gay. The projective mechanism reaches the point of attributing to the other guy a projective physical identity that doesn’t belong to him at all, that is, to embody him in an image that represents the projective ideal for the gay who fell in love with him. It gets to the point that the projective image of the other is also loaded with sexual values and it’s possible for a guy to experience a true sexual attraction towards another guy who he has never met. In practice we can fall in love also sexually with a person that 90% has been created by our projective imagination, that also attributes to him a body according to what we want. The drift towards the language of love does the rest and gives the distinct impression that you are building a true love story. But in all this there is a fundamental error, in practice the natural mechanism that leads from the physical attraction to the affection and love is quite upset.

Just remember that to fall in love in the true sense of the word physical and physiological involvements are essential but must be addressed to a real person, not to an image created by the projective fantasy. Some substitutes of the physical presence, such as photos or images sent by a camera cannot in any way replace the physical presence itself that remains the necessary element of the real falling in love, I mean that without the physical presence and without a genuine form of physical and physiological involvement there is no love.

I would warn guys who meet in chat to avoid the drift towards the language of love that only creates expectations that can be completely destroyed even by a short meeting where we realize that our projections had nothing in common with reality and that the speech (only the speech) went on to freewheel, far beyond reality. It is generally very easy to go on chatting using strong expressions, to say "I love you" and even without any real base but it is very difficult to resize these statements later, when they have already created big expectations that the direct personal knowledge has contradicted. At this point, if when the two guys meet, the disappointment is mutual, after all, the problem is easily solved because the expectations from both sides collapse at the same time, but if one is disillusioned and the other one feels physically strongly attracted, asymmetries become very strong and situations are difficult to manage.

In chat rooms or via e-mail, i.e. without direct personal knowledge, it is quite possible and I would say very less risky to create friendships, which are much less affected by projective mechanisms than possible love stories. I notice that the spontaneous tendency of guys is to look for a boyfriend to fall in love with, rather than one or more real friends in chat, but the tools are much more suited to the creation and maintenance of friendships than to the creation of love stories. As a good rule of prudence I would say that it would be good to reserve discourses with strong affective connotation only to people who you have actually met even outside the chat or forum that is you have known in person.

And here comes an important consideration. When two guys meet, being really two in front of each other, in real life after they have met in chat, the meeting gains a very strong affective connotation that makes it appear as a step towards the construction of an important and reciprocal story. This is why it is usually better to build relationships that start from friendship, meeting as a group and not as a couple, that is, starting relationships that do not create too many expectations that could turn into disillusionment. Friendship is always the first step, if the physical presence is engaging and encouraging then it may make sense to take a further step, otherwise the friendship remains and is not affected by the fact that is not followed by a story with a higher involvement because expectations have not been fed in the dark.

I would like to conclude that the internet (used with great caution, for heaven's sake!) provides opportunities but can also create heavy disappointments and that if you love someone, even if only as a friend, you must avoid to deceive him letting him run towards cold final showers that leave a sense of deep sorrow. So it is good to always keep an attitude of responsibility and think in advance about the possible consequences of what you do and you say.
___________
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-gay-friendship-and-gay-love-via-chat

Thursday, November 16, 2017

GAY DISCOMFORT, UNRELIABLE ADULTS AND MYTHS OF VIRILITY AND MASCULINITY

Hello Project,
there is something I like about your forum, there are no jeremiads, laments, and various forms of victimism. After all, gays have so many problems and in some countries they are actually persecuted, but in Europe or the United States, they have to endure just the weight of ignorance, still very high, and the preconceptions that are the biggest obstacle to a true gay integration. Many of the gay problems stem from the fact that they are not a majority, they cannot impose anything but have to be accepted by making others grow and slowly leading them to overcoming preconceptions and homologation.
My bigger problem when I was younger (now I’m 45) was to recognize gay guys in a crowd of guys where they did everything to hide and become invisible. In practice, the internet has made things a lot easier and, let’s just say it, has also put aside many squalid individuals who have built their fortunes on homosexual encounters. Now  are conceivable and possible a lot of things that 25-30 years ago were unthinkable. So there is less reason to complain, but the increased level of confidence among gay guys in various social circles has also diminished risk perception. Many guys trust too easily, if not the first guy they meet, at least the institutional figures that are close to them, first of all their parents, and then the teachers, coaches, priests, and so on, all people who “should” have a propensity to substantial dialogue but who are not really aware of their roles and are not culturally or even humanely capable of fulfilling their duties. I just quote one episode.
A guy in school said he was gay to a teacher, the teacher was gay too. In such a situation, the first rule, the truly indisputable one, should be to respect others’ privacy. It is already absurd that a teacher who has received such a confidence does not respect the confidence of those who have trusted him, but it is far more absurd when also the teacher is gay! Yet these things happen. I saw university professors make ironic comments during the lesson to a gay student, a coach who boasted of being a tombeur de femmes, ironizing on a gay guy trained by him. I also saw a priest tell, according to him to good, to the parents of a boy that his son was homosexual after having learned it in confession. I have seen more than once psychologists unable to respect the privacy of those who were addressing them. An attitude that always seemed to me very stupid in adults, is that to feel above the boys, as if the years really were a guarantee of maturity. Two teachers who speak grinning of a gay student think they joke but do not realize that their behavior, basically infantile, can cause terrible damage. It is as if adults were brave to be adults, as if such a thing was a merit, and in some cases, that is, but when one truly lacks intellectual and moral maturity, being adult makes it particularly serious.
I’ve seen guys suffer a lot from the stupidity of those around them, people really should change their mentality … no laments anyway! After all, it is not necessary to ask who is the responsible for such a widespread stupidity. Many adults, instead of receiving sexual education, have grown up with a lot of preconceptions, forced in a way more or less explicit to align themselves with the dominant thought, and this may partially excuse them.
Tell me, Project, how can we start, at least start to change things a bit. Or maybe we have to resign ourselves to keeping it so?
I look forward to your answer.
Danny
_________
Hi Danny,
Last night, reading a post of a gay black therapist who told how his father intended to teach him what virility is (with the bangs and the rejection of any form of dialogue), I wondered what enormous effort made this person to get rid of such a conditioning. For gays, the two concepts of virility and masculinity have always been the cause of various problems, because the common way of thinking attributes to gay people a kind of hypothetical natural effeminacy that cannot be suppressed and makes a gay recognizable. As if a gay was not virile or male just as gay, as if being gay meant to belong to a kind of third sex, intermediate between men and women. I can say that I admired the author of the post I read last night, because he managed to get rid of prejudices and internalized homophobia and had the courage to post a story that I think can help many people feel stronger than the prejudices.
Project
__________
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-gay-discomfort-unreliable-adults-and-myths-of-virility-and-masculinity

Monday, October 30, 2017

PROBLEMS OF A DISSYMMETRIC GAY LOVE

Hello Project,
I thought so much before I wrote to you. I had read your manual “Being Gay” with much interest and also many of your posts on the Forum. In short, you seem to me a person of considerable experience and therefore I think that consulting you may be useful. I go to the specific, which is very delicate matter.
I’m 51 y. o., in my life I had sex with a single guy. The story is complex but I think it was important to both of us. When we met for the first time he was twenty, I was 43, the age difference was great. At first I did not think I could have sexual sex with him, frankly, at that time and even later for some months I didn’t even consider such hypothesis. By the way, I’ve never had big sex interests. In my youth it attracted me much, but more to the level of imagination than of any possible sexual relationship with a guy.
We knew each other for the sake of pure chance in an environment that had nothing to do with gays, we started to talk, then the thing went on. It was understood that it was an important thing but none of us had told the other to be gay. He knew I was not married and that I didn’t have a woman, I knew he didn’t have a girl, but the talk stopped there. We began to attend more assiduously, and we came to the point that we met almost every day but just to do the most common things of everyday life, to go shopping, to go to public offices or just to spend an afternoon together. Sometimes people took us for father and son and I felt proud of all this. 
He was studying at university (he is a guy of a monstrous intelligence). During the exam period he came to study at my home, I did not disturb him, because I worked until 17.00, at night we talked a bit, but just a little, then I accompanied him back to his home. He said to his parents that he was studying at the university library. Months have been spent together for the whole day and a few times even at night, and there has never been sex between us. There was no physical contact of any kind, not even shake hands. 
He had a terrible relationship with his parents and occasionally gave some sign of depression, I do not say at a pathological level, but he tended to depressed mood: not to see prospects, to devalue and to consider himself a nullity, which does not exactly match reality. I thought he had adopted me as a dad and I felt very proud of it. I think I’ve been one of the very few people with whom he had a non-superficial dialogue. 
Then the dialogue became more straightforward and he told me that he was gay, and until this it was more or less what I was expecting, he told me of his falling in love with a former schoolmate who wasn’t at all worried about him, then he expanded the talk and told me that he had met also the boy’s father and had felt strongly attracted to him, and that the interest in mature men had also manifested on other occasions, it was not exclusive but was still very strong, much stronger than that in boys. And in the end he added that he also felt this interest in me and that for a long time had been uncertain whether to say it or not. 
He told me he had perfectly understood that I was gay because no one would have cared for him in that way if he hadn’t been gay and for that very reason the attraction towards me was very strong because in the end to feel attraction for a straight man doesn’t make sense, because he will never match you, while with a gay man there is some chance. I was literally speechless. By the age of 43 I was certain that my life would be devoid of sexual experiences and that I would never have a partner. The guy’s speech stirred me, for one side I was in love with him, but on the other hand the age difference seemed so huge that the only thing to do was to get away and let him create his affective life, at least as far as possible. 
I told him that I loved him, but that I wanted our relationship to remain what was from the beginning, but obviously my answer was not very convincing, and so he began very carefully to look for physical contact, at the beginning really minimal and then, increasingly stronger. It took more or less a month. To try to avoid what was now inevitable, I told him that I was afraid of sexually transmitted diseases, he asked me very seriously if I had had sexual intercourses with someone and I told him that it never happened and he told me in a way more convinced that he had never had any relationship with anyone and frankly I had no doubt about, so our sexual intercourse began, I was 44 and he had 21. He obviously kept sleeping almost always at his parents’ home. 
They were incredible days, I was happy, but I hid in the most secret part of the soul the fear that all this could come to an end because he sooner or later could have experienced the need to fall in love with a coetaneous. Obviously I could not talk to him about this, but the fear was always present. Our relationship has been going on for two years and a little longer, then he met another guy, a little older, and talked to me about him. At that moment I realized I would lose him in a short time. He practically talked to me almost to ask me permission to stay with that guy. 
I’ve done everything to make him detach from me as less painfully as possible. I told him that I loved him and that I didn’t feel betrayed at all and that I always would have loved him. We said goodbye and for a couple of months I did not have any news. Then he called me again, he was fine with his boyfriend, at least so he said, but he wanted to see me again to make love with me, I didn’t know what to do. He insisted to the extreme limit and I did not dare to tell him no. We met and we made love taking all the precautions. He was happy, but I think he was most happy to have not been refused. I have had great guilty feelings over both his boyfriend and himself, because I had made him realize that that state of affairs was, after all, possible. 
In the following months, such behaviors repeated several times, more or less at intervals of a couple of weeks. Then he broke the relationship with his boyfriend, who I think was a great guy who loved him, and went looking for other experiences, from what I understood, just sex. I’ve seen him become more and more cynical. With me every now and then there was a bit of sex, with no risky and hyper-protected behaviors because I knew he had other guys. But with me there was not only sex, many times we talked for hours and very sincerely. He trusted me and he told me a lot of things about when he was a kid and then a teenager and I think the experiences he has gone through, really heavy, leave an indelible mark on him. 
Things have been going on in this way for some years now, he has his “contacts” (let’s call them so) for sex, and I’m among those contacts, and then with me every now and then there’s another kind of dialogue, sometimes with some very difficult moments when we both think it would be better not to meet anymore. I don’t call him, but when he calls me, what always happens at most within 10 days, dialogue resumes as if nothing had happened. 
He always tends to devalue the affective side and I tend to devalue the sexual one. He doesn’t like affectionate tones, at least so he says, and I don’t like the idea of being above all, though not just a “contact” for sex. About two weeks ago we came to harsh tones and I thought very seriously that the best thing would be to disappear altogether, but, I must tell the truth, I keep thinking about him, if I saw him quiet with a guy, that is if I saw him happy with a guy I’d be happy myself and I’d put me aside with peace of mind, but I’m objectively worried about him, I fear that he could let himself go too much and such a thing scares me, and then when he calls me, as it happened this morning, I feel that the contact between us has a profound meaning and I think it can be really important to him. I love him, sometimes I don’t understand him at all, but between us there is a strong bond, far beyond sex. 
Today he called me to propose a sex meeting, I told him no, but loosely, then we talked a bit, and frankly I was happy about his phone call. When we greeted he said, “I love you!” And it’s something he never says.
__________


If you like, you can participate in the discussion of this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-problems-of-a-dissymmetric-gay-love