Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

David Archuleta's new single about he and (some in?) his family leaving the Faith


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote
Quote

Your last question is a good one.  We can look to history for answers.  I pointed out previously that in societies where the social construct of sexual identity didn't exist (Romans, Greeks, etc.), the predisposition towards those behaviors being discussed still existed.  In fact, it probably flourished more than it does now.    So, I don't think Smac has much to stand on. 

If you can show me the word that "Romans, Greeks, etc." had to describe the "sexual identities" we now call gay, lesbian, etc., please do so.

I don't think you will be able to do that.  Until the innovation of "sexual identity" came along 100+ years ago, societies did not conceptualize "the predisposition towards those behaviors" as an "identity."  And outside of the West, much of the world still does not.

Why would he care to?  

He is under no obligation to do so.  But then, he won't have "much to stand on" vis-à-vis his critique of my position.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

He was making the point that even without the label of identity, the predispositions existed, not the reverse.

I readily concede the point (that "predispositions" have always existed whereas the "label of identity" has not, and is instead an innovation).  I think it substantiates my position, whereas Pogi seems to think it does not.

I acknowledge that "sexual attractions" of every variety have existed from time out of mind.  My point is that conceptualizing such attractions as "sexual identities" is, historically speaking, a novelty.  An innovation.  A social construct created, apparently for the first time, in the late 19th-century.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  I think of myself as attracted to a woman (my wife).  I do not view women other than my wife in romantic/sexual/sexualized terms.

Before I was married, I was attracted to some women in a romantic or potentially romantic sense, but I did not construe that attraction in sexual or sexualized terms.

Thanks,

-Smac

How did you construe it?

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

keep identifying myself as a [take your pick] I absorb and take on that identity. Point being- we don't have to identify ourselves as anything if we don't want to- we have a choice.

Identities can be very focused or very expansive even using the same label.  There are those who perceive the gay identity as adopting a way of dressing, speaking, walking, interests, etc.  There are those who only use the term identity to identify their sexual attraction.  For the first, refusing to take on that identity will most likely result in not adopting all the behaviours that are attached to that identity.  For the latter though, not labeling one’s same sex attractions as gay would not have much impact on those attractions themselves.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it substantiates my position, whereas Pogi seems to think it does not.

 

It is a recent innovation to label descriptions of the earth’s movement as plate tectonics (1960s).  Last I checked this hasn’t affected how the earth moves.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

Conversely, setting aside the label/identity, or subordinating it, allows the individual to keep the Law of Chastity in its place as the arbiter of sexual boundaries.

You keep saying this,

I keep saying this because my position continues to be misunderstood and/or misconstrued and/or mischaracterized.

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

but you haven’t actually described how it functions when attractions are deeply embedded and sexual drive and the drive for companionship are strong.

I think "how it functions" is going to vary with each individual.  Some 

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

It comes across as you on the bridge saying “Make it so” without a clue of what is going on in the engine room, the work the actual engineers have to do.

You are faulting Captain Picard for relying on Geordi LaForge to do what he is supposed to do?  

You are expecting Captain Picard to have the exact same skill set as Geordi?

You are comparing me to Captain Picard?  Whom do I command? ;) 

I am speaking of a general principle or concept.  And I am not demanding it or ordering anyone to comply with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am speaking of a general principle or concept. 

I am not faulting Picard at all since he actually has an engine room with engineers in it.  Especially since I have seen him in action where he has personal knowledge and experience dealing with the engines. 

At this point, I don’t believe you have confirmed you have something similar even if you think you do. The way you describe your experience of attraction is atypical***.  (Not implying it is wrong in anyway, it just may be difficult to extrapolate your experience to a more typical one).
 

Quote

And I am not demanding it or ordering anyone to comply with it.

No, but you are not giving any indication of how it could be done either, just insisting it can be. 

As a general principle I can speak of making the earth stop moving due to plate tectonic forces.  Without a hint on how this is to be done and with a lot of evidence against it, it is rather useless speculation.

When you are trying to convince others of the value of changing their behaviors, demonstration that first it can be done with evidence you are not actually confusing some other change with the change you are promoting and then pointing at least in the direction of how one expects it to be done is rather important. 
 

***I have no clue if it is your experience, your personality, or your argument that is causing you to choose the language you are using.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:
Quote

I was attracted to some women in a romantic or potentially romantic sense, but I did not construe that attraction in sexual or sexualized terms.

How did you construe it?

In a romantic or potentially romantic sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In a romantic or potentially romantic sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps the men should speak up here rather than me, but based on my psych training I would say this description is unusual (not unhealthy or dysfunctional in the least as it sounds like it has worked great for you).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps the men show speak up here rather than me, but based on my psych training I would say this is unusual (not unhealthy or dysfunctional in the least as it sounds like it has worked great for you).

Sounds demisexual to me and definitely well outside what I experience (and have experienced from the time I was very young). 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps the men show speak up here rather than me, but based on my psych training I would say this is unusual (not unhealthy or dysfunctional in the least as it sounds like it has worked great for you).

So it's weird to you that a man might have romantic feelings towards someone without sex being the main focus?

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So it's weird to you that a man might have romantic feelings towards someone without sex being the main focus?

No.  It is the apparent absence of any sexual feelings except in the context of marriage I am wondering about.  And I never said it is weird, just atypical.  There is a huge variation of sexual experience and expression, I wouldn’t use “weird” except for extreme types and what Smac describes (or at least what I think he is describing) is not extreme (he is not breaking any laws, an adult consenting human is the object of his affections) in the least imo.  I think his situation sounds fantastic for him.

I may be misreading him or Smac may just be circumspect about his personal feelings or he may be fitting the description to the conversation as he sees it and he might describe his experience differently in a different context.  So I am not saying Smac is atypical, just that his description is.

Honestly, I am just trying to figure out what the apparent gap in communication is caused by.  This was unexpected by me and I have probably taken it too personal.  My apologies if so.  I get not everyone enjoys talking about personality aspects when it’s their own.

At most perhaps I might ask Smac to consider that if his own experience is significantly different, that may be why the way he speaks about the part of one’s life that is sexual isn’t making many connections and is instead getting rejected even though both he and I share several concepts (sexual fluidity describes the general human condition even if it may not apply to a specific individual, adherence to the Law of Chastity is a good thing, being LDS is fantastic).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
  • Smac: "I have never thought of myself as having a 'sexual identity.'" 
  • Calm: Do you think of yourself as attracted to women?
  • Smac: No.  I think of myself as attracted to a woman (my wife).  I do not view women other than my wife in romantic/sexual/sexualized terms.  Before I was married, I was attracted to some women in a romantic or potentially romantic sense, but I did not construe that attraction in sexual or sexualized terms.
  • Calm: How did you construe it?
  • Smac: In a romantic or potentially romantic sense.
  • Calm: Perhaps the men show speak up here rather than me, but based on my psych training I would say this is unusual (not unhealthy or dysfunctional in the least as it sounds like it has worked great for you).
  • SeekingUnderstanding: Sounds demisexual to me and definitely well outside what I experience (and have experienced from the time I was very young). 

"Demisexual" is a neologism coined in 2006, a decade or so after I left the dating scene.

There are some whose worldview is steeped in the "sexual identity" paradigm, such that those who are not readily in that paradigm seem weird. 

Conversely, some of those outside of that paradigm may think it's kind of weird to categorize everyone in sexualized terms/identities.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:
Quote

So it's weird to you that a man might have romantic feelings towards someone without sex being the main focus?

No.  It is the apparent absence of any sexual feelings except in the context of marriage I am wondering about.  

I have not claimed an "absence of any sexual feelings."

I said: "I have never thought of myself as having a 'sexual identity.'" 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

And I never said it is weird, just atypical.  There is a huge variation of sexual experience and expression, I wouldn’t use “weird” except for extreme types and what Smac describes (or at least what I think he is describing) is not extreme (he is not breaking any laws, an adult consenting human is the object of his affections) in the least imo.  I think his situation sounds fantastic for him.

Prior to getting married, I sought to constrain my thoughts and words and behaviors to the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  I don't see this as "weird" at all.

Before I was married, I was attracted to some women in a romantic or potentially romantic sense, but I did not construe that attraction in sexual or sexualized terms.  I don't see this as "weird" at all.

During my married life, I do not view women other than my wife in romantic/sexual/sexualized terms.  I don't see this as "weird" at all.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I may be misreading him or Smac may just be circumspect about his personal feelings

Some of that, yes.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

or he may be fitting the description to the conversation as he sees it and he might describe his experience differently in a different context.  

Not really.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

So I am not saying Smac is atypical, just that his description is.

I dunno.  I think plenty of people can and do constrain their sexual appetites and thoughts. As I write this, I am sitting in a library.  Throughout the day dozens of women have walked past me.  I have not thought of any of them in sexual or sexualized terms.  This is a pretty standard MO.  I don't think that is "weird" or out of the ordinary.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Honestly, I am just trying to figure out what the apparent gap in communication is caused by.  This was unexpected by me and I have probably taken it too personal.  

Yes, a bit.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

My apologies if so.  I get not everyone enjoys talking about personality aspects when it’s their own.

I think sexuality is an important and sacred topic.  I think it ought to be discussed with tact and decorum.  To wit: A stranger hiding behind a pseudonym apparently took your comments about me as a launching pad, as justification to speculate about me and my sexuality, to attach - without solicitation or invitation - a sexual label/identity to me, etc. (despite my repeated statement that "I have never thought of myself as having a 'sexual identity'").

2 hours ago, Calm said:

At most perhaps I might ask Smac to consider that if his own experience is significantly different, that may be why the way he speaks about the part of one’s life that is sexual isn’t making many connections and is instead getting rejected even though both he and I share several concepts (sexual fluidity describes the general human condition even if it may not apply to a specific individual, adherence to the Law of Chastity is a good thing, being LDS is fantastic).

I'd prefer discussion of the topic, not me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are some whose worldview is steeped in the "sexual identity" paradigm, such that those who are not readily in that paradigm seem weird. 

Conversely, some of those outside of that paradigm may think it's kind of weird to categorize everyone in sexualized terms/identities.

The only person using weird here is you and zealously.  I used unusual, atypical, and unexpected.

And I typically don’t use sexual identities except when trying to communicate with those who do and instead focus on behaviours anyway.

My own paradigm since mid teens has been sexual fluidity (though that wasn’t what it was called, can’t remember now) due to encountering it in a psych text I was reading and a lightbulb went on in regards to stuff I had been reading from all sorts of different cultures.

According to my daughter I run atypical as well.  I am not so sure, but she is positive.  It is often harder to see oneself is atypical than it is to see someone else.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Demisexual" is a neologism coined in 2006, a decade or so after I left the dating scene.

There are some whose worldview is steeped in the "sexual identity" paradigm, such that those who are not readily in that paradigm seem weird. 

This is so laughably dumb. I had no terms to describe my feelings, but as early as kindergarten I had strong sexual feelings for the opposite gender. I was not steeped in “sexual identity” paradigm. People are just as different as the rainbow. Grow up and get out more. Being demisexual is not weird. I’m not weird. We just experience the world differently. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

There are some whose worldview is steeped in the "sexual identity" paradigm, such that those who are not readily in that paradigm seem weird. 

Conversely, some of those outside of that paradigm may think it's kind of weird to categorize everyone in sexualized terms/identities.

The only person using weird here is you and zealously.  I used unusual, atypical, and unexpected.

Okay.  I don't think these are apt, either.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

And I typically don’t use sexual identities and instead focus on behaviours anyway.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

Demisexual" is a neologism coined in 2006, a decade or so after I left the dating scene.

There are some whose worldview is steeped in the "sexual identity" paradigm, such that those who are not readily in that paradigm seem weird. 

This is so laughably dumb.

At some point I hope you can come to serious conversations without this sort of stuff as your go-to and knee-jerk response.  As it is, I often don't take your comments very seriously.

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I had no terms to describe my feelings, but as early as kindergarten I had strong sexual feelings for the opposite gender. I was not steeped in “sexual identity” paradigm.

I think you are now, as evidenced by you labeling me with a sexual identity, despite my repeated statement that "I have never thought of myself as having a 'sexual identity.'"

Are you just not able to help yourself?  Can you conceptualize someone not subscribing to a worldview that involves "sexual identity" as a lens?  I'm not suggesting that you set aside that worldview, since you can proceed as you please.  But if and when you project it onto others, that gets a bit weird.

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

People are just as different as the rainbow.

Are you familiar with the phrase "discrete and insular minority"?

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Grow up and get out more. Being demisexual is not weird. I’m not weird. We just experience the world differently. 

Indeed.  Some of us choose to not adopt "sexual identity" as part of their worldview.  You seem insistent on foisting it on me, though.  That comes across as pretty weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you just not able to help yourself?  Can you conceptualize someone not subscribing to a worldview that involves "sexual identity" as a lens?  I'm not suggesting that you set aside that worldview, since you can proceed as you please.  But if and when you project it onto others, that gets a bit weird.

I'm holding up the mirror to you, since you seem to think that people who see the world differently than you are "steeped in the 'sexual identity' paradigm". Some of us just words to describe what we feel without it being a major part of our lives. I used to have blonde hair now its dirty blond. I'm not steeped in some "blonde hair" hair world view. It's just an adjective that describes part of myself. I'm heterosexual. Strongly so. I'm not steeped in anything. That just describes how I am. Now if I was gay, it would be a much larger part of my identy, not because I was "steeped" in some sexual identity paradigm, but because bigotted people in the world would be telling my that I ought not to exist, my feelings are an abomination etc.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Tends to stymie it."

I am speaking from anecdotal observation and experience, and I am not speaking in absolutes.

I think publicly making such recommendations and singling out and demeaning ("set aside" or "subordinate") other people's identities instead of recognizing that these identities are not sinful or immoral and can co-exist in oneness and are all part of being a child of God is harmful behavior.  Especially when you just base it on "anecdotes" only.  It is shaming of how people personally identify as a child of God. All of these identities are part of being a child of God.  The paradoxical identities of both saint and sinner (as one example of how all identities are just parts of the whole) are part of my holistic identity as a child of God   Jesus said that he came for the "sinners" (Matt 5:31-32) and that the whole need no physician.  All of these identities are part of and make up my identity as a child of God. 

All of our identities should be subordinate/submissive to God - not to his children - aka "child of God".  Having other identities as subordinate to the identity of child of God doesn't even make sense to me, it is all part of the same identity.  I think it is healthier to view identity in a more holistic oneness.   That holistic identity as a child of God is ever changing in many different ways.  I don't think it is helpful to view the identity of "child of God" in some static, righteous, unwavering way.  It just doesn't seem to present itself in that way - ever - unless you are Jesus. 

As a child of God, for example, my identities of both saint and sinner coexist.  In fact, being honest and identifying myself as a sinner is critical to repentance and improving my behavior.  My identity as a sinner is not subordinate to being a child of God, it is what it means for me personally to be a child of God.  Being male is equally part of my identity as a child of God.  Being heterosexaul is also part of my identity and experience as a child of God.   So here is the problem I see with you demeaning the identity of homosexual children of God - there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual (even the church acknowledges this).  No, that identity should not be "set aside" or "subordinate" to any other identity, rather all identities should be subordinate and submissive to God.       

I can't imagine a bishop or anyone else counseling a heterosexual who has a sexual problem to "set aside" his identity as a heterosexual or be "subordinate" to anything but God.  The biased approach in singling and demeaning the identity of homosexuals in this way is not ok and is harmful. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

But there sure seem to be a lot of narratives about a Latter-day Saint (often former or lapsed) prioritizing participation in same-sex behavior over keeping the Law of Chastity. 

There seem to be a lot of narratives about Latter-day Saints (even active ones) prioritizing participation in immoral sex behavior over keeping the Law of Chastity.  That seems to be common among men...and women; gay and straight.  This proves nothing. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Embracing the "identity" sure seems to be a commonly integral element of that narrative progression.

There are more reasons than sex that people leave.   That is usually the last thing on the list of reasons.  Marriage and romantic relationship (not sex) and their place in the plan of salvation/after-life seem to be more important considerations.  Being married to a woman (at least one) in the afterlife doesn't feel right to them.  It is often more about following their conscience than anything.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

  To wit: David Archuleta.  He has abandoned one identity (an active and faithful Latter-day Saint) to pursue another "sexual" one.

As you have noted (your friend) who has chosen to stay is a counter anecdote.   Have you talked to David about why he left?  Do you know all the reasons?  Has he stated anywhere that sex is the primary reason for leaving?  He mentioned that he spoke with an apostle before leaving who's advice was "we just need to find you a nice girl", that is when he realized the church has no solution or place for gay people.  Usually, gay people feel like there is no place for them in a family centric church where we are taught that is the primary purpose for mortality - to have a family to learn to become like God - and that is why many gay (and single) people really struggle in the church.  Some choose to stay, and many leave.   Singles probably find it easier to stay because they can at least see where they belong in the afterlife and there is still theoretical potential in this life for a relationship. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I think the identity is often about identifying and acting on the attraction.  

Not in the case of your "friend".  Not in the case of single and unmarried faithful Latter-day Saints who predominantly follow cultural and societal norms of adopting a sexual identity.  

You're comments and anecdotes aren't helpful at making any point. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church is regularly raked across the coals for differentiating between the "attraction" and acting on it.

???  What does this have to do with sexual identities?  The church seems to have no problem with people identifying as gay.  No, this seems to be a special mission for you. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sexual attraction was never something I viewed as what I was, but rather what I felt and experienced.

The concept of "sexual identity" is a very new thing.

Not new enough to explain your outlier experience. 

Good for you, though.  So what? 

"Are you gay or straight smac97?" 

"Neither.  But I am attracted to women...".  

Strange looks ensue. 

It sounds strange because it is.  It is not the way our culture and society speaks or thinks, even in the church, for a very long time (time is relative, remember and this culture/language long outdate you).  You are an outlier that belongs in ancient times apparently. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

When a Latter-day Saint who is sexually attracted to his own sex is grappling with what to do with those proclivities, it is not uncommon to, at some point, embrace the "sexual identity," announce and proclaim it, seek validation and endorsement from others for it, begin to act in ways congruent with it, and either gradually or abruptly set aside or subordinate the conflicting identity (that of being a faithful and observant Latter-day Saint).  David Archuleta is a recent example of this progression.

There is no confliction between the identities of being gay and a child of God.  It is not an either or.   Again, the reason so many leave and celebrate their identity is because they felt it was stifled and their identity shamed (you are proving a good example) in the church and that there was no place for them.  They often feel unacceptable as they are in the church and the plan of salvation.  The only solution is "healing" or "changing" in the afterlife into something they have no desire to be.  That hurts.  It doesn't feel right in their conscience.  So quit making about sex.  It isn't about that for most that I have heard from. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Alternatively, a Latter-day Saint can choose to not embrace the sexual identity, or else choose to subordinate it, and to continue to keep the Law of Chastity to the best of his ability, and to otherwise continue in discipleship, keeping covenants, and so on.

That is a false dichotomy.  

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem insistent on foisting it on me, though. 

I am pretty sure he was just labeling the behavior as described and not giving you an identity which has much more to it than just not forming sexual attractions till you are emotionally attached to someone (I think the world would be a much happier place if we could all function this way, lol.  So much fewer complications.). That is how I read it. It would be foolish to psychoanalyze someone’s sexual identity or lack thereof from a few lines without much context.  But I may be wrong. He may be assigning an identity for a reason I didn’t think of. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...