In every “ex-gay” thread I’ve read to date the men who become “ex-gays” first live lives of utterly extreme sexual addiction; not to say drug addled erotomania; until eventually they repent of their spectacularly dysfunctional ways and embrace Christ.Well, if those are your two choices, no wonder, really.
But even then their gay orientation doesn’t appear to change, just their sexual addiction; so they’re not actually “ex-gays” at all, since it would be far more accurate to call them ex-drug and ex-sex addicts.
Why do we never hear of a well adjusted, monogamous gay man in the tenth year of his blissful homosexual partnership becoming an “ex-gay?” Can you guess? (Possibly because the dissolution rate for gay civil unions in Vermont is currently hovering at a mere 1%).
Back in April, I co-facilitated a workshop in London on this notion of sex “addiction” in gay men. (I’ll be doing another one in June.) If anyone is talking about erotomania or sex addiction, I always wonder if there’s erotophobia around. (Oh dear god, so many phobias. So little time.)
Being queer means different things for different people. More and more, I believe it’s to do with gender, not orientation. I have more in common with other sexually active men, of whatever orientation, than I do with Mr and Mr Happily-Partnered for Ten Years in Vermont. (Women have been saying this about being lesbian for decades, now, that they are women first, and have more in common with them than with other queers.)
If you call us dysfunctional long enough then perhaps we will believe it, feel ashamed of ourselves, and seek redemption through 12-step groups or fundamentalist Christianity or other belief systems. But the problem does not lie, I believe, in the “dysfunction” of having sex, but in the notion of sex as dysfunction. On a personal level, most men I know don’t see sex outside monogamous-relationship as a dysfunction, but I know a lot of women who do; indeed families break up on this very issue. On a political level, fundamentalists will always see the sexual anarchist as the threat to the notion of family, because all fundamentalism requires an enemy in order to exist. A toxic religious system is punitive in nature. Here is a description of “religious addiction“, a summary of the contents of a book called Toxic Faith. (Thanks to LCFP.)
{ 3 } Comments
I understand that the very idea of sex addiction is still very controversial, because it can seem to entrench the reactionary judgment values that we all want to escape from (and, in the light of that observation, I appreciate the generosity of your reply).
The “Sex is for Fags” post is, as I know you’re aware, a raw satire of the conflicted thinking that underscores most abstinence only programs, and that’s all it is, really.
But what are we to make of real addiction when it leads to unsafe sex practices? It seems fair to say that alcohol and drugs inhibit ones capacity to act rationally, or make informed choices. There are a lot of both addictions in the gay community (as in every other community) and it’s not treason to suggest that we might investigate it and see what it can tell us about ourselves.
I don’t agree with you that to contemplate the idea of sex addiction is to wholly succumb “to a worldview that is fundamentally conservative, one in which sex is reserved solely for the marital bed…”
That seems to make sex addiction into an either/or proposition, when human nature seems to me to be impressively various. Gay and straight, we can easily fall into patterns of sexual behavior that can damage our health, emotionally and physically, and there’s no real harm in saying so, I think.
The thing about ex-gays that I find risible is that they invariably attribute their poor life choices to their orientation, which is, I feel, problematic and misleading. Possibly because getting so tanked that you hardly know where you are or what you’re doing isn’t embracing your sexuality, so much as retreating from it in a haze of unawareness.
I am myself in the eight year of a loving relationship. Now my choice doesn’t have to be for everyone, nor need it necessarily stigmatize those who prefer to remain single. It’s merely a choice. I can understand why a person might elect to remain single and I respect their choice too.
I don’t necessarily feel I have more in common with sexually active people or celibate people, per se. Wilde, Genet and White have all spoken about the importance of the dissident; in art, and in sexuality; and I deeply appreciate their achievements and their viewpoints.
But ideology is a thing of the mind; and Wilde understood that the heart also guides us (or it should). Mine seeks out a deep and abiding connection with another. It is my own choice; I would prefer that connection to endure.
More on this later – I’m pressed for time – I enjoy your website very much and I appreciate your thoughtful reply.
Thanks for the dialogue, it’s great.
The “Sex is for Fags” post is, as I know you’re aware, a raw satire of the conflicted thinking that underscores most abstinence only programs, and that’s all it is, really.
Yes, of course, but I’m also making the point that in a funny way, from a fundamentalist erotophobic viewpoint, most activities that are enjoyably erotic (by anyone with an imagination) are deemed perverse, sinful, and you may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. Sex is gay.
But what are we to make of real addiction when it leads to unsafe sex practices?
Sex, like most enjoyable things in life, carries a degree of risk. If you have a lot of it, there is of course a greater risk. If you don’t use condoms and have anal sex, the risk is high. If you are drinking or drugging too much, then your problems are many, and the more mistakes you will make while having sex. At the root of it all is a lot of pain that needs to be looked at and listened to, when the time is right. But notions of being a sex “addict” (i.e. sick) can serve to further drive the person into feeling bad about themselves and their sexuality, and not caring what risks they take, especially when they lapse and binge, which is the bane of all abstinence/faith-based addiction/behavioural treatment programmes. Michael Shernoff, a NY therapist whom I’ve heard speak on this, has book coming out called Without Condoms which should be an interesting read.
…and it’s not treason to suggest that we might investigate it and see what it can tell us about ourselves.
Indeed, of course it’s not treason, a healthy community must constantly examine itself and grow and change. I have been that “traitor”, many a time.
I don’t agree with you that to contemplate the idea of sex addiction is to wholly succumb “to a worldview that is fundamentally conservative, one in which sex is reserved solely for the marital bed…”
Well, I’m not so sure. Because there’s such a judgment in the term “sex addict”. You are talking about (primarily, in this dialogue) a man who has a lot of sex. Someone, therefore, is saying it’s “too much” sex. Who? Why?
That seems to make sex addiction into an either/or proposition, when human nature seems to me to be impressively various.
As is each man’s sex drive. Some of us have a lot of sex, some of us don’t. Some like variety, some don’t. Who calls the man who has a lot of sex a “sex addict”? Or, if it’s variable, then what is “a little bit” too much sex? Or “way too much” sex?
Gay and straight, we can easily fall into patterns of sexual behavior that can damage our health, emotionally and physically, and there’s no real harm in saying so, I think.
“Patterns of sexual behaviour” … such as? It’s just sex. What’s wrong with sex? There may be needs that aren’t being met in someone who has a lot of sex, there may be spiritual/emotional/sensual/intellectual/social/hormonal needs at work that are all jumbled together and can be very confusing. But in my personal and professional experience “sex addict” as a label is just not helpful.
The thing about ex-gays that I find risible is that they invariably attribute their poor life choices to their orientation, which is, I feel, problematic and misleading. Possibly because getting so tanked that you hardly know where you are or what you’re doing isn’t embracing your sexuality, so much as retreating from it in a haze of unawareness.
Agreed.
I am myself in the eight year of a loving relationship. Now my choice doesn’t have to be for everyone, nor need it necessarily stigmatize those who prefer to remain single. It’s merely a choice. I can understand why a person might elect to remain single and I respect their choice too.
It’s not merely a choice, it’s a blessing. You are lucky. I’m not saying that being single is a choice of mine! Perhaps on some level it is. But I sure as hell won’t be pathologized about it
believing in the redemptive power of normalcy
I love this phrase – to me it sums up a lot that is wrong with society and religion.
From a Christian perspective, it hits the crucifying nail on the head regarding the neo-puritan idolatry of normalcy as their favourite false god.
Post a Comment