What do you believe is the current narrative for most LGTBQ members of the Church?

[The Great Pretender]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Thanks for condescending to us in our ignorance o benevolent sage of the incomprehensible.

You took offense when none was meant. For my part, I am unable to truly comprehend infinity, yet I am willing to consider it.

In our Sunday School lesson yesterday (D&C 127 and 138), there was a discussion about some things that are so trivial that they are trifling even in the context of a human lifetime; yet the group assigned importance to them because they might negatively affect someone during their three-score and 10. In the context of a few thousands years of human existence, such issues become irrelevant. And in the context of billions upon billions upon billions of years ever after, worlds without end, the issues may as well never have happened at all.

People can't get their heads around that because they generally don't understand what infinity entails. Except you, of course. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by The Great Pretender

[Nofear]

On 12/2/2021 at 4:29 PM, The Great Pretender said:

Given an infinite amount of time and space, mathematical probability informs us that, if an event occurs once, it will occur an infinite number of times. Thus, if life exists now, life has always existed and will always exist. 

Yet space is sterile. 

Chaos should see all cosmic movement eventually slow to a stopping point and all life die out. But there has already been an infinite passage of time before this current moment, and life still exists. The movement of the universe, what came before it, and what came before that ad infinitum is therefore a perpetual motion machine, yet science says that's impossible. Something beyond our wildest imaginations is keeping it going.

And what we understand as God doesn't actually have to be a glowing guy in white robes, even if God is presented to us in that way to accommodate our limited understanding. I mean, really, why would God wear clothes? Who would make them? What would they be made from? It's better not to ask. 🤭

Technically your math is incorrect. An infinite number ∞ times an infinitesimal quantity 1/∞ isn't a defined quantity. The resulting combination could be infinite, could be finite, could be zero. It's not a well posed problem. While I can appreciate your endeavor to apply some natural philosophy to your understanding of the cosmos (I do the same) unfortunately the few comments you've left in that aspect have some ... shortcomings. I don't wish to derail the thread, however.

Your comment "In the context of a few thousands years of human existence, such issues become irrelevant. And in the context of billions upon billions upon billions of years ever after, worlds without end, the issues may as well never have happened at all." nonetheless remains salient and relevant. It is indeed a vanity to suppose that our mortal condition will be the same as the immortal. Well, D&C 130:2 does say that it will be; just better (e.g. no physiological imperfections will mar that state). And it is within that parenthetical in which the real crux of the discussion lies. Many take extreme umbrage at the idea that their same-sex sexual activity is not a celestial level interaction. I do not believe it is. Yet, how to get one who believes otherwise to accept that does not seem to me something that logical rationale seems to be able to address and is a truth that only personal revelation can properly address. That said, some well phrased discussions can better prepare one to accept such revelation. Poorly conceived metaphysics do not meet the criteria of "well phrased discussions" and hence my post.

[The Great Pretender]

6 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Poorly conceived metaphysics do not meet the criteria of "well phrased discussions" and hence my post.

Sorry. I'm simply frustrated. And isolated. I appreciate your comments.

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Sorry. I'm simply frustrated. And isolated.

That is far from an uncommon situation when one enters into the foray of online discussions. Consequently many give up and cease participation. I encourage you to stick with it. Even if not always correct (heaven knows I've been incorrect often enough), your viewpoints matter.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

You took offense when none was meant. For my part, I am unable to truly comprehend infinity, yet I am willing to consider it.

In our Sunday School lesson yesterday (D&C 127 and 138), there was a discussion about some things that are so trivial that they are trifling even in the context of a human lifetime; yet the group assigned importance to them because they might negatively affect someone during their three-score and 10. In the context of a few thousands years of human existence, such issues become irrelevant. And in the context of billions upon billions upon billions of years ever after, worlds without end, the issues may as well never have happened at all.

People can't get their heads around that because they generally don't understand what infinity entails. Except you, of course. 

I wasn’t taking offense. I was making a joke.

I would love to comprehend infinity. I can’t.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

It's why I find myself with no alternative but to look outside Church groups to meet my needs.

I wish you the best with that. I prefer bringing people into my Church circle. I had a belated birthday dinner out this past weekend, and I invited five single mates to go with me.

One of them was born in the Church, though he was inactive and breaking most basic commandments when I was assigned as his home teacher. It took years of ministering to him to get him back, but he's rock-solid now.

Two are adult converts. One is my housemate, who had never even tasted alcohol before he was baptised. The other isn't active and, in fact, currently lives with a girlfriend. He spent ten of his first 12 months in the Church in prison for a serious crime. I was able to take the Elders with me to visit him most weeks during that time, and despite the fact that his very Hasidic mother wishes otherwise, he identifies fully as a Church member now despite his inactivity.

Two are non-members. One is a devout Catholic who radiates purity. The other is a broken man who was released from the military on a disability pension for harm done to both body and mind. He had no religion in his life growing up, but lately he's come to believe there's a God -- in part from being around me and other Church members.

Our time together was rich and rewarding, fulfilling emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. The Spirit definitely attended our gathering, from its Catholic blessing on the food to the very end when I thanked everyone for coming and told them that I am sure that we are literally brothers, children of the same God.

I have found nothing outside the Church that meets my deepest needs. So when the Church feels a bit thin on the ground, I just try to 'supplement' it.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Canadiandude]

21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have found nothing outside the Church that meets my deepest needs.

That’s fair, and my point made a few days ago was only to question the universality of one of your earlier posts on the matter.

If it fulfills your needs as a man that’s great, but it didn’t do that for me, nor does it do so for several others.

I’m well aware that homosexuality has looked differently across cultures and time periods. Most of the current literature on sexual orientation doesn’t contend a purely, socially-unmediated explanation for the phenomenon.

Nature and nurture have both their influence. I just doubt the veracity of arguments borne thus far, that contend homosexuality, asexuality, transgender and non-binary identities, etc. , as being somehow illegitimate or harmful. 

I also caution against the idea that we can realistically expect (or should even try) to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual. I mean, so long as the person’s orientation can be (and is) practiced in a safe, sane, consensual way, why does it matter?

~

The church doesn’t sufficiently support the legitimacy of my own own needs as a man re: male-male intimacy and consensual, sexual relations. Nor does it sufficiently understand how my own safe, sane, and consensual actualization of my (homo)sexuality, makes me feel more secure and affirmed in my sexual and gender identity as a man. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Canadiandude

[BRMC]

19 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

 

The church doesn’t sufficiently support the legitimacy of my own own needs as a man re: male-male intimacy and consensual, sexual relations. Nor does it sufficiently understand how my own safe, sane, and consensual actualization of my (homo)sexuality, makes feel more secure and affirmed in my sexual and gender identity as a man. 

 

Yeah.  The Church doesn't support my need to get drunk, either.  

[Canadiandude]

11 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Yeah.  The Church doesn't support my need to get drunk, either.  

I fear you are committing a fallacy here.
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

You must also substantiate your implication that getting occasionally drunk is necessarily illegitimate, and sufficiently harmful for it to never be engaged in.

I drink socially, occasionally been drunk, and I’ve never had any issues.

 

Edit: if you’re going to quip, please use more words to substantiate your argument and explain its relevancy. Otherwise it comes off as kinda passive aggressive and not very well thought out.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Canadiandude

[BRMC]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

I fear you are committing a fallacy here.
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

You must also substantiate your implication that getting occasionally drunk is necessarily illegitimate, and sufficiently harmful for it to never be engaged in.

I drink socially, occasionally been drunk, and I’ve never had any issues.

 

Edit: if you’re going to quip, please use more words to substantiate your argument and explain its relevancy. Otherwise it comes off as kinda passive aggressive and not very well thought out.

No I don't.  I only need to substantiate that it is against God's will, as revealed through prophets of the Church.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

I also caution against the idea that we can realistically expect (or should even try) to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual.

That would be a classic case of out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[Canadiandude]

49 minutes ago, BRMC said:

No I don't.  I only need to substantiate that it is against God's will, as revealed through prophets of the Church.

Yes you do, as my argument was in specific response to another specific argument, on the church’s ability to perfectly provide for positive male-male interactions.

This post/thread is about sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression; the specific topic I was responding to was in regards to the church’s provision of positive male bonding.

What does the church’s position on ‘getting drunk’ have to do with any of these subjects?

Furthermore, you haven’t even sufficiently substantiated what you are trying to claim: as you’ve yet to demonstrate through reliable and valid means the existence of *any* god(s), let alone if they have any earthly  patronage/preferences.

~
 

Your comment wasn’t relevant. Nobody here is arguing about alcohol consumption. 

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Canadiandude

[Canadiandude]

29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That would be a classic case of out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Indeed. It’s tough enough being a sexual minority as it is, and conversion therapy can have some pretty serious negative effects. 

We’re just in the process of banning Conversion Therapy here in Canada. Bill C4 just passed in the federal senate and now we just await Royal assent (which is largely a formality).

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

We’re just in the process of banning Conversion Therapy here in Canada. Bill C4 just passed in the federal senate and now we just await Royal assent (which is largely a formality).

In our last national election, one of the major parties suggested they would ban all faith groups teaching repentance in order to protect 'sexual minorities'.

But I think you missed my point. 'Heterosexuality' is as much a social construct as any other sexuality, with exactly the same genealogy. Scriptures are filled with admonitions to men not to lust after women. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, it would be silly to try to fix one challenge by replacing it with another. At least 95 per cent of all membership councils that I have been involved in across three bishoprics and three stake presidencies have been for 'heterosexual' acts.

[Canadiandude]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In our last national election, one of the major parties suggested they would ban all faith groups teaching repentance in order to protect 'sexual minorities'.

But I think you missed my point. 'Heterosexuality' is as much a social construct as any other sexuality, with exactly the same genealogy. Scriptures are filled with admonitions to men not to lust after women. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, it would be silly to try to fix one challenge by replacing it with another. At least 95 per cent of all membership councils that I have been involved in across three bishoprics and three stake presidencies have been for 'heterosexual' acts.

I admittedly am a lil confused as to what this has to do the phrase you quoted from me however.

 What does this have to do with our Bill C4? What challenges are being fixed and/or replaced?
 

Is the state of things really the same for gender and sexual minorities in the church and those of the majority who can actualize their gender and sexual orientation? 

I concur that heterosexual acts likely take the majority of LoC related- counselling, but at least str8’s and Cis-gender members have more legitimate avenues in the church to express their gender identity and sexual orientation.

From what I’ve read of the literature so far, I don’t believe there’s much evidence to support the argument of sexual orientation being strictly, socially constructed either.

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Canadiandude

[Chum]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In our last national election, one of the major parties suggested they would ban all faith groups teaching repentance in order to protect 'sexual minorities'.

This bit of impossibility seems unlikely.

[california boy]

For those of you who would really like to understand what it is like dealing with LGBT issues, I would recommend watching the short series, Coming Out Colton.  It is streaming on Netflix.  Most of what he goes through are very typical issues that gay people have to deal with including how to deal with his faith and relationship with God.  Many of the topics on this thread are addressed.

Colton was the former NFL player who won the Bachelor and then kinda crashed and burned.  

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

For those of you who would really like to understand what it is like dealing with LGBT issues, I would recommend watching the short series, Coming Out Colton.  It is streaming on Netflix.  Most of what he goes through are very typical issues that gay people have to deal with including how to deal with his faith and relationship with God.  Many of the topics on this thread are addressed.

Colton was the former NFL player who won the Bachelor and then kinda crashed and burned.  

Good series and does address things in this topic.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

For those of you who would really like to understand what it is like dealing with LGBT issues, I would recommend watching the short series, Coming Out Colton.  It is streaming on Netflix.  Most of what he goes through are very typical issues that gay people have to deal with including how to deal with his faith and relationship with God.  Many of the topics on this thread are addressed.

Colton was the former NFL player who won the Bachelor and then kinda crashed and burned.  

I gave some serious thought to watching this.  But having read a bit about it, it seems to have some problems.

First off, it is troubling to me that Colton seems to have put his family members on the spot.  See here (from Pride.com) :

Quote

Discerningly, the series opens with Underwood coming out to his mom. The two sip margaritas and pick at chips and guacamole while he struggles to piece together the words. "I think I've been struggling with my sexuality," he says, voice shaking. "I guess this is me coming out to you..." 

He's known since he was 6, he says. He never felt safe. He's suppressed it for all these years, desperately fighting his own desires to convince himself and the world that he was straight. Many of us that have had this conversation with our parents and can relate to the fear and anxiety etched all over Underwood's face.

His mom has no idea how to react. "I feel guilt for not have seen... not have been able to..." The scene is immediately disarming, and you can't help but feel for them both.

Raw moments like this one deflate much of the preconceived disdain I had for the series. 

I read this and thought "Surely this guy didn't ambush his mom with a 'coming out' involving a camera crew a few feet away recording her reaction?  Surely no son would do that to his own mother."  The article doesn't specify whether his mom knew beforehand, but it sure comes across like she did not.  I also found this description (also from Pride.com) :

Quote

A stereotypically attractive, cisgender, white man lands a reality show minutes after coming out for doing nothing but come out? It all reeks of privilege. There's even a petition to cancel the series currently sitting at 35,000 signatures, citing Underwood's Bachelor co-star and ex-girlfriend Cassie Randolph who filed a restraining order against him, alleging that Underwood stalked her, put a tracking device on her car, and sent her frightening text messages. The restraining order was dropped in November of 2020. 

Wow.  Pride.com is publicly faulting Colton for being "cisgender" and "white," saying his reality show "reeks of privilege."  They further run him down by pointing to misconduct involving his girlfriend (though I think criticism of him on that point is more legitimate since it pertains to his conduct rather than his immutable traits).

I've heard quite a bit about "internalized homophobia," but this article seems to have quite a bit of "internalized" contempt for, well, "cisgender" and/or "white" people.  Such are, I think, the noxious consequences of the Oppression Olympics:

Quote

Oppression Olympics is a characterization of marginalization as a competition to determine the relative weight of the overall oppression of individuals or groups, often by comparing race, gender, socioeconomic status or disabilities, in order to determine who is the worst off, and the most oppressed. The characterization often arises within debates about the ideological values of identity politics, intersectionality, and social privilege.
...

The Oppression Olympics have been described as a contest within a group, to "assert who is more authentic, more oppressed, and thus more correct". This may be on the basis of one's race, gender, sexuality, among other stated or ascribed identities.

A person's stated or ascribed identity "become{s} fetishised" within the group and judged in preconceived essentialist terms. There is a dynamic "of agreeing with the most marginalized in the room".
...
Ange-Marie Hancock and other writers have suggested that the previously dominant class of Afro-Caribbean/Asian women are currently being replaced at the top of the hierarchy by Trans men and women and that their subsequent frustration results in the "Oppression Olympics" phenomenon. Cisgender and heterosexual white males are generally considered to be at the very bottom of the hierarchy, correspondingly perceived as having the most societal privilege regardless of material wealth or class status.

Oi.  Colton is A) "sterotypically attractive," B) "cisgender," and C) "white."  He's gay, but apparently that's not worth much in terms of overcoming these unforgiveable sins.

I was, candidly, surprised at the naked contempt expressed for Colton in this article, published to the world on Pride.com, that is based on his skin color and gender identity.  The irony of it is pretty strong.  

Anyway, I read a few more articles about this series and found this: 

Quote

Colton Underwood’s Father ‘Would Have Preferred’ His Son Come Out to Him ‘Differently’
”The Bachelor“ star revealed his sexual orientation to his dad while filming Netflix docuseries ”Coming Out Colton“

Colton Underwood, a former NFL player and star of Season 23 of “The Bachelor,” came out as gay to his family in an unconventional way — while filming a Netflix docuseries about his coming out journey.

Not everyone was thrilled with how the reality star went about it. “I’m not saying I’m upset about it, but I would have preferred it had been done differently,” his father Scott Underwood told the New York Times in an article about “Coming Out Colton.”

Like many of Underwood’s friends and family members, his father first learned about his son’s sexuality while on camera, in order to capture his genuine reaction. In Scott’s case, the two were on a fishing trip when he got the news.

Given that Colton has spent much of his adult life in the spotlight, his father conceded that his coming out this way makes sense. Colton is “an entertainer, let’s face it,” he said. “That’s what he’s chosen to do for his career.”

Referencing his son’s choice to participate in the docuseries, Scott continued, “Am I going to say it’s for fame? No. Did he come out on TV for money? Sure. But who in reality entertainment doesn’t leverage their life and put it all out there for money?”

Holy cow.  Not only did this guy ambush his mom on camera, he did this to his dad too.  And he did so "for money."

Still, I pressed on.  I was wondering what other "gay" media outlets would have to say about this.  Well, at Advocate.com I found this: Colton Underwood’s Underhanded Attempt to Make a Buck

"Wow.  That's harsh," I thought.  Particularly since would expect such a website to be quite sympathetic to Colton.  I read on:

Quote

Colton Underwood got to play in the NFL, because he remained in the closet, and that was his decision. After his football career, he made a name for himself as a reality star with ABC’s franchise series The Bachelor. Underwood was truly acting as a straight man in this role. He ended up with a girlfriend, Cassie Randolph, who took out a restraining order against him last September.

Randolph accused Underwood of placing a tracker on her car, sending her and her friends anonymous threatening texts, and menacingly standing outside her window late at night. I wrote once about how remaining in the closet can lead people to destructive behavior.

Being closeted is not an excuse for Underwood’s harassment. What he was alleged to have done was hurtful and illegal. But one thing is for sure. The accusations meant that Underwood was finished in the world of straight, reality TV.

When I saw his interview with Robin Roberts on Good Morning America, I was initially happy for him. The rumors have been around for a while about his sexuality, so for a brief period of time, I felt relieved for him to finally be telling his truth. We all know coming out is not easy, and maybe it was somewhat difficult for him; however, we didn’t know the whole story.

No sooner had I sympathized with Underwood when news followed after his interview that he was on to his next venture in reality TV, documenting his coming out journey for a Netflix series. Then, I began to question his motives. I texted a well-respected PR person I know with a link to the Netflix story and a “SMH.” We both agreed Underwood’s reason for coming out appeared unseemly.

The entire arrangement with Roberts was nothing more than a PR gambit, a tease, for his new reality show, which will put him back in the news when it premieres. The interview was all part of a big plan. A push. A way to generate publicity for the real story, which is that Netflix series, and Underwood’s next lucrative way to cash in on his celebrity.

What Underwood did with his coming out story, and the revelation about his sexuality, was contrived and motivated by money. Plain and simple. Compare it to Sam. He came out to make a difference. Underwood came out to make a buck, and LGBTQ+ people are beginning to take notice.

Wow.  Harsh.  And this is from Advocate.com?  And what is it that Colton had done to his at-the-time girlfriend?  See here:

Quote

That Underwood and Randolph never made it down the aisle is hardly a surprise—The Bachelor isn’t exactly known for its marital success rate. But Randolph’s request for a restraining order alleged that Underwood had sent her and himself frightening text messages from a private number pretending to be a stalker, that he’d begun taking obsessive walks by her house and placed a tracking device in her car, that he’d lurked outside the window of her bedroom at her parents’ house at 2 a.m. Months later, Randolph dropped the request and Underwood shared a statement that said they’d reached a private agreement. “I do not believe Cassie did anything wrong in filing for the restraining orders and also believe she acted in good faith,” he wrote. “I appreciate everyone’s respect for privacy regarding this matter.”

Yeah, that's pretty bad stuff.  No excuse for it.  And more than a few articles about this series characterize it as a PR campaign intended to distract public attention from Colton's misconduct against his girlfriend.  To his credit, though, he did say this:

Quote

It was clear that the “excuses” Underwood wanted to avoid listing were about his treatment of Cassie, and at the time, one could perhaps appreciate the former NFL player’s refusal to let his repressed homosexuality explain away the mistakes he had made in his past. “I’m sorry for the pain and emotional stress I caused,” he told Roberts about the situation with his ex-girlfriend. “I wish I would have been courageous enough to fix myself before I broke anybody else.”

By the time I finished reading these, I was thinking that this narrative seems overly melodramatic and reality-TV-ish.  I've never been a fan of such things.  

Moreover, this last article, in passing, describes some of the sexual content of the series.  Just a few lines, but way graphic and lurid.  Sigh.  This is one of those big disconnects, I think, between the "LGBT" community and, well, people like me.  I'd rather not have prurience be a near-constant element of LGBT content.  But boy, I have to steel myself pretty much every time I try to read an article from a "gay" media outlet.  I'd like to better understand the "gay" perspective, but I'd like to do it without having to subsequently wish out my mind's eye with disinfectant.  Graphic references and descriptions to sex and sexuality are not only common, at times even prevalent, but also casual.  

In contemplating this point I was reminded of an episode of Frasier where Frasier and his curmudgeon of a father, Martin, have a discussion about Martin's recent grumpiness at having been asked to neuter his dog, Eddie:

Quote

Martin: Look, it wasn't just Eddie I was mad about.  Eddie was the straw that broke the camel's back.  Seems like I'm always being told to take my feet off the furniture, put a coaster under my beer, turn the TV down... I used to make the rules, and now I have to follow them.  This makin' any sense to you?

Frasier: From a psychological standpoint, it makes perfect sense.  Slowly, over the years, your responsibilities have been taken away from you, and you, well, you feel symbolically castrated.

Martin: Oh, why does everything with you shrinks start in the crotch?

That's kind of how I feel when I try to read LGBT literature.  So much of it starts, or ends, in "the crotch."  Graphic sexuality woven throughout.  Frankly, it's gross.  The glib casualness and gratuitousness only makes it more so.  I don't want to read such stuff, and I don't want my teens reading it either.

CB, you didn't mention that the show includes conversations about "fisting," porn star genitalia, hooking up with a porn star, dildoes, and so on.  I'm assuming (hoping, really) that you did not see this, as I think it would have been rather shocking to come across it while watching a show that you recommend.  I had actually thought of passing on your recommendation to a friend whose teenage daughter has recently "come out" as bisexual.  I had thought that this series, based on your recommendation, might provide some insights for a (Latter-day Saint) father who is looking to understand what his daughter is going through.  But then I find that the series includes prurient and salacious dreck that I would never find appropriate for consumption by a teenage girl, let alone her father.  

I really am interested in gaining more understanding about the LGBT perspective.  But I don't feel I should be subjected to graphic sexual references as a part of the process.  Moreover, Coming Out Colton seems to be more melodramatic "Reality TV."  I'm just not interested in that.  I find it contemptible that Colton would ambush his family members (his parents!) on camera, and that he would do so - as his father put it - to "leverage {Colton's} life and put it all out there for money."

For these reasons, I'll take a pass on Colton's Netflix series.  My wife recently completed reading Charlie Bird's Without the Mask.  I'll give that a read instead.  I would also recommend Bird's 2019 opinion piece in the Deseret News: Everyone loved me as Cosmo the Cougar, but would they love who I was behind the mask?  Thoughtful.  Introspective.  Helpful.  And totally lacking in graphic sexual references.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I gave some serious thought to watching this.  But having read a bit about it, it seems to have some problems.

First off, it is troubling to me that Colton seems to have put his family members on the spot.  See here (from Pride.com) :

I read this and thought "Surely this guy didn't ambush his mom with a 'coming out' involving a camera crew a few feet away recording her reaction?  Surely no son would do that to his own mother."  The article doesn't specify whether his mom knew beforehand, but it sure comes across like she did not.  I also found this description (also from Pride.com) :

Wow.  Pride.com is publicly faulting Colton for being "cisgender" and "white," saying his reality show "reeks of privilege."  They further run him down by pointing to misconduct involving his girlfriend (though I think criticism of him on that point is more legitimate since it pertains to his conduct rather than his immutable traits).

I've heard quite a bit about "internalized homophobia," but this article seems to have quite a bit of "internalized" contempt for, well, "cisgender" and/or "white" people.  Such are, I think, the noxious consequences of the Oppression Olympics:

Oi.  Colton is A) "sterotypically attractive," B) "cisgender," and C) "white."  He's gay, but apparently that's not worth much in terms of overcoming these unforgiveable sins.

I was, candidly, surprised at the naked contempt expressed for Colton in this article, published to the world on Pride.com, that is based on his skin color and gender identity.  The irony of it is pretty strong.  

Anyway, I read a few more articles about this series and found this: 

Holy cow.  Not only did this guy ambush his mom on camera, he did this to his dad too.  And he did so "for money."

Still, I pressed on.  I was wondering what other "gay" media outlets would have to say about this.  Well, at Advocate.com I found this: Colton Underwood’s Underhanded Attempt to Make a Buck

"Wow.  That's harsh," I thought.  Particularly since would expect such a website to be quite sympathetic to Colton.  I read on:

Wow.  Harsh.  And this is from Advocate.com?  And what is it that Colton had done to his at-the-time girlfriend?  See here:

Yeah, that's pretty bad stuff.  No excuse for it.  And more than a few articles about this series characterize it as a PR campaign intended to distract public attention from Colton's misconduct against his girlfriend.  To his credit, though, he did say this:

By the time I finished reading these, I was thinking that this narrative seems overly melodramatic and reality-TV-ish.  I've never been a fan of such things.  

Moreover, this last article, in passing, describes some of the sexual content of the series.  Just a few lines, but way graphic and lurid.  Sigh.  This is one of those big disconnects, I think, between the "LGBT" community and, well, people like me.  I'd rather not have prurience be a near-constant element of LGBT content.  But boy, I have to steel myself pretty much every time I try to read an article from a "gay" media outlet.  I'd like to better understand the "gay" perspective, but I'd like to do it without having to subsequently wish out my mind's eye with disinfectant.  Graphic references and descriptions to sex and sexuality are not only common, at times even prevalent, but also casual.  

In contemplating this point I was reminded of an episode of Frasier where Frasier and his curmudgeon of a father, Martin, have a discussion about Martin's recent grumpiness at having been asked to neuter his dog, Eddie:

That's kind of how I feel when I try to read LGBT literature.  So much of it starts, or ends, in "the crotch."  Graphic sexuality woven throughout.  Frankly, it's gross.  The glib casualness and gratuitousness only makes it more so.  I don't want to read such stuff, and I don't want my teens reading it either.

CB, you didn't mention that the show includes conversations about "fisting," porn star genitalia, hooking up with a porn star, dildoes, and so on.  I'm assuming (hoping, really) that you did not see this, as I think it would have been rather shocking to come across it while watching a show that you recommend.  I had actually thought of passing on your recommendation to a friend whose teenage daughter has recently "come out" as bisexual.  I had thought that this series, based on your recommendation, might provide some insights for a (Latter-day Saint) father who is looking to understand what his daughter is going through.  But then I find that the series includes prurient and salacious dreck that I would never find appropriate for consumption by a teenage girl, let alone her father.  

I really am interested in gaining more understanding about the LGBT perspective.  But I don't feel I should be subjected to graphic sexual references as a part of the process.  Moreover, Coming Out Colton seems to be more melodramatic "Reality TV."  I'm just not interested in that.  I find it contemptible that Colton would ambush his family members (his parents!) on camera, and that he would do so - as his father put it - to "leverage {Colton's} life and put it all out there for money."

For these reasons, I'll take a pass on Colton's Netflix series.  My wife recently completed reading Charlie Bird's Without the Mask.  I'll give that a read instead.  I would also recommend Bird's 2019 opinion piece in the Deseret News: Everyone loved me as Cosmo the Cougar, but would they love who I was behind the mask?  Thoughtful.  Introspective.  Helpful.  And totally lacking in graphic sexual references.

Thanks,

-Smac

I never said the series was a perfect Disneyland story of what it is like to struggle all your life for being gay.  While there is nothing in the series that is graphic, it is a real adult discussion about what Colton has gone through.  There is a wide perspective about how other gay men handle their sexuality.  But it doesn't center at all on his crotch as you suggest.  He is not a perfect guy.  In fact throughout the series, he constantly points out his own flaws and the big mistakes he has made in the past, especially with his former girlfriend.  He also explains what he was personally going through when he went on the batchlor and why he did it.  Sometimes life is messy.  What I personally liked about this series is that it did show all the warts and all the both good and bad decisions and actions he has gone through.  Unlike some, I don't judge him for the mistakes he has made.  I applaud the restitution he tried to go through even when it was hard and even when it was not welcomed.  

I too did things I regret doing when I was trying so desperately to be straight.  And like him, my major motivation was trying to please God.  Trying so desperately to do what my priesthood leaders told me I should do when in fact, their advice and my  taking their advice was very destructive to others.  I should have never gotten married.  It was really unfair to my wife.  I still live with that regret.  And as you know, following those promises that those church leaders told me to do was something i also struggle with forgiving those Church leaders for.  It was his faith that motivate him to also make some of the worst decisions in his life that he should never had made.  

Yes this is series is at times difficult to watch.  But when I read a lot of the comments on this board, and I have to say, a lot come from you, I realize a complete lack of perspective of what is actually going on for someone who is gay.  I thought it might be helpful for those that want to better understand the difficulty of those trials and the consequences of those who think they know exactly what a gay person must do in their lives when they really are only seeing it from their own perspective.

If you do decide to watch the series. I guess there are two ways to view it.  You can take notes about all the things he did wrong and how you would have handled those situations differently if it was you.  Or you could watch it with the intent of really trying to understand what it must be like for the person who is making those decisions.  Certainly I would have made some of his decisions differently than him.  But it is his story and his flaws.  I am not going to judge him for those flaws.  What I did learn is that it is messy and while I didn't handle things always as he did, what I did have is a lot of those same issues to work through in my own way.  And remember, this is one person's journey.  It is not how every person who is gay deals with their life. This is not a whitewashing of the LGBT community.  Sometimes honesty even when it is difficult to show is better than covering up the real history and only telling people what they want to hear.  

 

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

I never said the series was a perfect Disneyland story of what it is like to struggle all your life for being gay.  

I wasn't looking for "perfect Disnelyland story."

I would have appreciated a heads-up about graphic sexual references.

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

While there is nothing in the series that is graphic, it is a real adult discussion about what Colton has gone through.  There is a wide perspective about how other gay men handle their sexuality.  But it doesn't center at all on his crotch as you suggest.  

I didn't suggest that.

I guess I find it . . . unsettling to have graphic, prurient sexual references casually injected into what otherwise could be illuminating and constructive media content. 

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

He is not a perfect guy.  In fact throughout the series, he constantly points out his own flaws and the big mistakes he has made in the past, especially with his former girlfriend.  He also explains what he was personally going through when he went on the batchlor and why he did it.  Sometimes life is messy.  What I personally liked about this series is that it did show all the warts and all the both good and bad decisions and actions he has gone through.  Unlike some, I don't judge him for the mistakes he has made.  I applaud the restitution he tried to go through even when it was hard and even when it was not welcomed.  

I don't judge him, either.

But nor do I want to listen to him chatting about graphic sexual matters.

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes this is series is at times difficult to watch.  But when I read a lot of the comments on this board, and I have to say, a lot come from you, I realize a complete lack of perspective of what is actually going on for someone who is gay.  

I think you regularly conflate simple and fundamental and reasonable disagreement with "a complete lack of perspective."

People can share their respective perspectives without injecting prurient content into the discussion.  Do you disagree?

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

I thought it might be helpful for those that want to better understand the difficulty of those trials and the consequences of those who think they know exactly what a gay person must do in their lives when they really are only seeing it from their own perspective.

Sure.  But when that "perspective" includes graphic sexual references, a heads-up would be nice.

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you do decide to watch the series. I guess there are two ways to view it.  You can take notes about all the things he did wrong and how you would have handled those situations differently if it was you.  Or you could watch it with the intent of really trying to understand what it must be like for the person who is making those decisions.

Or I could pass on the melodramatic reality TV that includes graphic sexual references, and look for other ways to try to "understand what it must be like for the person who is making those decisions."

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

Certainly I would have made some of his decisions differently than him.  But it is his story and his flaws.  I am not going to judge him for those flaws.  What I did learn is that it is messy and while I didn't handle things always as he did, what I did have is a lot of those same issues to work through in my own way.  And remember, this is one person's journey.  It is not how every person who is gay deals with their life. This is not a whitewashing of the LGBT community.  

Nobody's looking for or expecting that.  But surely there's a fair measure of distance between "whitewashing" and the inclusion of graphic sexual references.

This is part of the problem for me.  Vulgar and coarse language, prurience, and boundary-pushing just seems to be a pretty common thing in the "LGBT" materials.  This is what I was referring to by going to "the crotch."

I have been in court hundreds of times.  The purpose of the court system is to ascertain the facts and fairly apply the law.  A fairly important part of that process is decorum and civility and deportment.  So a lawyer that may cuss a blue streak in his everyday conversation will substantially moderate his language, tone and behavior when appearing in court.  Not to show off or put on a false front, but rather to avoid behavior and language that is unseemly or offensive or distracting from the purposes of the legal proceedings.

Lawyers obviously know how to behave in Court, but even people who have little or no legal experience either A) know it intuitively, or else B) pick up on expectations very quickly and adapt to them.  And you know what?  It really helps.  Maintaining a sense of decorum and dignity and constraint is very helpful when discussing difficult and disputed issues in a legal setting.

I think most folks likewise recognize the strangeness of going to a message board populated by highly religious people and encouraging them to watch a TV series that includes conversations about "fisting," porn star genitalia, hooking up with a porn star, dildoes, and so on, while making no mention of this content.  

I sure would like to hear LGBT narratives, but without the inclusion of lewd, graphic, prurient content.

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sometimes honesty even when it is difficult to show is better than covering up the real history and only telling people what they want to hear.  

I'm fine with honesty and candor.  I have reservations about lewd and graphic sexual references in media content.  I dispute that such things are a necessary component of explaining one's "perspective."  So if the individual does insist on including prurient content, then I'll look for alternative sources of information.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 8, 2021 by smac97

[Canadiandude]

I won’t be watching Coming Out Colton, not because I’m a prude, but b/c I’m not confident he’s the kind of gay man I want myself or others to nec put on a pedestal.

While I reckon that some of the mistakes he’s made were influenced by internalized homophobia, he still hasn’t come to terms with some of the hurt he’s caused to others; and much of the show’s iconography doesn’t challenge the internal issues rampant within the Gay, Bi, and ‘Mostly Str8’ community.

Much like hetero-communities, there exists an unspoken (yet sometimes explicit) hierarchy, where men that are white, athletic, young, and ‘masculine’ (in the singular, hegemonic sense) tend to be more valued.

It took me a while to realize that part of the reason why I resisted accepting my (homo)sexuality was because I didn’t match the ‘feminine’ stereotypes attached to the label.

Unfortunately, it proved even more difficult to accept and realize that dominance and submissiveness are somewhat subjective; and not essential to any particular gender construct such as masculinity or femininity, nor ‘who does what’ during sexual relations between 2 or more people. 

I’m still attracted to particular constellations of masculinity-archetypes and patterns, but I’m trying harder these days to be authentic, and less worried about trying to be (or not be) x, y, or z. 
 

~

I recently had a few gay friends on the margins express to me how difficult it is for them on the ‘courtship’ apps, with potential suitors often devaluating then on account of their being/not-being x, or y, or z. That was eye-opening.
 

Courtship is obviously difficult and of course you should be attracted to your partner, but it’s a terrible experience to see things like ‘masc for masc’, ‘no Asians’, or being objectified solely because of one’s qualities.

~
 

There’s a lot to the whole ‘gay bro’ vibe of Colton’s show that I like, that fits the ‘every-day gay’ vibe that I was looking for when younger. 
 

Yet shows like Colton’s need to be careful that they don’t reproduce expectations, norms and taboos that already damage our communities, and considerate of the people he may have hurt in the past- like all the women he used as ‘beards’.

~
 

I rarely agree with Smac, and my reasoning isn’t exactly the same, but I do think there are better options than Colton’s show.

What does it mean when every potential suitor is also possibly a rival?

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6273507

Edited December 8, 2021 by Canadiandude

[Canadiandude]

Here’s some additional links on the above topics. Some may appear to merely regional in scope but don’t let that fool ya. These issues are everywhere:

https://www.papermag.com/gay-masc-bodies-2625382300.html?rebelltitem=21#rebelltitem21

https://www.them.us/story/gay-men-masculinity-mental-health/amp

https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2020/10/26/when-inclusivity-becomes-conditional-racism-body-shaming-and-femme-shaming-in-the-gay-male-community/

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6119507

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

I won’t be watching Coming Out Colton, not because I’m a prude, but b/c I’m not confident he’s the kind of gay man I want myself or others to nec put on a pedestal.

While I reckon that some of the mistakes he’s made were influenced by internalized homophobia, he still hasn’t come to terms with some of the hurt he’s caused to others; and much of the show’s iconography doesn’t challenge the internal issues rampant within the Gay, Bi, and ‘Mostly Str8’ community.

Much like hetero-communities, there exists an unspoken (yet sometimes explicit) hierarchy, where men that are white, athletic, young, and ‘masculine’ (in the singular, hegemonic sense) tend to be more valued.

It took me a while to realize that part of the reason why I resisted accepting my (homo)sexuality was because I didn’t match the ‘feminine’ stereotypes attached to the label.

Unfortunately, it proved even more difficult to accept and realize that dominance and submissiveness are somewhat subjective; and not essential to any particular gender construct such as masculinity or femininity, nor ‘who does what’ during sexual relations between 2 or more people. 

I’m still attracted to particular constellations of masculinity-archetypes and patterns, but I’m trying harder these days to be authentic, and less worried about trying to be (or not be) x, y, or z. 
 

~

I recently had a few gay friends on the margins express to me how difficult it is for them on the ‘courtship’ apps, with potential suitors often devaluating then on account of their being/not-being x, or y, or z. That was eye-opening.
 

Courtship is obviously difficult and of course you should be attracted to your partner, but it’s a terrible experience to see things like ‘masc for masc’, ‘no Asians’, or being objectified solely because of one’s qualities.

~
 

There’s a lot to the whole ‘gay bro’ vibe of Colton’s show that I like, that fits the ‘every-day gay’ vibe that I was looking for when younger. 
 

Yet shows like Colton’s need to be careful that they don’t reproduce expectations, norms and taboos that already damage our communities, and considerate of the people he may have hurt in the past- like all the women he used as ‘beards’.

~
 

I rarely agree with Smac, and my reasoning isn’t exactly the same, but I do think there are better options than Colton’s show.

What does it mean when every potential suitor is also possibly a rival?

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6273507

I've enjoyed listening to the young fella on MS's podcast, Nate Winterton. He may be more what you're thinking, or sorry if I'm wrong. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

What does it mean when every potential suitor is also possibly a rival?

I'm not sure how prevalent this is globally, but where I live the most likely victim of domestic violence statistically is a male with a male partner.