| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 21 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 21 Guest(s)
|
| Latest Threads |
COOLING OF A GAY COUPLE A...
Forum: Gay couples
Last Post: gayprojectforum
12-12-2023, 04:16 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2,819
|
GAY SEX AND AFFECTIVE INV...
Forum: Gay couples
Last Post: gayprojectforum
11-05-2023, 09:50 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2,471
|
GAYS BETWEEN DREAM AND RE...
Forum: Gay discomfort
Last Post: gayprojectforum
10-25-2023, 03:36 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 227
|
GAYS AND SEXUAL DISCOMFOR...
Forum: Gay discomfort
Last Post: gayprojectforum
10-21-2023, 09:20 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 152
|
I FELL IN LOVE WITH A REA...
Forum: Gay couples
Last Post: gayprojectforum
10-20-2023, 07:58 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2,304
|
TWO-FACED GAY GUYS
Forum: Gay guys
Last Post: gayprojectforum
10-17-2023, 05:28 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 172
|
APOLOGY OF THE NORMAL GAY...
Forum: Gay couples
Last Post: gayprojectforum
10-16-2023, 06:12 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2,356
|
GAY SEXUAL ATTRACTION
Forum: Gays and sex
Last Post: gayprojectforum
10-16-2023, 01:37 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 172
|
GAY SEX AND SEXUAL INTIMA...
Forum: Gays and sex
Last Post: gayprojectforum
06-25-2023, 03:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 239
|
THE CHARM OF A MAN
Forum: Gay couples
Last Post: gayprojectforum
03-11-2023, 03:23 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2,580
|
|
|
| GAY GUYS AND MORAL |
|
Posted by: gayprojectforum - 09-04-2017, 09:50 AM - Forum: Understand to be gay
- No Replies
|
 |
Hello Project,
I’m twenty-one y. o. and live in a big city in northern Italy, until very recently, I considered myself straight in the deepest sense of the term, in practice I had never had any kind of gay thoughts, I have a girlfriend for three years now and I’m fine with her, without sex because I am a practicing Catholic and I consider wrong the idea of sex before marriage.
Let’s say that until two months ago I was what I thought to be, but now I’m beginning to think that in fact the idea of not having sex with my girlfriend for moral issues is just a kind of screen that hides other reasons (do not run to conclusions please). But there’s another thing I have to tell you. I begin to think that also in different situations comes to my mind the idea that I had or wanted to have a screen behind which to hide, I’m talking of auto-eroticism.
I try to explicate better. The Church condemns it and I eventually managed to do without it and, at the end, this is no more a big problem for me, I have always considered this thing a great achievement as the fact that I do not make use of pornography. I have several friends, I think all straight, I’m fine with them and I’ve never had fantasies about my friends and that’s it.
Let’s say that until two months ago everything was fine, then one night, between April 3 and April 4, just the Easter night, I had an erotic dream (what almost never happens to me) and it was a dream themed clearly gay, but it was beautiful, full of sweetness and at the same time of sexual involvement. In practice, in the dream, I think I’ve lived a beautiful love story and I felt deeply involved to the point that I had a wet dream.
The next morning I woke up horrified, I did not know what to think, I felt guilty. It was Easter and I went to confession. The priest was not at all upset and just said that to sin it takes the will to do it and I could not exercise any act of will in my sleep, but in fact I didn’t tell the priest that the dream was a gay themed dream. The speech of the priest reassured me about my possible sin, but in fact it did not solve the underlying problem: why a gay themed dream? And why was it so sweet? I kept inside me these questions and on the other hand I could not talk to anyone.
The images of the dream came back to my mind, I had also some very strong fantasy to let me go to masturbation thinking of those things but I endured and immediately banished such thoughts to avoid falling into dependence on those things. I just tried to avoid the feelings. I went out with my girlfriend but I started thinking that with her I had never had sexual contact not on moral grounds but because I wasn’t interested in her at all from that point of view.
This made me upset. I tried some minimal physical contact with her, as take her hand and caress it, but I did not feel anything, while in the dream making the same gestures with a guy had taken me to strong excitation. Then I also thought of another thing, my friends play sports and they invited me many times to go swimming with them but I’ve never gone for the most diverse reasons, now I’m beginning to think that I do not want to go there because I mut avoid the fear of being in exciting situations. Apparently I told myself that I was straight and that I did not go because I had no time, but basically maybe I did not go just to avoid any possible confirmation about my being gay, what seems far from being evident, but at least it is a hypothesis that I don’t have put aside completely, or perhaps I see it even likely.
Now the problem is big, if it was that I was gay, it would not even be a big deal, but I do not want to give up what I’m, in the sense that yes, I may be gay being also Catholic and I have understand how to put the two things together. This is the big problem.
At the limit, even if it may seem paradoxical I would also be willing to put aside the idea of living sexually a story with a guy, I think it would not be so complicated, all I need is an affectionate friendship. Perhaps what I say may be completely contradicted by the facts, but I think I could live according to the rules of religion. I have read what you have published on “Gays and the Church”, but, excuse me for saying so, maybe you lack the ability to understand things from inside.
I try to follow the rules and so far I have not regretted it and would like to go on living even my gay feelings, if they are really gay, according to those rules. I do not want to sacrifice my values, things that are really important to me that give me certainty and I do not want to live with a foot in both camps, in the sense of playing with the sacraments, to me is a serious matter.
I tell you sincerely that the idea of being gay upsets me a bit, I understand who I am and what I want but I want to keep my principles intact as I have done so far, as far as possible. I often wonder if there may be other guys like me who would also be willing a form of friendship without sex with another guy or if it’s just my imagination. Do what you want of this message, that is, if you think it may be published, publish it, or answer in private.
Bye and thank you for everything.
A. B.
_________
Hello,
I read your mail. I do not run to conclusions because you’ve come to the conclusions yourself. You are stating assumptions about how to reconcile being gay with your essential moral choices and you seem to have actually rejected the idea of being gay for what the word means in practice, and to transpose everything on a level of a close friendship.
Frankly, even if it was (as you say) that you found a guy willing to sacrifice his sexuality to its moral principles (very theoretical hypothesis) or better to the moral principles of his boyfriend (a hypothesis which I think frankly fiction), it’s very likely that later this kind of relationship will degenerate into a very different thing and so gay sexuality would end up to be mixed with a deep guilt very difficult to remove. You told me you don’t like to keep a foot in both camps, but the hypothesis of a close friendship with a gay guy seems very much like a bridge idea that should let you go towards acceptance of gay sexuality, even if you think that it’s a credible hypothesis. Loving friendship without sex with a guy, for a gay guy, is only possible, if it really is, with a straight guy and frankly
I would ask how your intentions to remain faithful to your principles could stand in front of a real (not hypothetical) affectionate and loving friendship with another gay guy. Seen from outside your behaviors suggest a form of self-repression of gay sexuality that is, for a gay guy, just the sexuality. I can’t asses you motivations because I see them from outside, but I’m very perplexed.
I understand to a certain extent the reasons related to the idea of fidelity to the moral thought of the church, and I wonder to what extent your moral judgment really comes to condemn gay sexuality. Frankly, it seems very unlikely that a guy, maybe gay as you are, can really think that “his” sexuality is a form of pathological deviance. In practice beyond the moral given from outside there’s the internal morality and this internal morality can’t at all condemn being gay as depravity.
Project
|
|
|
| GUYS WHO DON’T MASTURBATE |
|
Posted by: gayprojectforum - 09-04-2017, 09:42 AM - Forum: Gays and sex
- No Replies
|
|
[Foreword: all excerpts of e-mail published in this post have been published with the express permission of authors, to which I am very grateful.]
This post is dedicated to those guys who for various reasons have never had the experience of masturbation. It happens to me sometimes to talk in chat with guys who have no experience of voluntary physical sexuality but know the physiological manifestations of sexuality exclusively through nocturnal emissions lived also as something unseemly and dirt. These guys appear on a personal level as characterized by a substantial indifference to physical sexuality and are encouraged to consider physical sexuality like an expression of a defect or lack of control over themselves.
For these guys the distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality, in fact, is not very significant because upstream lacks a realistic perception of sexuality. It should be pointed out that often these guys are not teens but young adults between 20 and 30 years which seem at first sight entirely refractory to sexual impulses that their peers consider essential. Clearly, when these guys try to build relationships with other guys or girls, their conception only theoretical and potentially negative of the sexuality makes them look strange in the eyes of others, they are considered as dreamers far from reality, romantic or less politely as people outside the world. Clearly, the lack of a real dialogue on content related to sexual life puts these guys in a state of isolation and marginalization.
Their emotional life without real sexual involvement can be adapted to a life of formal relationships but prevents them from establishing contacts in which affectivity and sexuality are both present in an essential way. In general, these guys do not feel embarrassed to talk about sexual content because for them this is something entirely theoretical. The impossibility of living a substantial physical sexuality in the first person is associated with a very strong emotional dimension, made of tenderness, requests for attention and looking for an important loving presence. Masturbation is considered by these guys as something very negative in terms of vice and the same goes for the couple sexuality in all its forms. It lacks, at least in appearance, any sexual desire.
What is needed here is a reflection on a fundamental moment of adolescence that is the discovery of masturbation. Too often the role of masturbation is trivializes considering it a kind of erotic game end in itself, in reality there is nothing to trivialize because the masturbation leads to the discovery of a desired physical sexuality in relation to a series of sexual fantasies. The association of mental sexual fantasies and physical sexuality is really achieved through masturbation. Sexuality is structured not as a purely physiological phenomenon but as a complex psycho-physiological phenomenon, in which a physiological reaction follows even the only appearance of a sexual fantasy.
The dimension of the sexual pleasure experienced through masturbation, gives a very strong psychic weight to erection and orgasm because connects these things with a projective fantasy directed towards other people. The masturbatory fantasies are usually so fundamental and independent of social conditionings that, beyond the couple behavior, a guy is considered gay if he masturbates constantly fantasizing about other guys.
Masturbation creates and consolidates the so-called sexual archetypes that set the physical types of the guys or girls and situations that for a guy can be highly engaging in sexual level in adult life. A guy doesn’t fall in love with any guy or any girl but only with those that match significantly to his archetypes and we can add that certain situations that are sexually exciting to some are not to others because do not correspond to their archetypes. Years ago, when it was very difficult for guys to access information about sexuality and masturbation was a taboo that was never discussed, the discovery of masturbation was done independently and randomly in the great majority of cases, today, with the fall of many sexual taboos and the spread of pornography even among the youngest boys, the discovery of masturbation is very often the result of an experiment by imitation externally induced. The fact is that masturbation plays certainly a key role in the structuring of adult sexuality.
I should add that, contrary to what is said, masturbation is not something that purely or predominantly belongs to adolescent guys but accompanies a person throughout life and lives normally with the couple sexuality, indeed many diseases of couple relationships are made evident from the fact that one partner masturbates with fantasies outside the couple or if the couple is heterosexual, with homosexual fantasies. When there is no masturbation the perception of sexuality is often altered and reductive, and this fact causes significant consequences.
What can prevent a boy to get to the discovery of masturbation? The possible answers to this question are two: first, the physical impediments, such as hypersensitivity of the glans, which makes penis handling particularly painful and therefore discourages or prevents entirely from the beginning any form of sexual exploration, second psychological barriers strongly internalized. It should be kept in mind that usually some type of physical impediments tend to be less limiting with the passing of years because, for example, the hypersensitivity of the glans generally decreases with age and this implies that some guys may arrive too late to discover masturbation.
Add that since in general the hypersensitivity of the glans tends to decrease very gradually, in these cases the discovery of masturbation is not entirely without problems because masturbation can cause pain or however require techniques that avoid the rubbing of the glans. In these cases, in general, the first impressions that the boys derive from the new experience are not entirely pleasant and usually masturbation is considered an exclusively physical experience, completely independent of emotional involvement because of the lack of upstream experience of falling in love sexually experienced through masturbation, which are the fundamental element of adolescence.
In practice, during adolescence guys learn to associate sexuality and affectivity through masturbation linked to falling in love, the so-called emotional masturbation. For guys now over 20 y. o., since they haven’t lived the typical experiences of adolescence, the association between affectivity and sexuality is not automatic, but looks like something absolutely not obvious. We can say that the belated discovery of masturbation leads to a delayed adolescence, that is to live the experiences of association of masturbation and affection in the adult age.
It is a delicate moment of the emotional and sexual evolution of a guy but if he doesn’t experience forms of rejection of sexuality, the so-called delayed adolescence is resolved in about 12/18 months in which the frequency of masturbation increases progressively and take place the first associations between sexual fantasies and masturbation. For a while affectivity and sexuality can seem still separate realities but with the passing of the months affectivity and sexuality are integrated more and more and eventually reach the full integration of the two spheres and the guy overcomes the delayed adolescence in a typical adult sexuality, i. e. on affective base. Very different and I would say also more complex is the situation of the guys who do not have physical impediments to masturbation but have never practiced it for other reasons. I emphasize that I do not mean the guys who have engaged in masturbation but then voluntarily abstained from it but just the guys who have never practiced it.
Let’s put aside for now the situations in which there may be non-mechanical physical problems (as in the case of hypersensitivity of the glans), but hormonal ones and let us pause to consider the guys who have had a normal sexual development, or who have nocturnal periodic emissions, sign of normal physiological functioning of the reproductive organs and let’s focus on the situations in which the non-discovery of masturbation has psychological or environmental reasons. In these situations it’s certainly impossible to assume that the obstacles will disappear by themselves. Some things should be kept in mind: these guys live in a situation of hardship and tend to close up more and more. The rejection of physical sexuality is understood almost as a personal characteristic and a moral value to which they should not give up but on the other hand these guys live a form of very strong emotional feeling, in lieu of sexuality.
It is from this last item, taken into account as something conscious, that can begin the discovery of physical sexuality in adulthood. In reality, these guys would need a very gradual approach to sexuality from their strong emotional dimension, which is certainly not easy to get. When these guys get courage and approach a guy or a girl are in front of a whole set of expectations and behaviors that are incomprehensible to them and even morally negative because in those behaviors they read a sexual purpose of which they do not understand the meaning. I quote here a passage from an e-mail where a guy explains the situation:
“There was a guy who looked like one as it should be, not one who says only stupid jokes and ambiguous, I tried to speak, but in the end I realized that he was like all the others, for him the meaning of the fact that we were friends was to tell me about his girl and wanted me to tell him about mine, which I never had, I did not know what to say and he was perplexed, I asked why he had given all this emphasis on sex and he told me that it was obvious, I told him that was not obvious to me, then he asked me if I liked girls and I said that I liked them but as friends, and then told me that I was gay but for him there was no problem, but I told him that I never had sexual gay fantasies and I liked being with a guy, but just as a friend, just as I was with him, then he began to look at me strangely and then asked me whom I think about when I masturbate but I told him that I do not masturbate at all nor I did before and I do not understand why people is obsessed by such things, and he was appalled. Then it was over with this guy obviously he was scared but I did not understand why.”
In another passage the same guy describes his first contact with a girl:
“I also tried with a girl, I was fine with her and she with me, We told each other many things, all on msn, we talked so much, she was very sweet and affectionate, at one point she asked me for a picture but I did not send it and at that point I think she was upset but she said I was doing well. We talked a lot, she told me that I was not like the other guys, that I was sweet and she was fine with me and that she wanted to be with me as long as possible. At a certain point, but after a long time, I asked her if she wanted to meet me and she was happy, I thought I had found a true friend as I wanted. We met, we talked, and then in the car she took me by the hand, it was a good thing, I liked it, then we kissed, at first I liked it, it was a sweet thing but then I didn’t like it any more, it seemed almost a play, like what you see in the movies, so I told her that I did not feel at ease and she said, “Why? What have I done? “I told her that I was not sexually interested in her because I don’t like girls who try to seduce me sexually. She started to cry, got out of the car and went away, then blocked my contact on msn and we did not contact anymore.”
These examples give an idea of the difficulties that these guys have to face. The guys or the girls who relate with them take it for granted that their vision of sexuality is just the same for everybody else but it is a wrong presumption. There would need a much softer approach in which the sexual dimension can be put aside for long periods so as to never appear aggressive.
I reproduce below an excerpt from an email sent by a guy who has discovered masturbation at 23 y. o. and with whom I had occasion to speak very often. That guy arrived at Gay Project on the presumption that his lack of interest in girls might arise from some sort of homosexuality. In reality it was a guy who had never had the experience of masturbation because of a very strict upbringing strongly internalized. After a few attempts, similar to those reported in the previous examples, he met a girl who was really in love with him, he was persuaded, after much hesitation, to speak clearly with that girl, he was afraid of getting another rejection but things went another way.
The relationship absolutely non-aggressive went on for months in an exclusively affective way but extremely serious. The guy lost his job and she always supported him. After about a year and a half, things have changed, the girl had to leave for work but somehow they were still together. They could meet only on Saturdays and Sundays. I reproduce below an extract of the email in which the guy tells me that he has solved the problem and has begun to understand the meaning of masturbation and sexuality.
“Hello Project, I think I got there, I think so. So tonight I have a dream about her, something tender, sweet, nice, I missed her like crazy, but it was a beautiful dream, this is the first time I make a sexual dream, nothing strange only sweet, caresses, kisses, things like that, but the fact is that I ejaculated in my dream and it was beautiful. It is the first time that a pollution seems to me a good thing. Anyway, it would be a lot but at this point you can imagine what follows, I did it! Somehow it seems to me a bit strange, however, is not at all repellent, in reality it is true that it is a way of loving a person! Project, you cannot imagine how happy I feel! I sent her a text message and told her, and she said she feels happier than me. What do you think? Will it last? I sure hope so. Honestly I feel a bit weird. Project, I might as well have a family, maybe my fantasy is running fast, I guess I’ll have to figure out a lot of things, I feel like a little boy who discovers a new world!”
Unfortunately situations similar to the one just described are not common. In essence, the sexuality in these situations must be conveyed through a profound emotional dimension. However, it is evident that when a guy living these situations puts apart the discouragement and accepts the risk to tell the truth the chances increase. Being overcome by fear leads to the rejection of social contact and to the refusal of deep emotional experiences. Overcoming fear is crucial.
|
|
|
|
| STATISTICS ON GAY SEXUALITY |
|
Posted by: gayprojectforum - 09-03-2017, 07:32 PM - Forum: Announcements and Services
- No Replies
|
|
I am pleased to announce that now (January 24, 2013) Statistics on gay sexuality by Gay Project are finally available online. The statistics show the status of data at the time of interrogation. Since statistics are mostly about hidden gays, who clearly cannot be reliably detected, it is impossible to create samples that can be said representative in a statistical sense (Gay Project statistics represent the picture of those who have completed the questionnaire), the statistics are nevertheless very important because they are practically the only tool that provides an objective survey of gay sexuality extended to hidden gays.
The service is offered in both Italian and English language.
I invite you to complete and post the questionnaire to contribute to the development of the project (all indications are available on the page linked below):
STATISTICS ON GAY SEXUALITY
Here bellow you can read the complete questionnaire:
1) My age
Use integers only
2) My marital status
I’m single
I’m engaged to a girl
I’m married
I am separate
I’m divorced
3) Sons
No children
I have only one child
I have more than one child
4) Family pressures
My family has never affected me in matters related to my sexuality
I think that my family in the end would let me free to follow my emotional/sexual orientation without major problems
My family expects me to be straight
My family would not accept at all that I was not straight
5) Social expectations
The social context in which I live has virtually no weight on emotional/sexual choices
The social context in which I live I think that in the end would be entirely indifferent to my affective/sexual orientation and I would not cause big problems
The social context in which I live would not accept me easily as gay
In the social context in which I live, as a gay man I would have life impossible
6) Why are you doing this test?
I do the test because I have some doubts about my sexual orientation
I do the test because I’d find confirmation of what I already know in practice on my sexual orientation
I do the test out of curiosity
7) Anxiety and sexual orientation
I’ve never lived with anxiety the issues related to my sexual orientation
At the beginning I lived with anxiety the issues related to my sexual orientation but It doesn’t happen anymore
I still live anxiously the situations related to my sexual orientation
I think that the issues related to my sexual orientation are wrapping me from several points of view
8) Have you done before other tests concerning sexual orientation?
I’ve never done before other tests concerning sexual orientation
I’ve done other tests on sexual orientation but only for fun
I’ve done other tests on sexual orientation and I was not satisfied in the sense that I was not given any definite answer
9) Have you read books or specific articles on sexology or sexual psychology?
I have never read books or specific articles on sexology or sexual psychology
Sometimes I read specific books or articles on sexology or sexual psychology but only out of curiosity
I’d like to read specific books or articles on sexology or sexual psychology but I really don’t have time
I tried to learn seriously reading different specific books or articles on sexology or sexual psychology
10) Have you ever consulted a psychologist for reasons related to sexuality?
I have never consulted a psychologist for reasons related to sexuality
Once I consulted a psychologist for reasons related to sexuality but then I gave up because I thought it was not useful
Once I consulted a psychologist for reasons related to sexuality but then I gave up because it was too expensive
Once I consulted a psychologist for reasons related to sexuality but then I gave up because I did not feel at ease
I have consulted a psychologist for reasons related to sexuality but I haven’t gotten any results
I have consulted a psychologist for reasons related to sexuality and it was definitely useful
11) Have you ever consulted a psychologist for reasons other than sexuality?
I have never consulted a psychologist for reasons other than sexuality
Once I consulted a psychologist for reasons other than sexuality but then I gave up because I thought it wasn’t useful
Once I consulted a psychologist for reasons other than sexuality but then I gave up because it was too expensive
Once I consulted a psychologist for reasons other than sexuality but then I gave up because I did not feel at ease
I have consulted a psychologist for reasons other than sexuality but I haven’t gotten any results
I have consulted a psychologist for reasons other than sexuality and it was definitely useful
12) How do you perceive your sexual orientation
At the beginning I also had a straight period but now I feel much gay
I’ve always felt gay from the beginning
I’m gay, but sometimes I also feel straight impulses
I’am gay but I’m not sexually indifferent to the girls
I’m bisexual with a high gay prevalence
I’m bisexual with a slight gay predominance
I feel bisexual with no particular orientation gay or straight
I felt fully heterosexual or fully gay depending on the time
I’m bisexual with wit a light straight prevalence
I’m bisexual with a high straight prevalence
I’m straight, but the I’m not sexually indifferent to the guys
I’m straight, but sometimes I also feel gay impulses
I have always felt straight from the beginning
At the beginning I also had a gay phase but now I feel much straight
13) Openly/Hidden
I’m openly gay to everyone
I’m gay but only a few friends and my family know
I’m gay but only know a few friends know but at home no one knows
I’m gay but I act straight with my family
I’m gay but I act straight with everyone
I’m bisexual and everyone knows it
I’m bisexual but only a few friends and my family know
I’m bisexual but I only a few friends know but at home no one knows
I’m bisexual but I act straight with my family
I’m bisexual but I act straight with everyone
I’m straight
14) How other consider you in relation to the sexual orientation
My sexuality is not a mystery to anyone
All consider me 100% straight
I think my sexual orientation doesn’t interest anyone
I’m always on my own and other people don’t deal with me
Maybe others have some doubts about my sexual orientation but don’t talk about
The others have doubts about my sexual orientation but don’t talk about in front of me
I think that others think I’m gay
They think I’m gay, and they tell me it clearly
15) Affective orientation perceived
At first I fell in love with girls but now I tend to fall in love just with guys
I tend to fall in love just with guys
I tend to fall in love only with guys but I think I could fall in love with some girls too
I tend to fall in love only with guys but with some girls I’m just fine
I tend to fall in love almost exclusively with guys but also with some girls
I tend to fall in love with both guys and girls, perhaps more with guys
I tend to fall in love with guys and girls equally.
I tend to fall in love with guys or with girls according to the time
I tend to fall in love with both boys and girls, perhaps more with girls
I tend to fall in love almost exclusively with girls, but also some guys
I tend to fall in love only with girls but I’m just fine with some guys
I tend to fall in love only with girls but I think I could fall in love with some guys
I tend to fall in love only with girls
At first I fell in love with guys but now I tend to fall in love only with girls
16) Couple’s sexuality
I’ve never had sex neither heterosexual nor gay
At the beginning I had sex with girls but now I have relationships only with guys
I’ve only had sex with guys
I have sexual relations only with guys despite some straight fantasies
I have sexual relations only with guys but I’m also attracted to girls
I have sexual relations with guys almost exclusively, but sometimes also with girls
I have sexual relations mostly with guys but also with girls
I have sexual relations with guys and girls equally
I have sexual relations with either boys and girls according to the time
I have sexual relations especially with girls but also with guys
I have sex almost exclusively with girls, but sometimes also with guys
I have sexual relations only with girls but I’m also attracted to the guys
I have sexual relations only with girls despite some gay fantasy
I’ve only had sex with girls
At the beginning I had sex with guys but now I have relationships only with girls
17) My ideal couple’s sexuality
The ideal, for me, would be a stable couple openly publicly declared, marriage style
The ideal for me would be a stable couple declared only to family and close friends
The ideal for me would be a stable couple declared only to close friends
The ideal for me would be a couple with a minimum of flexibility but with a stable emotional relationship
I don’t seek a stable partner, I don’t even think it makes sense to try
18) My possible project of couple’s sexuality
I think for me it is possible to achieve a stable couple openly declared, marriage style
I think for me it is possible to achieve a stable couple declared only to family and close friends
I think for me it is possible to achieve a stable couple declared only to close friends
I think for me it is possible to make a couple with a minimum of flexibility but with a stable emotional relationship
I think for me it is not even possible to have a stable partner and not even tried to find
19) Orientation of masturbation
At the beginning I masturbated with straight fantasies but now I only do it with gay fantasies
I masturbate only with gay fantasies
I masturbate only with gay fantasies, sometimes I even have heterosexual fantasies but not connected with masturbation
I masturbate with gay fantasies but I think I could do it even thinking about some girls
I masturbate almost exclusively with gay fantasies, but very rarely also thinking about some girls
I masturbate mostly with gay fantasies but sometimes thinking about girls
I masturbate thinking is either the boys and the girls
I masturbate thinking about boys or girls depending on the time
I masturbate mostly with heterosexual fantasies but sometimes also thinking about guys
I masturbate almost exclusively with heterosexual fantasies, but very rarely also thinking about some guys
I masturbate with straight fantasies but I think I could do it even thinking about some guys
I masturbate only with heterosexual fantasies, sometimes I also have gay fantasies but not connected with masturbation
I masturbate only with heterosexual fantasies
At the beginning I masturbated with gay fantasies but now I do it only with heterosexual fantasies
20) Variability of masturbatory fantasies
My masturbatory fantasies are almost always the same
My masturbatory fantasies seldom change
My masturbatory fantasies are highly variable
21) Use of pornography
I never use pornography
Sometimes I go on straight porn sites t but just out of curiosity
Sometimes I go on gay porn sites but just out of curiosity
Sometimes I go on porn sites both straight and gay, but only out of curiosity
I use mostly straight porn sites to masturbate, I do it often, but I don’t feel affected
I use mainly gay porn sites to masturbate, I do it often, but I don’t feel affected
I use porn sites both straight and gay to masturbate, I do it often, but I don’t feel affected
I use only straight porn sites to masturbate, I do it often, but I don’t feel affected
I use only gay porn sites to masturbate, I do it often, but I don’t feel affected
I’m partially heterosexual pornography addict, I’m on all the time I can
I’m partially gay pornography addict, I’m on all the time I can
I’m partially both straight and gay pornography addict, I’m on all the time I can
Straight pornography for me is a kind of obsession, practically all my time on the internet is dedicated to straight porn sites and I cannot help it
The gay pornography for me is a kind of obsession, practically all my time on the internet is dedicated to gay porn sites and I cannot help it
All pornography both straight and gay for me is a kind of obsession, practically all my time on the internet is dedicated to porn sites and I cannot help it
22) Why I use pornography
I don’t use pornography
I use of pornography because I can’t freely express my sexuality and pornography is practically the only sexual outlet I have
Concrete occasions of sexual involvement in every’s life are few and pornography helps to live at least a virtual sexuality
I might as well do without it but I don’t see why I should, since if you do it with intelligence it doesn’t harm
23) How often do you masturbate using pornography?
I never masturbate using pornography
From 0% to 10%
From 10% to 20%
From 20% to 30%
From 30% to 40%
From 40% to 50%
From 50% to 60%
From 60% to 70%
From 70% to 80%
From 80% to 90%
From 90% to 100%
24) Have you ever gone on a pay porn site?
I’ve never been on a pay porn site
I went on a pay porn site only once
I went on a pay porn site from 2 to 5 times
I went on a pay porn site from 6 to 10 times
I went on a pay porn site more than 10 times
I often go on pay porn sites
25) How many porn sites do you visit regularly?
Usually I don’t visit porn sites
Usually I visit a single porn site
Usually I visit from 2 to 5 porn sites
Usually I visit from 6 to 10 porn sites
Usually I visit more than 10 porn sites
26) Sexual interest polarization
My sexual fantasies focus on a single person who has strong emotional meaning for me
My sexual fantasies focus on two people who have strong emotional meaning for me
My sexual fantasies focus on a small group of people who have strong emotional meaning for me
My sexual fantasies focus especially on people whom I know and attract me sexually
My sexual fantasies are mainly focused on episodes particularly exciting in terms of sex that I happen to live day by day
My sexual fantasies are mainly focused on past memories very exciting in terms of sex
My sexual fantasies are derived mainly from pornography
27) Frequency of masturbation and emotional state
The frequency of my masturbation is practically constant
The frequency of my masturbation tends to increase when I fall in love and to decrease when I’m depressed
The frequency of my masturbation tends to increase when I’m depressed and to decrease when I fall in love
28) What I think about masturbation
I consider masturbation something completely natural
I consider masturbation like a behavior that should go away if you really fall in love
I consider masturbation as a fact that eventually is accepted but is morally reprehensible because in fact exploits the image of another person
I consider masturbation a vice from which you should release because sexuality is a serious thing
29) Masturbation and affection
I consider masturbation and emotions are closely linked and when you fall in love you live in a different way
I think that masturbation and affection are two things that may also have something in common but generally masturbation is just a physiological outlet
I think that masturbation and emotions have nothing in common
30) How do I consider sexuality lived as a couple
I think that the couple’s sexuality is a manner to express love
I think that couple’s sexuality should be a manner to express love but in the end it trivializes the whole
I think that couple’s sexuality is still accepted but is morally wrong because in fact exploits another person for selfish
31) Attraction to the nakedness
I’ve never watched the nakedness of anyone, neither guy nor girl
I watched the nakedness of unaware girls
I watched the nakedness of other unaware guys
I watched the nakedness both of unaware other guys and of unaware girls
32) Causing sexually embarrassing situations
I’ve never done in a way that neither boys nor girls find themselves in sexually embarrassing situations
I acted in order to put other guys in sexually embarrassing situations
I acted in order to put girls in sexually embarrassing situations
I acted in order to put both other guys and girls in sexually embarrassing situations
33) Reactions in situations of collective non-sexual nakedness (locker rooms)
I’ve never been in situations of collective non-sexual nakedness
I made sure that I am not ever in a situation of collective non-sexual nakedness (locker rooms)
When I’m in situations of collective non-sexual nakedness (locker rooms), I feel embarrassment and try to be there for the shortest time possible
I like being in situations of collective non-sexual nakedness (locker rooms) but I try in every way to control my erection that is almost unavoidable
I like being in situations of collective non-sexual nakedness (locker rooms) but I try in every way to control my erection that is almost inevitable if there is any guy that interests me
I’m comfortable in situations of collective non-sexual nakedness (locker rooms) and if you get an erection in the end nothing happens
I’m comfortable in situations of collective non-sexual nakedness (locker rooms), I’m used to and I’m not any more effect
The situations of collective non-sexual nakedness (locker rooms), are for me totally indifferent
34) Heavy sex jokes made in group to other guys (e.g. forced stripping)
I never happened to be present at a heavy sex joke made in group to another guy (e.g. forced stripping)
When I happen to be present at a heavy sex joke made in group to another guy (e.g. forced stripping) I feel embarrassment
When I happen to be present at a heavy sex joke made in group to another guy (e.g. forced stripping) I get excited but I do not take part in the thing
When I happen to be present at a heavy sex joke made in group to another guy (e.g. forced stripping) I take part easily because, it’s just a joke
When I happen to be present at a heavy sex joke made in group to another guy (e.g. forced stripping) I take part easily because it is a sexual game and I like such tings
35) Do you talk about your sexuality with your friends?
My friends and I never talk about my sexuality
With my friends I act 100% straight
With my friends I try to avoid the subject and I don’t say to be gay but not even to be straight
My friends and I talk quietly about my sexuality
36) Do you go to sex chats?
I never go to sex chats
Sometimes I go to straight sex chats but just out of curiosity
Sometimes I go to gay sex chats but just out of curiosity
Sometimes I go both to straight and gay sex chats but just out of curiosity
I happened sometimes to go to straight sex chats because I was trying to contact girls but I never contacted any girl in person among those I met in sex chats
I happened sometimes to go to gay sex chats because I was trying to contact guys but I never contacted any guy in person among those I met in sex chats
I happened sometimes to go to straight sex chats because I was trying to contact girls and then I met in person some of those girls
I happened to go in sometimes to gay sex chats because I was trying to contact gays and then I met personally some of those guys
I happened several times to go to straight sex chats because I was trying to contact girls but I never met any girl in person among those I met in sex chats
I happened several times to go to gay sex chats because I was trying to contact guys but I never met any guy in person among those I met in sex chats
I happened several times to go to straight sex chats because I was trying to contact girls and then I met in person many of those girls
I happened several times to go to gay sex chats because I was trying to contact gays and then I met in person many of those guys
I regularly go to straight sex chats and I know this way many girls in person
I regularly go to gay sex chats and I meet this way many guys in person
37) Do you go to dating sites?
I never go to dating sites
Sometimes I go to straight dating sites but just out of curiosity
Sometimes I go to gay dating sites but just out of curiosity
Sometimes I go to dating sites both straight and gay, but only out of curiosity
I happened to attend sometimes straight dating sites because I was trying to contact girl but I never met any girl in person among those I met in dating sites
I happened to go sometimes to gay dating sites because I was trying to contact gays but I never met any guy in person among those I met in dating sites
I happened to attend sometimes to straight dating sites because I was trying to contact girls and then I met in person some of those girls
I happened to go sometimes to gay dating sites because I was trying to contact gays and then I met in person some of those guys
I happened several times to go to straight dating sites because I was trying to contact girls but I never met any girl in person among those I met in dating sites
I happened several times to go to gay dating sites because I was trying to contact gays but I never met any guy in person among those I met in dating sites
I happened several times to go to straight dating sites because I was trying to contact girls and then I met in person many of those girls
I happened several times to go to gay dating sites because I was trying to contact guys and then I met in person many of those guys
I regularly dating sites straight and I know so many girls in person
I regularly go to gay dating sites and I meet this way many guys in person
38) Have you ever been in a place openly gay?
I’ve never been in a place openly gay
Sometimes I was in a local openly gay but just out of curiosity
I happened sometimes to go to a local openly gay because I go there with friends
I happened sometimes to go to a local openly gay because I was trying to contact guys
I went several times to a local openly gay because I go there with friends
regularly go to the gay locals
39) Straight falling in love and masturbation
I’ve never been in love with a girl
When I fall in love with a girl I avoid masturbating
When I fall in love with a girl I masturbate thinking about her but after I have feelings of guilt
When I fall in love with a girl I masturbate quietly thinking about her
When I fall in love with a girl I masturbate thinking also about other girls but then I feel guilty because I seem to betray
When I fall in love with a girl I masturbate thinking also about some guy but after I feel guilty because I seem to betray
When I fall in love with a girl I masturbate quietly even thinking about other girls
When I fall in love with a girl I masturbate quietly even thinking about some guy
When I fall in love with a girl I masturbate just thinking about other girls, if I did thinking about her I’d feel guilty
40) Gay falling in love and masturbation
I’ve never been in love with a guy
When I fall in love with a guy I avoid masturbating
When I fall in love with a guy I masturbate thinking about him but then I feel guilty
When I fall in love with a guy I masturbate thinking quietly about him
When I fall in love with a guy I masturbate thinking also to other guys but then I feel guilty because it seems to me to betray him
When I fall in love with a guy I masturbate also thinking about some girls but after I feel guilty because it seems to me to betray him
When I fall in love with a guy I masturbate quietly even thinking about other guys
When I fall in love with a guy I masturbate quietly even thinking about some girls
When I fall in love with a guy I masturbate just thinking the other guys, if I did thinking about hit I’d feel guilty
41) Falling in love, sex chat and dating sites
When I fall in love I don’t go to sex chats and dating sites
When I fall in love I try to avoid sex chats and dating sites but don’t always succeed
When I fall in love I continue to go to sex chats and dating sites
I never go to sex chats and dating sites
42) Falling in love and pornography
When I fall in love I don’t need porn sites to masturbate
When I fall in love I try not to go to porn sites to masturbate but sometimes it happens
When I fall in love easily go on watching porn sites to masturbate
I never use pornography
43) Your first memories of episodes that had some sexual coloring for you
The first memories I have of episodes that had some sexual coloring are lost in the past, are distant and irrelevant in practice
The first memories I have of episodes that had some sexual coloring, for me, are not pretty
The first memories I have of episodes that had some sexual coloring, for me, are pleasant
44) The first episodes of your life that had some sexual coloring
The first episodes of my life that had any sexual coloring were about gays younger than me
The first episodes of my life that had some sexual coloring concerned girls younger than me
The first episodes of my life that had any sexual coloring were about gays almost my age
The first episodes of my life that had some sexual coloring concerned girls almost my age
The first episodes of my life that had had some sexual coloring concerned guys older than me
The first episodes of my life that had some sexual coloring concerned girls older than me
The first episodes of my life that had some sexual coloring concerned adult men
The first episodes of my life that had some sexual coloring concerned adult women
The first episodes of my life that had some sexual coloring were related to groups of only guys almost the my age
The first episodes of my life that had some sexual coloring were related to groups of only girls almost the my age
The first episodes of my life that had any sexual coloring were related yo mixed groups of guys and girls almost my age
The first episodes of my life that had some sexual coloring were related to groups of only guys older than me
The first episodes of my life that had some sexual coloring were related to groups of only girls older than me
The first episodes of my life that had any sexual coloring were related to mixed groups of guys and girls older than me
45) The first episodes of your life that had any sexual coloring
The first episodes of my life that had any sexual coloring were homosexual
The first episodes of my life that had any sexual coloring were heterosexual
46) At what age did you discover masturbation?
Answer an integer
47) How did you discover masturbation?
I discovered masturbation alone
I discovered masturbation by speeches of friends
I discovered masturbation with another guy
I discovered masturbation with a girl
I discovered masturbation through masturbation in common with friends
I discovered masturbation through pornography
48) How did you react to the discovery of masturbation?
After the discovery of masturbation I felt panic
After the discovery of masturbation I felt uncertainty
After the discovery of masturbation I tried to suppress it
After the discovery of masturbation, I found it immediately attractive but I lived it with guilt
After the discovery of masturbation I had no problem and I lived very quietly from the beginning
49) The fantasies of your first masturbations
The fantasies of my first masturbations were straight
The fantasies of my first masturbations were gay
The fantasies of my first masturbations were mostly straight
The fantasies of my first masturbations were mostly gay
The fantasies of my first masturbations were both straight and gay
50) Whom were your first masturbations dedicated to?
My first masturbations were always dedicated to guys I had met in real life
My first masturbations were always dedicated to girls I had met in real life
My first masturbations were always dedicated to guys I had seen by accident
My first masturbations were always dedicated to girls I had seen by chance
My first masturbations were always or almost dedicated to pictures of guys coming from pornography and sometimes to guys I had met in real life
My first masturbations were always or almost dedicated to pictures of girls coming from pornography and sometimes to girls I had met in real life
My first masturbations were dedicated both to guys and girls but mostly to guys
My first masturbations were dedicated both to guys and girls but mostly to girls
My first masturbations were dedicated both to guys and girls much or less the same way
51) After the discovery of masturbation did you talk anyone?
After the discovery of masturbation I did not talk about to anyone
After the discovery of masturbation I talked about with my parents
After the discovery of masturbation I talked about with a priest
After the discovery of masturbation I talked about with a psychologist
After the discovery of masturbation I talked about with some older friends
After the discovery of masturbation I talked about with some friends my age
52) At what age did you have your first contact with pornography?
Answer using an integer
53) How did you come to pornography?
I have never come to pornography
I have come to pornography to mimic the behavior of friends
I have come to pornography on the suggestion of friends
I have come to pornography just out of spontaneous curiosity
54) How did you react to the discovery of pornography?
After the discovery of pornography I reacted with excitement
After the discovery of pornography I reacted with feelings of guilt
After the discovery of pornography I reacted with uncertainty
After the discovery of pornography I reacted by trying to avoid it
After the discovery of pornography I found it interesting from the beginning but I was living it with guilt
After the discovery of pornography I had no problem at all and I used it very quietly from the beginning
55) Have you ever told anyone that you were using pornography?
I’ve never told anyone that I was using pornography
I told my parents that I was using pornography
I told a priest that I was using pornography
I told a psychologist that I was using pornography
I told friends older than me that I was using pornography
I told friends my age that I was using pornography
I never used pornography
56) At what age did you first had sexual contact with another person?
Reply 0 if it never happened
57) Who was the person with whom you had the first sexual contact?
I never had sexual contacts
The person with whom I had my first sexual contact was a guy younger than me
The person with whom I had my first sexual contact was a guy my age or so
The person with whom I had my first sexual contact was a guy older than me
The person with whom I had my first sexual contact was an adult man
The person with whom I had my first sexual contact was a girl younger than me
The person with whom I had my first sexual contact was a girl my age or so
The person with whom I had my first sexual contact was an girl older than me
The person with whom I had my first sexual contact was an adult woman
58) How did you get to have the first sexual contact with another person?
I got to have my first sexual contact in a situation that was as a game
I got to have my first sexual contact in a situation that was to me a strong sexual interest
I got to have my first sexual contact in a situations of physical or psychological coercion
I have never had sexual contact
59) Your first sexual contacts were completely episodic or were repeated?
My first sexual contact was entirely episodic, it happened only once
I would say that my first sexual contacts were sporadic, they only happened a few times
My first sexual contacts for a while have become a habit
I never had sexual contacts
60) Satisfaction of your first sexual contact
I really liked my first sexual contact
My first sexual contacts were like a game or so to me
I didn’t really like my first sexual contacts but I didn’t even feel unpleasant
As for my first sexual contacts, I was not displeased but I felt guilty, I said earlier to reject them but then I ended up accepting
I never had sexual contacts
61) Evolution of masturbatory sexuality
My masturbatory fantasies were and still are always gay
My masturbatory fantasies were and still are always straight
My masturbatory fantasies tend to become progressively more gay
My masturbatory fantasies tend to become progressively more straight
My masturbatory fantasies have always been more or less variable
62) How did you meet your current partner or your last partner?
I’ve never had couple’s partners
I met my current partner (or my last partner) at school
I met my current partner (or my last partner) at the university
I met my current partner (or my last partner) at work
I met my current partner (or my last partner) through friends
I met my current partner (or my last partner) via dating sites
I met my current partner (or my last partner) through erotic chats
I met my current partner (or my last partner) attending locals
I met my current partner (or my last partner) randomly through the internet
63) How many guys have you had sexual contact with during your life?
Indicate 0 if it never happened
64) How many girls have you had sexual contact with during your life?
Indicate 0 if it never happened
65) On average, how long endured your straight relationships? Indicate an average in months
Indicate 0 if it never happened
66) On average, how long endured your gay relationships? Indicate an average in months
Indicate 0 if it never happened
67) How did you behave when you weren’t engaged?
When I wasn’t engaged I tried to find a girl
When I wasn’t engaged I tried to find a guy
When I wasn’t engaged I didn’t try to find neither boys nor girls
When I wasn’t engaged I tried to find both boys and girls
|
|
|
|
| GAY FEELINGS BETWEEN LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP |
|
Posted by: gayprojectforum - 09-03-2017, 07:27 PM - Forum: Gay orientation
- No Replies
|
|
Hello Project,
I don’t know if you remember me, 25 y. o. then, now 26, I give you a clue, we also talked about fencing, I wrote you several months ago when I was affected by a great sense of depression and fear, especially fear because I was getting into trouble but you made me understand it, we talked almost until the morning.
Well, I want to tell you that things have changed and that the cold shower that I got that night was good for me. I abandoned all clubs and dating sites, it was not easy because even if that environment was for me depressing, it was essentially the only outlet for me and actually I was about to enter a real phase of addiction. I started to attend my old friends, all straight but all good guys. I graduated and I also found a job, unfortunately only fixed-term but somehow it’s a job. I had to fabricate an imaginary girl living in another city to ward off the attentions of my co-workers (clearly female co-workers) and especially the gossip, but this is not very important.
I am writing to tell you about another story that has really changed my life. You know that I live in a small village about 30 kilometers from my home town. At that time I still had to make the final exams and to discuss the thesis because I was back to study and I wanted to come to the end as soon as possible. I had an appointment with my teacher at the University to 9.00 in the morning, so I had to leave home at 7.30. I go out, and go by car because of bad weather (October), just after one of the three villages that I have to cross to get to the city it begins to rain heavily, I see a guy on the side of the road without umbrella and looking for a ride, I stop and I do him get in the car. He was hooded and I had barely caught a glimpse of him. He gets in the car all wet and bathes all over the seat, he doesn’t even apologize but immediately asks if I’m going to town, we did not even shook hands, he seems to me quite unkempt, beard of a few days, long hair, nails not very appealing, etc. etc..
During the ride (about 20 minutes) we were in silence without saying a word. When we were close to a porch he asked me to stop and got out of the car, but said nothing. I had to go to the University and it ended there. About a week after, more or less exactly the same thing happens again, this time it pours and we stop for a few minutes to wait for it to pass the time of the most intense rain but almost without saying a word. I just said that in practice I was going to town by car every day at the same time. He didn’t even respond. Then the rain falls and he gets out, but the day after he is in the same place but not hitchhiking, I have the distinct impression that he is there waiting for me.
To reach a minimum of meaningful discourse it took us more than a month but then it happened. We were in the car talking for half an hour. He is 28 years old, I’ll call him Paul, he lives in a village 10 km away from my house, a little village, now he is unemployed because it is very difficult to find a job, to me the matter of work went well but it’s really hard today. In the past worked as an agronomist in a farm. The dialogue with him is very difficult, he tends to see things in a negative way, then at some point the conversation ends, he thanks me in a very ritual way and leaves. In the following days I found him in the same place and at the same time.
And here’s the story of the Sunday. Obviously I do not go to town on Sunday, but a particular Sunday it happened that I had to go and he was there in the same place, even though it was bitterly cold. This time we talked a little more, I asked him what he was doing in the city every day, he said he used to spend the day in a large shopping center because at least it was warm. So he went to town every day, even before we met, and this made me think that maybe he just wanted to get a ride by car, but there is an extra-urban bus line that comes right when I come and I often find the bus just before my car, but he does not take it, perhaps before we met he used to take a bus but now he doesn’t and waits for me. He is not a particularly nice guy and I was not interested from that point of view even if I wanted to understand why this guy was waiting for me in the morning (also on Sunday) just to spend twenty minute with me, if things were really that way.
Project, do not expect sensational endings to this story, at least externally nothing has happened, I know almost nothing about him, he doesn’t tell me and I do not ask questions, but I go out every day to go into town (also on Sundays) in order to spend with him twenty minutes, it is paradoxical, I know. Since he doesn’t even accept my proposal to go to breakfast together. The only change I’ve seen in his habits is a little smile (the smile of someone who is not used to smile). I don’t know what to think about his (and also my) somehow strange behavior, I thought of anything, from the most tragic to the most stupid things but Paul is not superficial. I think he is studying me, I think he’s trying to figure out how deeply I’m interested, probably just as a friend, but the word friend is not reductive. I don’t know if he is gay, I do not know if I would like him to be gay, it’s all so incredibly undefined and yet it is something that intrigues me deeply.
I mean that I expect something from this guy, at least that this friendship will go on like this, that is, that will not end in anything, because for me, little by little, it became important. It was just the fact of thinking continuously of Paul that allowed me to live a real emotional life. Between going to a gay bar and meet people that only are searching for sex from you and thinking constantly of Paul to try to understand a little more about this guy, there is a huge difference, I have the impression that something has been created between us, even though I’m afraid that bring out the speech explicitly can actually make everything collapse.
Between us now there is some hint of a smile and some rare word but very significant and painful, nevertheless I have the impression that things are meaningful and between us there is also an encrypted but very serious dialogue, I do not know yet exactly what is the meaning of our dialog but Paul is now part of my life and I warn very clearly that my life has found its way. I think I’m fond of this guy, I’m fond of (I don’t speak about falling in love) and in the end I do not care whether he’s gay or not, it is as if I felt to be important to him beyond words, it does not matter why I’m important but I realize that I’m really important, I’m not just a piece of the puzzle as I was with other guys, but I’m important as a person.
I realize that what I say is heard and remembered, and that the words he says to me, even if rare, have been planned for a long time because they are especially dedicated to me. If one morning I didn’t find that guy in the same place as usual I would hurt, I would feel abandoned but it never happened and I make sure to never miss to that appointment and then there’s that smile. He may be just a depressed guy who needs a little attention but even this way I would be fine. I know that our silence has a deep meaning and that there is the pleasure of being together twenty minutes a day. For me those twenty minutes set the tone for the day.
Project, I do not deny that I have many doubts and especially I don’t know how to behave because I live in a kind of exhausting waiting for something to happen that never happens and I’m afraid to take the first step. Yet we are not kids, we should have put aside these hesitations now. I do not even know if I feel a sex drive for this guy, certainly for other guys I felt much stronger sexual involvement. He interests me in other respects, more complex and less easy to understand.
Project, I remember when we talked, you were trying to emphasize that the important things come when you least expect them and follow their own logic that has nothing to do with models that everyone can create in his head. I have no plans about this guy, I’m interested in him as a person, I just want to see him smile, maybe even with a girl. He is giving me a lot and I hope I can do the same for him. Project, I’m rediscovering what it means to love someone and it’s something that makes me feel good.
With affection.
Steven
|
|
|
|
| GAYS BETWEEN PREJUDICE AND RELATIVISM |
|
Posted by: gayprojectforum - 09-03-2017, 07:25 PM - Forum: Gays and religion
- No Replies
|
|
On April 18, 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in the Homily for the Mass for the election of the Roman Pontiff that preceded the opening of the conclave in which, the day after, he was elected pope, said:
“Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4: 14) comes true.
Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires”.
This sentence opens ideally the pontificate of Benedict XVI in the sign of contrast against relativism. According to the future Pontiff the relativism is “letting oneself be tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine” and its “ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires. “
I don’t enter into the merits of the statements of the pope. I would just like to mention and to develop an Indian legend told by Max Scheler in the first part of “Formalism in ethics and the ethics of material values” an extremely interesting book, published exactly 100 years ago, in 1913, which was intended to clarify what is relativism by treating the matter very seriously. The work is in German, but the Protestant and Jewish cultural influences, perhaps even more than the contents of the book itself, does not make it enjoyable in Catholic circles.
Max Scheler alludes to an Indian legend that I have to expand because it has a considerable explanatory meaning.
Many years ago, in India, a group of blind “wise men” were allowed to approach an elephant and they were told that it was an elephant, each of them touched the elephant only for a few seconds, then they were asked what an elephant was: one said it was a hard object such as marble, because he had only touched a tusk, another said it was like a very big snake capable of writhing in coils, because he had only touched the trunk, and another said it was a big paw.
According to the metaphor it’s obvious that each of the blind “wise men” realized that his point of view was relative and that to better understand what an elephant is it’s necessary to know and understand what others deduced from their own point of view. The truly wise men understand that relativism is not exceeded with the apodictic affirmation of a single point of view but only with a collaborative vision that enriches everyone and allows a better understanding of reality and at least a relative overcoming of the initial relativism. So far Max Scheler and I would say that it is already an illuminating metaphor.
Now let assume that among those blind wise men there was one that had got to stay a long time with other elephants, that certainly would have had a much better knowledge of what an elephant is, certainly a relative knowledge but much less relative than that of those who had could touch the elephant just for a minute, and the wise men, to understand what is really an elephant, would certainly be listening to those who had more experience about elephants.
Obviously if those same blind men were then taken next to a turtle and none of them had ever had contact with other turtles, none of them could have helped “a priori” to understand more and better than others what a turtle really is.
It wouldn’t certainly occur to me, since I’ve never ridden a horse, to explain to an experienced rider which positions are more “natural” to stay in the saddle, because talking about what you do not know means only show your ignorance of that topic, so anyone who is not gay, and does not live being gay from inside, should realize that he has a concept of being gay comparable with the idea of an elephant that can have a blind man who has approached an elephant only for a minute.
Mine is not a defense of relativism and I make explicit reference to Max Scheler if you want to get something serious about these topics.
Strongly assertive and dogmatic positions are supported not by their greater reliability derived from more experience or more rationality but only by a principle of authority. The concepts of “God’s law” or “natural law” are also presumptions, i.e. acts of faith, certainly respectable in themselves, but that in no case can be the basis of visions involving the devaluation of other points of view, or worse the restriction of the freedom of others. This would be like trying to impose the view that the elephant is a huge tusk because one of the blind men, particularly influential, has only touched the tusk (assuming that he has really touched it). If those blind men submit to the authority of one of them, they would not be wise because they would reject the idea of working for a better understanding of the things, that is not compatible with the idea that someone is right by definition. This is not like the Pope says “the dictatorship of relativism” but an elementary principle of common sense for which freedom is not compatible with any ideological dictatorship.
Gay men know the reality of their lives and yet have to see every day, imposed by the violent force of law, as is happening in Russia, or by the abuse of the name of God, as the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church usually do, the points of view of those who does not know what they are talking about.
It is not the relativism reductively understood, according to the words of the Pope, the basis of democracy that must form the foundation of the States, but the principle of mutual respect and collaboration, to guarantee the higher level of awareness for all, assuming that everyone is free to judge as he wants but if the judgment is not based on a real knowledge of the topics but on a mere prejudice, no one can claim in the name of that prejudice to limit the freedom or the rights of others.
|
|
|
|
| GAYS AND MASTURBATION BETWEEN SIN AND NORMALITY |
|
Posted by: gayprojectforum - 09-03-2017, 07:22 PM - Forum: Gays and religion
- No Replies
|
|
This post is dedicated to a comparison between the positions of the Catholic Church on the masturbation and the reality of the phenomenon, as it appears through a simple analysis of the facts.
The definition of masturbation given by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Part Three, Section Two, Chapter Two, art. 6, n. 2352) (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM) is: “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure“. The English text uses “sexual pleasure”, but the Latin one uses ”veneream voluptatem” (venereal lust). The use of the adjective venereal, now obsolete in everyday language and even in medical terminology where the expression “venereal diseases” has been replaced by the more accurate expression “sexually transmitted diseases”, is indebted to Thomas Aquinas, who, in the “quaestio” of Summa Theologica dedicated to lust (Summa Thelogica II^ IIae, q. 153), frequently uses expressions that refer to “venereal lust (ἀφροδισιαστικός)” such as “delectationes venereae”, “voluptates venereas”, “actus venereus”, “usus venereorum”.
The point n. 9 of the Declaration Persona Humana on masturbation is one of the most typical examples of closed dogmatic structure of Catholic morality.
The Declaration Persona humana approaches the topic “masturbation” recalling that: “The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young.” The Church opposes these psychological or sociological theories only with its authority stating that “according to someone” that the Church considers certainly in error, in masturbation “there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self (“ipsation”), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.” Beyond the fact that the text expressly speaks of “persons of different sex,” it introduces a distinction, in the context of masturbation, between “heterosexual” affective masturbation and “ipsation”. The term “ipsation” (from the Latin “ipse” = myself) was coined by Magnus Hirschfeld and was used in the psycho-biological questionnaire to be filled from patients of the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin founded by Hirschfeld himself in 1919.
The question. 35 of the questionnaire was as follows: “Do you ever let yourself go to ipsation, i.e. to the satisfaction achieved through onanism? When did you start masturbating? How did you contract this habit? Have you been encouraged by people of your age or of different ages? From people of your same sex or different sex? Up to what age? With what intervals and what mental representations and how did you masturbate? If you are a woman, by external caresses or through the introduction of foreign objects in your body? Have you ever struggled against this trend? If so, by what means (vows, prayers, etc.) “.
The document Persona humana uses the term ipsation (now very rarely used by sexologists) to indicate a “solitary pleasure closed in on self” that would be the reason for the immorality of this “only” kind of masturbation. Obviously the Declaration does not consider any psycho-sexual topic and merely judges morally irrelevant the distinction between “heterosexual” affective masturbation, which implies at least a projective couple dimension, and ipsation i.e. the non-affective masturbation, as if it was that there is a dividing line between the two, and as if the question of the moral legitimacy of masturbation was reduced to this. The document points out that masturbation is still and always condemned by the Church for constant tradition and that whatever the reasons that induce certain indulgence toward affective masturbation:
“This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church – in the course of a constant tradition – and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.”
The Document specifies the reason behind this judgment: “The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.” All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.” Whatever the value of the arguments to the contrary, the sentence is therefore bases its unfailing motivation on the teaching and tradition of the Church that legitimizes the use of the sexual faculty only in “normal conjugal relations“.
Very interesting is the evaluation of the significance of sociological research on the topic of masturbation, as proposed by the Vatican document: “Sociological surveys are able to show the frequency of this disorder according to the places, populations or circumstances studied. In this way facts are discovered, but facts do not constitute a criterion for judging the moral value of human acts.”
The Congregation in practice only paraphrases a document of Pope Paul VI, “If sociological surveys are useful to know the mentality of the environment and the concerns and needs of those to whom we proclaim the word of God, as well as the resistance that human reason could oppose in the modern age, with the widespread notion that does not exist outside of science, any legitimate form of knowledge, the findings of such investigations could never constitute in themselves a determinant criterion of truth.”(Paolo VI, Esort. apost. Quinque iam anni).
The Congregation goes to the identification of the causes of the frequency of masturbation as follows:
“The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man’s innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity.
Then the document mentions the “modern psychology” although it is not clear to what it refers specifically:
“On the subject of masturbation modern psychology provides much valid and useful information for formulating a more equitable judgment on moral responsibility and for orienting pastoral action. Psychology helps one to see how the immaturity of adolescence (which can sometimes persist after that age), psychological imbalance or habit can influence behavior, diminishing the deliberate character of the act and bringing about a situation whereby subjectively there may not always be serious fault. But in general, the absence of serious responsibility must not be presumed; this would be to misunderstand people’s moral capacity.”
It follows that masturbation is always objectively a serious fault but not always subjectively and it is for this reason that modern psychology can be useful to discern case by case. Clearly, modern psychology is regarded as legitimate as instrumental and compatible with Catholic morality. The Congregation provides also other criteria that go beyond the “modern psychology”:
"In the pastoral ministry, in order to form an adequate judgment in concrete cases, the habitual behavior of people will be considered in its totality, not only with regard to the individual’s practice of charity and of justice but also with regard to the individual’s care in observing the particular precepts of chastity. In particular, one will have to examine whether the individual is using the necessary means, both natural and supernatural, which Christian asceticism from its long experience recommends for overcoming the passions and progressing in virtue."
But let’s consider only the facts leaving aside moral prejudices.
The fact that masturbation concerns basically all guys in adolescence is generally known and confirmed by all serious surveys carried out in this field. Masturbation in adolescence is very important: gradually leads guys to the consciousness of their sexual orientation, determines the sexual archetypes, i.e. physical types of the people who induce in us a clear sexual response and also determines sexual behaviors that will be considered to be the more exciting all life long, creates and stabilizes the association between masturbatory fantasies and physiological reactions of erection and ejaculation.
Inducing feelings of guilt related to masturbation in adolescents through moral prejudices means:
1) severely and negatively interfere with the maturation of their sexuality and with the formation of their moral sense,
2) push them to neurotically react (with a completely unnatural rejection of the masturbation) to consider masturbation as a vice of which they must try to free themselves,
3) build a morality based on repression rather than freedom.
|
|
|
|
| GAY LOVE WITHOUT GAY COUPLE |
|
Posted by: gayprojectforum - 09-03-2017, 07:16 PM - Forum: Gay couples
- No Replies
|
|
Dear Project,
I got to talk to you several times via msn but I think you cannot easily remember me without a more precise reference. Twenty-eight y. o. madly in love with a guy twenty-three with whom I believed to have built a great relationship, then I was abandoned by this guy last summer but in a way that I could not explain, I talked to you for a whole night in the month of September (Nick name: sad). I called you because I needed to get out but talking to you instead gave me a strange feeling, I realized that your way of reasoning and seeing things was extremely different from mine or maybe different from how I had tried to figure out my relationship with that guy.
The thing that struck me most was your vision of couple’s life. I have kept logs of conversations:
Sad wrote: Hello Project, are you busy?
Project wrote: Hello Sad, nice to meet you!
Sad wrote: Maybe you remember, I had written at the end of June, twenty-eight y. o. madly in love with a twenty-three, (he and I had been together in the mountains for Christmas)…
Project wrote: Ah yes … and he had lost his wallet at the hotel and they had given it back to him?
Sad wrote: yes yes exactly! Just that!
Project wrote: Yes, I remember now! A good story, a story that struck me very much. And now, how are you now?
Sad wrote: now I’m single again, the story is over!
Project wrote: but what happened? It seemed that everything was fine…
Sad wrote: he behaved with me in an unworthy manner, treated me with no respect, I had tried to do everything for him and make sure he was okay but he left me as if I were worth nothing to him
Project wrote: but now he’s with another guy?
Sad wrote: no, I do not think
Project wrote: so why is gone?
Sad wrote: I do not know, I did not understand, he told me that he felt too tight, that he did not feel able to make choices, I asked him to meet me but he said no and there was nothing I could do to make him change his opinion, then we just had a fight badly and I sent him to hell and I also think that he took it very badly, but with me, if you want to do something serious it is fine but, if you are just dithering even over fundamental choices, it does not sit well with me at all. It is as if he had used me when he needed me and then had only just left me when I was most in need of him. I thought that at least between us there was a strong relationship, I thought I could rely on him but things were different.
Project wrote: but when it happened?
Sad wrote: more or less a month and a half ago
Project wrote: and after you broke up did you meet again or he disappeared altogether?
Sad wrote: yes he called me, he seemed to want to go back, he told me he loved me but when I asked him if he wanted to go back with me he told me that he did not feel so and that he had not called for it but to know how I was and then I lost my temper and told him to go to hell.
Project wrote: and that was it?
Sad wrote: no, sometimes we also talked on msn but I cannot be on a roller coaster this way, I cannot be exposed to his mood swings, because he basically does not want to be with me and this seems clear to me, I need stability and to him this is not good, that is, the stability seems to him to be a way to give up other things, like if he was closing himself in a trap, and so things cannot go on. I know he is younger than me and maybe he wants to have his experiences but at some point he must also make a clear choice, the fact that now he is alone depends only on him and I do not give a damn, I cannot ruin my life running after him and after everything that comes to his mind. He has a vision of things too different from mine
Project wrote: but is it really true that you do not care about?
Sad wrote: however I cannot tolerate the fact that I have been treated with no respect, let’s face it, Project, now I’m really bad, for me it’s a failure, I need stability, if he doesn’t care at all, I will try to find another guy so that it could be something stable, quiet, with him it would not be so in any case, what do you think about, Project?
Project wrote: are you sure that he wants to break the relationship??
Sad wrote: No, but now I want to close the matter, I cannot go on like this! I’m tired, Project, and I’m disappointed, I had overrated him, I thought that he really cared and instead he proved to be selfish. When he needed me I was there all the time but when I needed him, he didn’t care at all
Project wrote: things you told me long ago about this guy were very positive, just at the level of person, and I’m sorry if, I tell you, but at that time I had the impression that you had a very rigid way of seeing things.
Sad wrote: what is it?
Project wrote: wait, I’ll try to explain, you had in mind a model of close couple and probably the mentality of this guy is not compatible with that model. When you are in love with a person, there is always the risk of actually seeing only some aspects and to complete other aspects according to our desires, but falling really in love means to love a guy for what he is, that is love him even in the aspects that we cannot understand, that usually have deep motivations and are not stupid attitudes, it is possible that couple’s life is not good for him, or not good as you imagine it in the sense of close couple
Sad wrote: it means that he really does not love me! Because he is not willing to give up anything for me
Project wrote: no! Do not say so, really love each other does not mean having to give up something necessarily neither to accept a model of close couple; it’s a whole different thing. I think you could find yourself choosing between the model of close couple and this guy. I would not give for granted that you should give up on this guy and even that the story is over, maybe it’s over the possibility of living with him a story in the way you imagined it and on the other hand does not make sense to think that one must adapt to another, it is possible to find a balance for both but if I have to say what I think, I do not think the story is really over and anyway you do not seem really disappointed.
Sad wrote: I don’t know what to tell you, Project, but now at least for a while, I don’t want any more to know anything about him, then what it means to love one another if you do not feel comfortable as a couple?
Project wrote: I do not know, it’s all to be verified; sometimes we pretend that people adapt to our models, but people and not our models are the absolute value. It is true that this argument should also apply from his point of view, but I think he too may have felt very uncomfortable. Maybe he thought he was accepted as he really was, with all his uncertainties, his contradictions and his need for freedom and not as a guy who had to adapt to what his partner wanted, I will say, however, not to keep rigid positions with him. A relationship doesn’t exist when there is no affection, not when things don’t go according to our plans and here I don’t think that there is no affection and even love.
Sad wrote: well … basically I love him, but it is too difficult for me, no, Project, for me this is not good. I need a minimum of security.
This was our conversation of September and since then many things have happened, I tried to be with other guys, but practically it was impossible because I always had him in mind. Our contacts were not interrupted, he called me several times and was talking to me very seriously, but never wanted to get back together not to deceive me, he said, not to let me think that things could come back as before. He treated me with respect and affection, what I did not expect, even if he did not want to go back to a couple’s relationship with me as before. I do not know if he is in love with another guy, but I don’t think so. With me he is very clear, as he always has been, never good statements and positions always very clear, we have also met in person and more than a single time.
Undoubtedly when I see him I’m taken back to the idea of living with him as a couple, and sometimes it was difficult to accept that it would not happen. He tells me that he needs freedom, to try to live his life, whatever it could be, but that he loves me and I begin to think that it is true, indeed I do. Sometimes we hug and this causes me a strange feeling but it’s a positive felling, I feel that I have not lost him; however, certainly I have to resize my dreams. It’s a bit as you said, Project, I find myself deciding between this guy and the kind of life that I had imagined with him. It still seems very difficult to me to accept that he could be free and could love me even though he fell in love with another guy.
This summer it seemed to me quite inconceivable, now I find it difficult to accept but I do not see it as an absurd hypothesis. In fact, if a guy loves another guy and therefore he doesn’t love you at all because he only thinks of the other guy, then certainly you cannot maintain any relationship, but if the guy could as well continue to love you, even though he is in love with another guy, it would make sense to say that it is better to send everything to hell? I really don’t know, Project.
Evidently, they put us in mind behavior models according to which love must be exclusive, i.e. either with me or with another, but perhaps these models are complications that are not needed at all to love one another. Maybe now it seems to me that I could adapt because in fact now he has not another guy, probably if he had one I could not accept it. In practice, I hope to be everything for him, so he would not need anything else and I would find my peace of mind, in practice a bit as before. That is, now, even if he went away from me, he is still in love with me because really there is not anyone else. Or maybe it could work well even if he really was in love whit another guy? I really don’t know.
With me he was always sincere and I feel that we are really good together. Probably I’m not really everything for him, I’m not enough for him but not in the sense that he devalues me but in the sense that he also needs other things that I cannot give him, I cannot because maybe they are things that I do not understand or just because he also needs affection of others.
In recent times I have the impression that he wants to be close to me, that he cares what I say and what I think and especially that he cares to show me that he loves me but avoiding deluding me. But how can I, Project, to think that maybe we go back together, because it probably will happen, or at least somehow will happen, but how do I then think that he might even have another guy? I’m not saying he could not love me, because I do not think this will happen, but how could I accept not to be everything for him anyway? This thing upsets me. Project, and if, after accepting such a thing, I were worse? And if maybe I’m the one who deceives him because I’m not able to comply with his rules and then I expect it to be business as usual? I think I can find another guy, but it is not what I want.
When I tried to approach other guys I expected from them his reactions, his answers, and instead I found myself in front of quite different things, things from which I was barely involved, in practice I was not involved at all because I thought those guys were not like him. When he’s around I feel his presence very strong and it is not a matter of sex, even arguing with him is another thing. He never tells me I’m right when he thinks that I’m wrong and discussing with him it’s a true discussion, both of us at the same level. After all he has not kept pace but loved me anyway and I have no doubt, but he loved me in his own way. I do not know if we would be back together, it’s probably something else that does not involve the classical concept of couple.
Project, do you understand in what kind of problems I’m involved? It is a situation that previously I would never have accepted for any reason, I would have rejected on principle, but I do not want to be without that guy, certainly the situation in these terms will make me live in anxiety, and I think that the sense of uncertainty will be unavoidable in the future. You really think that it’s possible to find stability this way? That I can be happy even so?
If you want you can publish this e-mail.
__________
Editor replies:
Given that for me there may be different types of relationship between two people – it’s enough to clarify, from the beginning, towards which kind of relationship one is oriented and even its possible evolution - if both the partners agree on a classical couple relationship, however, there cannot be perpetually third parties (other guys): I think it is natural (indeed human) that guys tend, in the long run, to orient a relationship, whatever it could be, towards a classical couple relationship, because it is able to give more stability and emotional reward for the emotional investment that basically it is done in every relationship worthy of the name. In short, I don’t think that "seeing oneself in the prospect of couple life" is only the product of a millennial process of inculturation, but I think it is a natural (and legitimate) expectation when you "invest" so much emotionally on a person.
Alyosha replies:
"sometimes we expect people to adapt to our models, but people, not models, are the absolute value" I take note of this statement and I will recycle it at the next opportunity! The speech made by Project seems to me to be very meaningful and in fact, many couple problems derive from considering models as an absolute value. If I can be sincere, overall, with respect to the first discussion, when Sad was still furious, I had the impression that his external attitude was more of "blackmail" than objective, of the series "if you don’t change I leave you", but that the intention was not at all to leave him, but to let him make a decision, to let him make change his attitude.
The fact that the other kept his positions, led to a downward compromise. If after some time Sad assumes that the other has not yet a guy, probably the problem is not having another guy, but living one’s own life without feeling conditioned or suffocated by the presence of the other, especially if the other has a conditioning attitude, that is tends to pour his expectations on the other, expecting the other to adapt. I see in the 28-year-old an attitude of the "all or nothing" series. Either the two guys form a really tight couple or the 23-year-old goes away with another, as if loosening his grip on him the 23 year old must necessarily run away, when it is clear that he didn't go away even when the relationship seemed finished. As I see it, you should not get used to the idea that he is with another guy, on the contrary you should get used to the idea that loosening the grip on him nothing would really happen, maybe he can just relax and you could avoid the ride in the roller coaster.
Watchermat replies:
"He tells me he needs freedom, to try and make his life". When I hear such speeches, I struggle to hold back my anger. It is true that to hug too tightly around one's own partner is likely to suffocate him but it is equally true that it can be the partner who feels suffocated a little too easily.
Now I'm no longer talking about Sad’s case, but more generally. I'll explain. A person may come to think that by continuing a romantic relationship with someone it is not possible to evolve with one's own life, individually. And so? Does this mean that you cannot have a partner and live a life even as a single person? I don’t think so. The explication lies in "what makes me feel suffocated?". My personal experience has led me to meet many people who are objectively frustrated by being single but at the same time are unable to change a bit of their life, all in the name of their freedom as singles. The simple understanding that the thing is becoming more intimate (and this can also mean that the attendance has gone beyond the 3 meetings) triggers the feeling that their freedom and individuality are in danger. Hence an intolerance and a discomfort that leads to the termination of the relationship (every time) in the space of more or less time (from weeks to months). I wonder if sometimes even the simple idea of a relationship is not enough to put someone in confusion even without the actual suffocating behavior of the partner. The blessed "middle ways" exist, and it is possible to find a balance of spaces, proximities and distances, within the couple life. When there is the possibility of being an individual within a couple it means that things are going well, that the couple is fine. Reaching such a balance requires exposing oneself and getting to know each other more deeply. If, knowing each other more deeply, one understands that it is not possible to continue the relationship one has the sacrosanct right / duty to tell it his partner. But it is not something that concerns the risk of losing one's personal freedom. What do you think?
Blackout replies:
Fine answers by Project, which above all allow us to evaluate a situation outside of our experience. I state that I don’t have the least experience of relationship, so at most I can express my opinion, from the outside. I grew up, I too, with the idea that relationship meant to be two, no more, and the couple was the only concept admitted. But when I started thinking by myself, I realized that this idea doesn’t belong to me, or rather I don’t have to necessarily think that this is the only way to have a relationship, because the situations that can occur will always have peculiar characteristics and I’m not here to give you examples, you can understand it better than me.
Watcher speaks of "a sense of suffocation" especially for singles. And I understand it well because when you are single you build your good habits and the relationship that could possibly occur, selfishly considered, seems to remove rather than add something. And it is perhaps true (often I think it is) that the only idea that that initial feeling can become something, often makes people run away. Well, for me those people are numb sentimentally, I don’t know how to explain it but I think they have developed an inability to certain types of relationships and tend only to close themselves in a safe and muffled world that is that of the single. Time and patience to understand how to build a relationship have been lost. This is just an opinion, as I said, I don’t know anything about relationships.
Totoro replies:
Having always been a guy who "runs away", I’m better inclined to share the positions of the one who has distanced his partner rather than of the one who has written this mail, I would be much more inclined to support his reasons than the moral blackmail and reasoning of the guy of twenty-eight, or so I imagine. I confirm that not always when one goes away he does so because he no longer feels affection for the person he leaves. In the past I happened to be with people who expected from me (note the "expected") that I leaned on them from the emotional point of view. Given that even this simple attitude is something suffocating for me who was accustomed to lick my wounds alone and find it rewarding, the moral blackmail "if you don’t lean on me it means that you don’t love me or that you don’t need me anyway"
had only the effect of bringing me to seriously turn off any kind of affection. Because often, if not always, people tend to think about things starting from their own way of thinking, that is reasoning this way: "for me it is so, so it must be so absolutely for everybody". Frankly I don’t know if they are wrong or not, if the root of my taking distance was that I then identified or if the past things have led me to my conclusions but ultimately I never really wanted a relationship. Even less I can say if others are frustrated by not having a relationship but at the same time are too used to being alone to embark on such a thing, certainly situations are very different and complicated. And it is not even said that when a guy says he wants to live his life he intends to "try to have relationships with others", maybe he can only mean that he needs to be independent and to learn to rely only on his own strength.
Whoknows answers:
Watchermat, I fully agree with you! I really cannot stand those types of relationships in which jealousy takes over and everyone's freedom is greatly limited, but I don’t think I could tolerate the open couple ... but I should try, before judging. In this email, however, one thing is not clear: the guy in question loves him, but doesn’t want the couple. And the sex in their relationship what role does it occupy? In fact, if it doesn’t occupy any role, it can simply mean that this guy loves him as a friend, but that he is not attracted to him. Or he can also be attracted to him, but maybe he realizes that on some aspects their point of view is too far away to allow the creation of a lasting relationship (for example, maybe due to life projects, like one wants to go to foreign and the other not, or one wants to live as a gay out of the closet and the other doesn’t want renounce privacy). In reality, we know the story from a single perspective and it is not even clear what kind of relationship exists between the two guys.
Barbara answers:
The difficult thing about living as a couple or having an affective relationship is precisely the search for this balance that Totoro describes. In a close relationship the need to mediate is continuous and takes place at all levels. To mediate means to come to meet and find a point of agreement. Often it is not a real middle ground, in the sense that maybe one of them adapts much more than the other. Each of us is more or less inclined by character to make his own needs prevail or to let his partner prevail. Many balances also remain unbalanced for a long time, until maybe they explode. It seems to me that in that mail it is also this. One of them was satisfied with how things were going and the other was not. Only that maybe they didn’t want or couldn’t face reality. The other guy had sent messages that perhaps should have been taken into consideration. Maybe nothing would have changed because their needs were too far away and maybe they could have found a solution before closing their relationship. In any case it is very true what Totoro says, that relationships with others and above all conflicts also force us to question ourselves. They lead us to ask ourselves if we expected too much from the other or if our request was legitimate and was therefore the other at fault in not accepting it. I think relationships help us get out of ourselves and grow, however things go. For example, those that have gone wrong can teach us to check in time if there are the minimum conditions to find a compromise. If I’m a person who needs to have his own spaces and not feel invaded by the other, it is very difficult for me for example to hold a relationship with someone who continually needs confirmations. One will feel the air missing and the other will feel abandoned. Sometimes we stay together even when it would be wise to separate and sometimes we prefer to truncate everything even before we have seriously tried to recover the situation. This is also a good dilemma to be dissolved.
|
|
|
|
| POPE RATZINGER AND HOMOSEXUALITY |
|
Posted by: gayprojectforum - 09-03-2017, 07:12 PM - Forum: Gays and religion
- No Replies
|
|
The February 11, 2013, when I heard on the radio of the waiver to the papacy by Pope Benedict XVI, I thought to write an article about it, but I prefer to refrain from making judgments of any kind. I attach below two documents signed by Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic of homosexuality:
1) LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS – October 1, 1986
2) CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITIONTO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS – June 3, 2003
___________
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
1. The issue of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles. Since this debate often advances arguments and makes assertions inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is quite rightly a cause for concern to all engaged in the pastoral ministry, and this Congregation has judged it to be of sufficiently grave and widespread importance to address to the Bishops of the Catholic Church this Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.
2. Naturally, an exhaustive treatment of this complex issue cannot be attempted here, but we will focus our reflection within the distinctive context of the Catholic moral perspective. It is a perspective which finds support in the more secure findings of the natural sciences, which have their own legitimate and proper methodology and field of inquiry.
However, the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to eternal life.
It is within this context, then, that it can be clearly seen that the phenomenon of homosexuality, complex as it is, and with its many consequences for society and ecclesial life, is a proper focus for the Church’s pastoral care. It thus requires of her ministers attentive study, active concern and honest, theologically well-balanced counsel.
3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, 4).
In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
4. An essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes of confusion regarding the Church’s teaching. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.
5. It is quite true that the Biblical literature owes to the different epochs in which it was written a good deal of its varied patterns of thought and expression (Dei Verbum 12). The Church today addresses the Gospel to a world which differs in many ways from ancient days. But the world in which the New Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled, for example.
What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church’s doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.
The Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum 10, put it this way: “It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls”. In that spirit we wish to outline briefly the Biblical teaching here.
6. Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other.
In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its “spousal significance” but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.
Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.
In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.
7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.
To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.
As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.
8. Thus, the Church’s teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today’s world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, “marked with the sign of faith”.
Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.
9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.
10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.
11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.
Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.
12. What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian’s suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.
It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control” (5:22) and further (v. 24), “You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires.”
It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.
To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one’s own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God’s redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.
Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God’s personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord’s grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.
13. We recognize, of course, that in great measure the clear and successful communication of the Church’s teaching to all the faithful, and to society at large, depends on the correct instruction and fidelity of her pastoral ministers. The Bishops have the particularly grave responsibility to see to it that their assistants in the ministry, above all the priests, are rightly informed and personally disposed to bring the teaching of the Church in its integrity to everyone.
The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person’s God-given dignity and worth.
14. With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one’s conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word “Catholic” to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.
15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.
We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.
An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.
16. From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.
The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.
17. In bringing this entire matter to the Bishops’ attention, this Congregation wishes to support their efforts to assure that the teaching of the Lord and his Church on this important question be communicated fully to all the faithful.
In light of the points made above, they should decide for their own dioceses the extent to which an intervention on their part is indicated. In addition, should they consider it helpful, further coordinated action at the level of their National Bishops’ Conference may be envisioned.
In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.
They are encouraged to call on the assistance of all Catholic theologians who, by teaching what the Church teaches, and by deepening their reflections on the true meaning of human sexuality and Christian marriage with the virtues it engenders, will make an important contribution in this particular area of pastoral care.
The Bishops are asked to exercise special care in the selection of pastoral ministers so that by their own high degree of spiritual and personal maturity and by their fidelity to the Magisterium, they may be of real service to homosexual persons, promoting their health and well-being in the fullest sense. Such ministers will reject theological opinions which dissent from the teaching of the Church and which, therefore, cannot be used as guidelines for pastoral care.
We encourage the Bishops to promote appropriate catechetical programmes based on the truth about human sexuality in its relationship to the family as taught by the Church. Such programmes should provide a good context within which to deal with the question of homosexuality.
This catechesis would also assist those families of homosexual persons to deal with this problem which affects them so deeply.
All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.
In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life.
18. The Lord Jesus promised, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (Jn. 8:32). Scripture bids us speak the truth in love (cf. Eph. 4:15). The God who is at once truth and love calls the Church to minister to every man, woman and child with the pastoral solicitude of our compassionate Lord. It is in this spirit that we have addressed this Letter to the Bishops of the Church, with the hope that it will be of some help as they care for those whose suffering can only be intensified by error and lightened by truth.
(During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, approved this Letter, adopted in an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered it to be published.)
Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.
JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
Prefect
ALBERTO BOVONE
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary
______________
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITIONTO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
INTRODUCTION
1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.
I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS
2. The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator’s plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.
In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.
Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).
Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator’s plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.
Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).
4. 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. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)
II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.
Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.
From the order of right reason
The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.
From the biological and anthropological order
7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
From the social order
8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.
The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.
Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.
From the legal order
9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)
IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
CONCLUSION
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
_______
NOTES
(1) Cf. John Paul II, Angelus Messages of February 20, 1994, and of June 19, 1994; Address to the Plenary Meeting of the Pontifical Council for the Family (March 24, 1999); Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2357-2359, 2396; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8; Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986); Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons (July 24, 1992); Pontifical Council for the Family, Letter to the Presidents of the Bishops’ Conferences of Europe on the resolution of the European Parliament regarding homosexual couples (March 25, 1994); Family, marriage and “de facto” unions (July 26, 2000), 23.
(2) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (November 24, 2002), 4.
(3) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 48.
(4) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357.
(5) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8.
(6) Cf., for example, St. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, V, 3; St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 27, 1-4; Athenagoras, Supplication for the Christians, 34.
(7) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 10.
(8) Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2359; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 12.
(9) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358.
(10) Ibid., No. 2396.
(11) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 71.
(12) Cf. ibid., 72.
(13) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.
(14) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 90.
(15) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum vitae (February 22, 1987), II. A. 1-3.
(16) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 63, a.1, c.
(17) It should not be forgotten that there is always “a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons [July 24, 1992], 14).
(18) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 73.
|
|
|
|
| GAYS AND SEXUALITY EDUCATION |
|
Posted by: gayprojectforum - 09-03-2017, 07:07 PM - Forum: Gay orientation
- No Replies
|
|
In recent days I have had the opportunity to carefully examine a very interesting document of the Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization (Federal Centre for Health Education), entitled STANDARDS FOR SEXUALITY EDUCATION IN EUROPE.
The document was published in 2010 and, after presenting an overview of sex education in Europe, defines the standards that should be followed for sexuality education as they went through the maturing of sex education activities already in operation in Europe and throughout the scientific contributions of the many disciplines involved.
Reading this document has led me to reflect on the enormous need for sexuality education and the response of public institutions, essentially nothing, at least in Italy. Sexuality education is effectively delegated to the peer group, religious institutions, and even now on a large scale, to pornography.
A serious sexuality education, built on the basis of information coming from specialists in various disciplines, independent from religious teachings and respecting sexual rights of people is one of the pillars for the improvement not only in the situation of homosexuals but for the increase in personal and collective well-being of all. I emphasize that sexuality education should be compulsory and independent from religious teachings, in the sense that parents should not be allowed for any reason to ask for exemption of children from participation in educational activities, because this would be a violation of the rights of children in the name of parents’ convictions.
Many young guys, gay guys and not only ,have got to experience the absolute lack of preparation of teachers in imparting a serious sex education and even the presence of prejudices and discriminatory attitudes. Contents of sexuality education are often conveyed through other disciplines on the basis of personal feelings of teachers and with no scientific basis, many have found that religion classes often result in areas of indirect sexuality education. A serious sexuality education could have a strong social impact, not only in reducing sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and teenage bullying, but in improving the sexual and emotional relatedness of people in enabling them to make their own choices on the basis of objective scientific information, promoting an attitude of serenity toward sexual pleasure, to increase self-esteem and sense of responsibility. The fact that sexuality becomes, for groups of teenagers and sometimes also adults, an object of ridicule and jokes is a sign of immaturity in dealing with these issues.
The document to which I have referred, precisely because it is open to all, prepares a draft of a general nature.
This post is a concrete proposal. I invite you to read the document and report your past and present need for sex education. You can add a comment to this post or send a mail to [email protected]
In particular, I invite you to report on:
1) the sexuality education you received and from what sources.
2) the sexuality education ay school.
3) what did you miss most in terms of sexual education.
Of course you can write what you think better even beyond these indications. I will try to summarize what gradually emerges from the discussion to define guidelines for sexuality education useful to non-heterosexual and to avoid discrimination.
The intention is to define standards for sexuality education related to non-straight people.
As a first contribution, I reproduce below the cap. 2 of the mentioned document, from which I extract three definitions that can be the basis for the next job.
_______
2. SEXUALITY. SEXUAL HEALTH AND SEXUALITY EDUCATION – DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
The concepts of sex, sexuality, sexual health and rights, and directly related concepts are to some extent interpreted differently in different countries or cultures. If translated into other languages, they may again be understood differently. Some clarification of the way these concepts are used here is therefore needed.
In January 2002, the World Health Organization convened a technical consultation meeting as part of a more comprehensive initiative, which aimed at defining some of those concepts, because there were no internationally agreed definitions. This resulted in working definitions of the concepts of sex, sexuality, sexual health and sexual rights.
Although these definitions have not yet become official WHO definitions, they are available at the WHO website, and they are increasingly being used. In this document, they are likewise used as working definitions.
“Sex” refers to biological characteristics that define humans generally as female or male, although in ordinary language the word is often interpreted as referring to sexual activity.
“Sexuality” – as a broad concept, “sexuality” is defined in accordance with the WHO working definitions as follows:
“Human sexuality is a natural part of human development through every phase of life and includes physical, psychological and social components […]”.
A more comprehensive definition suggested by WHO reads as follows.
“Sexuality is a central aspect of being human throughout life and encompasses sex, gender identities and roles, sexual orientation, eroticism, pleasure, intimacy and reproduction. Sexuality is experienced and expressed in thoughts, fantasies, desires, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviours, practices, roles and relationships. While sexuality can include all of these dimensions, not all of them are always experienced or expressed. Sexuality is influenced by the interaction of biological, psychological, social, economic, political, ethical, legal, historical, religious and spiritual factors.”
For a number of reasons, this definition is very useful. It stresses that sexuality is central to being human; it is not limited to certain age groups; it is closely related to gender; it includes various sexual orientations, and it is much wider than reproduction. It also makes clear that “sexuality” encompasses more than just behavioural elements and that it may vary strongly, depending on a wide variety of influences. The definition indirectly indicates that sexuality education should also be interpreted as covering a much wider and much more diverse area than “education on sexual behaviour”, for which it is unfortunately sometimes mistaken.
“Sexual health” was initially defined by WHO in a 1972 technical meeting, and reads as follows:
“Sexual health is the integration of the somatic, emotional, intellectual and social aspects of sexual being in ways that are positively enriching and that enhance personality, communication and love”.
Although this definition is rather outdated, it is still often used.
During the WHO technical consultation in 2002, a new draft definition of sexual health was agreed upon. This new 2002 draft definition reads:
“Sexual health is a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence. For sexual health to be attained and maintained, the sexual rights of all persons must be respected, protected and fulfilled.”
This draft definition emphasizes not only the need for a positive approach, the essential aspect of pleasure, and the notion that sexual health encompasses not just physical, but also emotional, mental and social aspects. It also alerts the user to potentially negative elements, and for the first time it mentions the existence of “sexual rights” – two issues which were almost absent in the 1972 definition. Also, those potentially negative elements are not focused upon as is often the case in HIV and AIDS literature on the subject. In short, it is a balanced definition.
Sexual health is one of five core aspects of the WHO global Reproductive health strategy approved by the World Health Assembly in 2004. It should be stressed that WHO has, since the early 1950s, defined and approached “health” in a very broad and positive manner, referring to it as a “human potential” and not merely the absence of disease, and including not only physical, but also emotional, mental, social and other aspects. For these latter reasons, it is felt that the WHO definitions are acceptable and useful starting points for discussing sexuality education. Thus in this document the term “sexual health” is used, but this includes the meaning and notion of ”sexual well-being”. Sexual health is not only influenced by personal factors, but also by social and cultural ones.
Sexual rights – embracing especially the right to information and education. As mentioned before, the 2002 WHO meeting also came up with a draft definition of sexual rights, which reads as follows.
“Sexual rights embrace human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus statements. They include the right of all persons, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, to:
the highest attainable standard of sexual health, including access to sexual and reproductive health care services;
seek, receive and impart information related to sexuality;
sexuality education;
respect for bodily integrity;
choose their partner;
decide to be sexually active or not;
consensual sexual relations;
consensual marriage;
decide whether or not, and when, to have children; and
pursue a satisfying, safe and pleasurable sexual life.
The responsible exercise of human rights requires that all persons respect the rights of others.”
Although this is only a draft definition, it is used as a starting point in this document, because it is felt that the elements included here have a broad support base throughout Europe. Furthermore, it is important to note that in this definition the right to information and education is explicitly included.
A note of caution is needed here, however. Clearly, some of the rights mentioned have been conceived with adult persons as the point of reference. This means that not all of those rights are automatically applicable to children and adolescents. For example, it is clear that issues like consensual marriage or right to decide on childbearing do not yet apply to children or young adolescents.
The right of the child to information has also been acknowledged by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was conceived in 1989 and has since been ratified by the vast majority of States. It clearly states the right to freedom of expression and the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds (Article 13); Article 19 refers to States’ obligation to provide children with educational measures to protect them, inter alia, from sexual abuse.
__________
In summary, we can adopt the following definitions that conform to the recommendations of the World Health Organization:
DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS
“Sex” refers to biological characteristics that define humans generally as female or male, although in ordinary language the word is often interpreted as referring to sexual activity.
“Human sexuality is a natural part of human development through every phase of life and includes physical, psychological and social components […]”.
“Sexuality is a central aspect of being human throughout life and encompasses sex, gender identities and roles, sexual orientation, eroticism, pleasure, intimacy and reproduction. Sexuality is experienced and expressed in thoughts, fantasies, desires, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviours, practices, roles and relationships. While sexuality can include all of these dimensions, not all of them are always experienced or expressed. Sexuality is influenced by the interaction of biological, psychological, social, economic, political, ethical, legal, historical, religious and spiritual factors.”
“Sexual health is the integration of the somatic, emotional, intellectual and social aspects of sexual being in ways that are positively enriching and that enhance personality, communication and love”.
“Sexual health is a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence. For sexual health to be attained and maintained, the sexual rights of all persons must be respected, protected and fulfilled.”
“Sexual rights embrace human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus statements. They include the right of all persons, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, to:
the highest attainable standard of sexual health, including access to sexual and reproductive health care services;
seek, receive and impart information related to sexuality;
sexuality education;
respect for bodily integrity;
choose their partner;
decide to be sexually active or not;
consensual sexual relations;
consensual marriage;
decide whether or not, and when, to have children; and
pursue a satisfying, safe and pleasurable sexual life.
The responsible exercise of human rights requires that all persons respect the rights of others.”
|
|
|
|
| PRINCIPLES OF (GAY) SECULAR SEXUAL MORALITY |
|
Posted by: gayprojectforum - 09-03-2017, 06:59 PM - Forum: Gays and secularity
- No Replies
|
|
I chose to give this post the title “principles of (gay) secular sexual morality” putting the word gay in brackets because, although to form my opinion on the subject I have referred to my environment, that is gay people, the result of my reflection is independent of sexual orientation.
The reflections are very general, I start by acknowledging a discomfort and therefore a conflict and tend to resolve it with a proposal.
Discomfort, as such, and in this case the moral distress identified as guilt, it is believed originated from an conflict inside the conscience between what you should be and what you are. According to the most common schematization, the transgression of a moral precept leads to guilt, but it is actually difficult to define both what you should be and what you are.
The real action can be more or less free, but also the moral norm with which the concrete action is compared often derives from more or less forced internalization of external regulatory assumptions on which very often it is very difficult and sometimes impossible to have any rational control. If the concepts of good and evil are defined for passive assimilation of external codes the meter itself of moral judgment falters.
In front of the definition of the criteria of moral there are two substantially different attitudes, dogmatic one for which the distinction between moral and immoral is objective and morality looks like a system formal and legalistic, and the other that focuses on the size of individual freedom and of the subjective judgment. The first trend “teaches moral norms”, the second “opens the door to the individual conscience” and of course, at least within broad areas, to the subjectivity of conscience. The moral of individual freedom is not the moral of individualism, selfishness, etc.. etc.., but the moral of the individual pursuit of the good. In this individual research, indeed, the fundamental principle is the realization of the good of the other, an altruistic principle.
Beyond the individual rules of behavior, which are left to individual freedom, what is altruistic has to be considered moral and what is egoistic has to be considered immoral. It is clear that certainly continue to exist behaviors that should be considered “objectively” immoral and must be attentively prevented and are those who are in the criminal law that punishes acts objectively detrimental to the others rights.
While the champions of the objectivity of the moral norm spread a teaching of well defined moral principles, that despite the stated objectivity are strongly characterized historically and culturally (there is no objective morality shared by all), the champions of moral freedom of individual tend to spread a pedagogy of freedom that merely indicates the pourpose (altruism) and leaves to the individual conscience the search for ways to realize it.
In a prescriptive morality, beyond the predictable statements that try to bring up the opposite, it makes no sense to distinguish between the one who commits an error and the error itself because what matters from the moral point of view is not the person but what that person does, the individual conscience is really considered a poor thing, on the contrary in a morality of freedom, except in cases of major criminal behavior, moral judgment is subjective and internal to conscience, I mean that evaluating the good and the bad outside the conscience of the individual completely loses meaning.
The society in which we live is the result of centuries of moral precepts and for this reason the prescriptive moral is generally perceived as the only possible moral. The transmission of value systems and moral codes thus tends to perpetuate the prescriptive moral from one generation to another creating the illusion that that moral is absolute and eternal.
When the moral code absorbed from the outside is not properly fitting to the life of the individual, a conflict raises up, this conflict could be resolved adjusting the individual behavior on internalized moral norm but since this method tends to reduce the freedom of the individual, it is better to look for a different way and weaken the moral norm, its interpretation becomes flexible, and this way creates less discomfort, but in reality flexible interpretations leave survive the whole edifice of formal moral, which is the very reason for the discomfort, because the norm is imposed by forcing freedom of individual morality. In essence, the need for moral freedom almost always returns to the surface (when it has been suppressed not too violently) and internalized normative codes, without being challenged, are actually removed or weakened.
I wonder if no longer it makes sense to respect the individual moral freedom from the beginning. Doesn’t it make more sense to educate people about freedom of choice? There are some countries in which the pedagogy of freedom has existed for many years and not only did not facilitate the abuse but educated to a sense of responsibility
Let’s try to bring the theoretical discourse in practice.
A guy growing up realizes that he is gay, if he has been educated according to a prescriptive moral, he can perhaps feel in trouble, in conflict with the family, the religion and the society, and can also live very deep hardship. If he doesn’t end up giving up entirely to himself, sooner or later the individual freedom will emerge, will eventually the norm too much rigid will weaken, the guy will follow in appearance the standard behaviour in front of the family, the religious community and other public places, but sooner or later, that guy will find ways to get back his freedom.
On the contrary If that guy had been educated from the beginning to the moral freedom there would be nothing with which to come into conflict and he would wonder how to live responsibly his homosexuality, that guy must be aware of some objective limits that cannot be eliminated and that while leaving freedom on how to implement the welfare of others, however, requires not to damage them in any way. In this case the first moral duty is the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. It is clear that the first postulate of morality is “objectively do not harm others.”
How may that guy trying to do right, realize what is the good of the other? The answer is quite simple, he has to try to see situations from the point of view of the other, it is certainly not easy to try to evaluate the effect of our actions as they appear in the eyes of the other. Good and evil are not measured on the intentions of the agent but from the point of view of the persons to whom actions are addressed. In this sense, no behavior in the context of moral freedom is good or bad in itself because the assessment can be given only by to those who act trying to understand the effects of what they do (principle of responsibility).
Let’s go to a concrete example: sex yes or no? The answer is obtained immediately starting from the point of view of the other. No sex if sexual contact is not wanted by the other, or if it may cause him, later, remorse or situations of discomfort; sex, yes, if your personal desire meets the one of the other in a free and spontaneous. And if things are not very clear? Here, too, the answer is simple, the solutions to the questions must be seek in two, the other is not only the recipient of our assessments, but chooses with us and sharing doubts and uncertainties helps prevent misjudgements. On the other hand among people accustomed to moral freedom, the judgment about a man depends on his honesty, on his lack of ulterior motives, on the consistency of the manner of his speaking with his way of being and on his willingness to get involved on equal terms with other persons.
From this discussion we arrive at a necessary conclusion: the basis of sexuality education and, I might add, of all forms of education should be the education for freedom. Our freedom and that of others form the foundation of morality and our happiness and that of others constitute its purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
