speaking of closets

just saw this article posted on the advocate website. sometimes, i wonder if we will ever progress when this type of thing keeps happening.

could an adovcate interview hurt rising action film star luke evans?

is fame really worth sacrificing one's principles? enjoy your life back in the closet luke.

at arm's length

it seems that this is my week to have conversations about sexual identity. consider this entry a kind of corollary to yesterday's. this time the topic of conversation was sparked by a statement to the effect of, "i'm an atypical gay as i do not let my sexuality define me." now, to that point i had merely been observing the chat, but for me a statement like that is like throwing a big t-bone steak in front of a starving dog. so i dove in. i'll spare the details of the chat and just go to my key concern. i'm not sure how well served we are when lgbt folks make statements that give the appearance that they are holding their sexuality at arm's length.

i should preface any additional remarks by stating that back when i was coming to terms with my own sexuality, i read quite a few books on sexuality (many in the realm of the relationship of christian faith and homosexuality). the central premise of all of these books was that sexuality is not just an aspect of who we are but it is a central, defining aspect of who we are. one only need to look at how virulent the debate is around topics like gay marriage to see the validity of that point. who we are attracted to, who we love and engage in intimacy with goes to the deepest places of our psyches and drives so much of how we see and operate in the world (want more proof of this dynamic -- flip through a mainstream magazine and see what aspects of ourselves that advertisers try to reach most often).

i'm aware that the comment voiced in chat really had little to do with sexuality and more to do with stereotypes (a fact that was clarified by the additional conversation), but i think the point still deserves to be explored as it's not the first time that i've witnessed gay men making this statement. it's fine to declare one's individuality, but i just think it's a little absurd to do it at the expense of recognizing the integral aspect of sexuality to one's identity, particularly when i would submit that such a bifurcation between sexuality and identity is a main contributor to anti-gay bias and homophobia. such trappings as being promiscuous, going to clubs, and loving show tunes are not tied to our sexuality. they may be ways that many gay men choose to express it, but to do so is not de facto "letting one's sexuality define them."

i whole-heartedly support choosing to live our lives in ways that are true to who you see ourselves to be (as long as that is done in a way that does not abuse, harm, or infringe on the inherent rights of life, love, and liberty of another individual), but i just think that living a life of integrity can be done as well, if not better, by embracing our sexuality as a central definer of our respective identities.

being out

found myself in the midst of an interesting online chat conversation this weekend. i was talking with a couple of twentysomething gay men, and i asked what for me is the inevitable question when getting to know other gay men, "when did you come out?" now i recognize that not everyone is "out" in all aspects of their lives and some, particularly guys in their early 20's, may not be out at all, but that's my entry question to get to that type of information. plus it's my way of introducing my own bias which is that to "be out" should be how all of us in the lgbt community (particularly the "l" and "g" parts) should be living our lives.

now the response was interesting. both guys indicated that they were out to some friends and family but not to everyone nor did they see the need to be so. the rationale given by one was that, "after all, straight people don't feel a need to come out and declare that they are proud of being straight." my retort was basically, "well, don't kid yourself. straight people are unashamedly out every moment of their lives. they have no problem openly discussing who they find attractive, with whom they desire to be in relationship, and with whom they are romantically involved." the response to this was "of course, they are. that's because we live in a heteronormic society." my response, "exactly."

and really that is the point. the reason straight people don't "come out" is that the prevailing assumption (not just by heterosexuals mind you) is that an individual is straight unless otherwise proven otherwise. now to me that notion of "coming out" with all of the trappings associated with it (heartfelt, tear filled confessions or militant declarations being the usual images that come to mind) is not as important as "being out."

why? i've always had a two pronged rationalization for the importance of being out. the first and primary reason is that it really is the healthiest way to live for the individual. living in truth is just always better than living with any amount of deception especially when it has to do with one's identity. are there instances when someone has to be closeted? absolutely. but as i've maintained for many years, "the closet" should always be viewed as a necessary evil that may have to be endured for a season of life. it should not be how one chooses to live one's life indefinitely. the mental anguish experienced by that state of being can ultimately be damaging and certainly cannot compare to the freedom experienced by those who are out.

the second reason for my encouraging people to be out is that in a heteronormic society, all of us need to be reminded that there are a great number of people that don't fit the norm. we particularly need to be reminded that just because you aren't the norm doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with you. your hopes, desires, and ways of living your life can be very much similar to the norm, or, even more importantly, they can be very different than the norm but that doesn't make you subversive or dangerous. it just means you're human.