Happiness as a consequence but not purpose?

Amen to this Values.com quote of the day, although I like to think--from my maybe limited experience--that real happiness from integrity, a less 'carefree' happiness but more whole and abiding, rather than the plasticky bubbliness or shallow exuberance so many seem to think of as happiness in our culture today, is sort of an inevitable consequence of a life so dedicated:

“The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882);
Philosopher, Poet, Author, Essayist

Anti-bullying and the golden rule

I recommend the following editorial by Warren Throckmorton concerning the need to set aside pompous (oops, did I insert my opinion?) political power plays to approach problems with a more solution-oriented attitude:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/05/my-take-a-christian-response-to-anti-gay-bullying/


Ellen's plea:




Incidentally, I think a war on bullying is about as winnable as a war on terror. It will never end. To really deal with the issue, parents have to teach compassion to their children in their own homes, and more than that, they need to teach their children how to deal with the persecution they simply will face in their lives. The important thing is that every child and teenager knows there is somewhere to go, someone to turn to, someplace to be safe. Be someone's shelter and safety.

Myopic Perceptions of Success

I suspect there're facets of intelligence (maybe factual, theoretical, creative, artistic, emotional...), and few if any people excel in all. I prefer to surround myself w/people who don't compare based primarily on factual recall or traditional "success" but who see every one as differently intelligent, seeking opportunities to learn, not for excellence but for progress, both personal and universal.

This in no way denies that some people excel in certain aspects, nor does it ignore the primal motivation of competition in human accomplishment. I think it just brings back to a more natural level the grandiose, clownish magnification of the role of competition to which we've grown so attached in our culture and recognizes that there are many ways to measure intelligence and accomplishment other than society's favored, generalized measures of superiority which mask more subtle, less economically advantageous potential, abilities, and contributions offered by each one of us.

I have trouble stomaching the rhetoric of people who measure personal success or even happiness in position, office, wealth, comfort, certificates, or the esteem of others in a community of the like-minded. Maybe this disinterest in traditional success or the opinions of others partially explains why I don't have a very impressive resume. :-)

Understandable

Important distinction I make in life: saying something is "understandable" is not the same as saying it's "OK" or "justified". Just sayin'...

Reviving Frugality

I'm necessarily remembering financial rules/tests I used to employ fairly stringently but about which I've become far too lax:

• would I rather buy X now or pass up 10 X's for a Y later?
  
• can I obtain X or a suitable substitute more cheaply another way?
  
• should I pay that much for a restaurant meal I could make at home?
  
• only allowed 1 luxury item at the grocery store (that includes anything with little or no nutritional value or many items for which there are cheaper or more healthful alternatives, such as fresh salmon vs. frozen or artisan bread vs. whole grain)
  
• again with groceries, if it's not on sale, it's not an option, unless you specifically need it for a recipe or it's a needed, basic staple (milk, cereal, bread, etc)
  
• never purchase on impulse: if you didn't come looking for it, walk away, and if you remember it later, and it still seems like a good/wise purchase, consider buying it (anything over $50 requires sleeping on it--no same-day purchase if it wasn't planned)
  
• if you don't have cash from your last paycheck to back up the purchase, put the credit card away and move on
  
• make a budget and stick to it, putting excess in savings or using some for special occasions (a monthly occurrence, however, wouldn't be considered "special" but would be part of the budget)
  
• never shop without a specific goal, and don't deviate from the list
  
• you may love that sweater, but do you need another sweater? Remember that some people are fortunate to have warm clothing at all, let alone being concerned with what kind of "variety" they have. Just keep it in mind.
  
• it may be an amazing deal, but unless you wanted it (or would want it) at regular price and were waiting for a sale, pass it up. If it's a rare find at a really good price, fine, but if it's just another find at a pretty decent price, that's no reason to spend money you could be saving for something else.
  
• come up with ideas of things to do socially which don't require spending money, so you don't have to choose between spending money and staying in all day. If your friends are big spenders, either propose alternatives, join them after they've spent, or buy appetizers instead of meals, help them shop but don't buy for yourself, arrange to hang out with cheapskate friends on the nights the big spenders are at expensive concerts, etc.
  
• if you had no friends or family to stay with or help you out, could you survive on your own for several months out of a job? Wouldn't you rather be able to help others whenever you want?
  
• Which do you want more: this item/food/concert/clothing/service, or financial freedom?

I'm sure there are others I can add as I think of them, but this is a start to get me thinking along frugal lines again, which goodness knows I need to do. I probably won't re-adopt the more hard-and-fast rules so strictly, but I'll swing the pendulum firmly back in that direction. Aside from the financial necessity of it, there really is something to be said for not longing for "more", being happy with what you have and where you are, and for exercising restraint for longer-term security.

On a related note, while I don't think of myself as a very materialistic person, and I'm disgusted by the rampant consumerism I've observed in Utah, I do find myself spending far too casually and losing some perspective in the process. The exchange of goods and services and money, while a necessary tool in our society, is meaningless except as it relates to people, relationships, and personal growth. There's no need to feel guilty for having financial security, but it's a truly beautiful thing when you're able to be happy with what you have, recognize the difference between needs and luxuries, truly appreciate luxuries as luxuries and not as entitlements, and be confident life would not lose all savor and richness if you suddenly had no money to spend.

Relationships and personal growth, not gratification and "stuff", are what I believe bring real happiness. It's hard to keep sight of that, perhaps, when you're not sure where you'll live next month, or you're at risk of losing your home, car, or savings, or you're accustomed to high standards of professional craftsmanship or artistry in your furnishings, food, clothing, or cultural events. But I think it's easy to remember when you are with good friends and family and realize it doesn't really matter what you're doing together.

Admittedly, even though money doesn't buy happiness, financial security greatly reduces stress. There's a lot of stress in losing financial stability and dealing with knowing that your family is having to make severe adjustments because you didn't establish financial stability. And I can only imagine what it's like to wonder whether your kids will have to leave their beloved home, or change schools and move away from friends, or stop taking piano lessons, or not get dental work done because you lost a job or accumulated unnecessary debt. Yes, people with crooked, infected teeth who don't have the means to pursue every interest and move from place to place and live in shacks can be happy too, and it's important to remember that, but I'd like to avoid having to make my decisions (and my possible future family's) out of compulsion as the result of my lack of planning and foresight. If I/we move, or refuse medical treatment, or forgo opportunities for learning and developing talents, I want it to be because I/we think it best or consider it a positive change, not because I/we have no other choice.

I think it's time I started thinking beyond today again and work towards financial independence and security. OK...so...right...here I go...aw crap, this is gonna be easier said than done, isn't it?

Defending Traditional Marriage Unjustly

CONSERVATIVE GAY RIGHTS SUPPORTERS COME OUT

Margaret Hoover recently wrote an opinion piece called "Why I'm Joining the Fight for Marriage Equality" on the Fox News web site which included the following passage:

"Some Republicans support gay rights, but prefer progress through legislative action or majority rule at the ballot box, rather than judicial action. But what if a democratic election imposes mandates that violate a citizen’s constitutional freedom? In the event that majority rule insufficiently protects individual liberty, our system of checks and balances puts forth that it is the role of the courts, to guarantee and protect the rights to individual Americans.

That’s why the Supreme Court, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia, legalized interracial marriage –six years after our current president was born to an interracial couple. At that time 73% of the population opposed 'miscegenation.' How long would it have taken to change popular opinion, for the minority to democratically win their constitutional rights? As Martin Luther King, Jr. famously asserted, 'Justice delayed is justice denied.'"

I imagine she was partially emboldened by Ted Olson's recent article, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage", in Newsweek describing his reasons for fighting to overturn California's Prop 8. I recommend this article to all willing to hear his viewpoint. He does clearly state his opposition to the religiously-motivated view of same-sex relationships as inherently immoral, so there's probably a fundamental divide between him and many conservatives, but he is speaking from a politically conservative viewpoint. And though I take issue with a couple of his arguments, it's an interesting read with some valid arguments I think more opponents of same-sex marriage should consider, even if they don't change their ultimate position on the issue.

I think the majority of conservatives shrug and consider these people renegades (which is only attractive when they're renegading on the right side) and odd anomalies among conservatives. They're just vocal people who have been misled on an issue or don't grasp the moral profundity and ramifications of it. They lack the religious underpinnings to give them the big picture on the "real" consequences of the issue. They're no threat because true conservatives (or in other words, religiously motivated ones) will not be swayed by even the most prominent defectors from the defense of the nation's moral fiber. If I'm interpreting these voices correctly, this is very disheartening and saddening to me.


PRINCIPLES

Let me begin with a few points I want made clear:

• I do not support change for change's sake. I think blind "progress" without regard to consequence is irresponsible and haphazard.
  
• I do believe the rights and freedoms of religions are attacked by a few ill-willed anti-religion crusaders and that religions need to stand up for religious freedom.
  
• I do believe children have a right to opportunity and to be raised by loving parents who will teach them true principles of happiness, and I think the ideal family unit includes a mother and a father, all else being equal (which it never is, but for the sake of argument...).

UP FRONT: I DIDN'T AND DON'T SUPPORT PROP 8

That said, I have never supported Prop 8, nor have I actively opposed it. I've been very cautious around the issue, though if I were a Californian who had to vote, I would've voted against it to err on the side of individual and religious freedom. I admittedly was in a torn position. My church's leaders, from the very top, urged all members to do what they could to pass it. It was seen as a righteous cause to save this nation from moral deterioration and, ultimately, from its utter downfall. It was also considered by many to be a defense against an organized assault on religion and traditional values. Though the leadership made statements that support of Prop 8 was not required nor was it considered in worthiness, there was a definite sentiment in local wards (congregations) that if you spoke against it, you were on the fringe, apostate, unworthy, or otherwise sadly misguided. I believe many allowed themselves to be silenced by this social pressure, and discussions on the topic of same-sex marriage were often, in my experience, guided by champions of traditional marriage who paid little attention to their logical defense and relied on battle cries against moral degradation and calls to follow the prophet to rally the troops. Many ate up and proliferated the us-or-them fear tactics spread by ad campaigns, including one produced by a company sponsored by the church. I was disgusted, disappointed, and deeply saddened by the anger-motivated politics, the preemptive strikes based on fear, the dismissal of same-sex marriage as a farce, and the refusal to even consider compromise but to take the quick and easy road to security. I was also disappointed by many of the same things on the other side of the issue.


LEGISLATION SHOULD PROTECT FREEDOMS

My political philosophy, simple though it may be, and though its application may shift with understanding, is to defend the rights of the most while minding the welfare of the nation to the best of my understanding. But I like to think I believe in freedom before comfort, and in defending the rights of the most before protecting my own interests or defending my own values. I believe rights should be defended, and if giving everyone equal rights means someone's freedom or interests will be threatened, then that threat must be addressed and freedoms defended, but not by discrimination or by removing the rights of a select portion of the population, particularly based on traits they can't control.


THE CASE AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

This leads to an interesting conflict in this issue: even if homosexuality is something people can't control or turn on or off (and I believe this is true in most or all cases), the kind of relationship they pursue is completely within their control, so if marriage, by definition, means "the union of a man and a woman", then gay people have every right to marriage like everyone else. It just may not bring them the happiness or fulfillment it brings the average "straight" person. So be it, they can choose not to pursue it but to seek committed relationships in other ways, such as civil unions (where they're legal). If they're not legal, then they can still choose to stay together. They don't need the government's tax benefits or recognition or insurance access to make their relationship meaningful or significant to them. Besides, those government benefits were designed around families and children, which is not what the vast majority of gay partnerships are about anyway, nor should they be because children should have the right to grow up with a mother and father where possible. And if a same-sex couple's church wants to sanctify their relationship in its eyes by marrying them, well...that's too bad because the government says the church can't do that because that's not what marriage is to begin with, and no church has the right to tell the government what it can or can't do, so the church is welcome to sanctify their relationship in some other way but without calling it marriage. Let them call it a God-sanctioned union if they want, but that shouldn't be forcing the government's hand because that would, in turn, affect all other churches and the tax system and insurance companies... The majority of the people have spoken in secular support of marriage being a heterosexual institution by definition, not just a "type" of relationship or a "contract" between any two consenting adults. It is an institution designed to foster an optimal family arrangement in which to raise children with male and female role models as mother and father, and even if many people today treat that institution like garbage and defile its original purpose, that doesn't justify changing its original definition to boot. Marriage's definition is at all vague or debatable only because it was culturally assumed to apply only to mixed-sex couples when it was instituted: there was no need for the clarification until gay people started wanting their version of it, sometimes encouraged by their churches' support.

OK, so that's a perspective I can understand. And it's not completely based on discrimination or assumptions about the motives of why gay people are seeking marriage. It's based on some pretty sound logic, I think, although I think it does make a stretch or leap here and there. Unfortunately, I don't hear much of this kind of argument, but what I do hear from opponents of same-sex marriage is that gay people are just trying to hijack marriage, or gay couples don't stay together anyway so marriage is a joke for them, or gay people don't want kids (and those who do shouldn't be allowed to have them because it's better for kids to be in orphanages or raised by single people than by a same-sex couple), or the nation will fall apart if we allow such perversion as homosexual marriages, or homosexuality will be taught in schools as a moral equivalent to mixed-sex couples, or the church will be forced to marry same-sex couples or lose its tax-exempt status, or the temples will close if we refuse to marry them, or...whatever. And yes, some of these arguments have some basis in truth, though I think most of the feared consequences would be defended and ironed out in the courts in the long run. And no, I don't consider any of them valid reasons to deny a portion of the population their rights. They are red herring. They are points to consider in working it all out, but in using these arguments to support banning same-sex marriage, what people are saying, at the root, is that it's OK to deny citizens rights as long as granting those rights makes life harder for me or goes against my religious beliefs. Shame on you! What country do you live in?! I've had to bite my tongue so many times as friends and family have stated their support for discriminatory legislation based on an "us or them" mentality: it's their rights or mine which have to go, so it's gonna be theirs. Is that freedom and democracy?

I understand much legislation has moral underpinnings, but I also believe most legislation is about defending the rights, freedoms, and safety of the nation's citizens. It's my belief that if you can't defend a law based on preserving rights, it should probably be discarded. I support laws against smoking in public places. It limits people's freedom to smoke where they choose, but it preserves the health and safety of those the smoker is forcing to breathe carcinogens. Now, perhaps I'm wrong in this. Perhaps it's the responsibility of passersby to wear a mask if they don't like inhaling second-hand smoke. But it's the smoker who is creating the hazardous situation for others by smoking in a public place, so I believe the smoker shoulders the responsibility. Perhaps the real approach should be to promote laws allowing smoking only if some sort of special filter is placed on the end of the cigarette, preserving both the smoker's freedom and that of the passersby. I'd be open to that. So I admit there are times when laws become a bit...subjective as to what rights and safety they're protecting, but I believe the arguments should at least be framed in that light rather than saying, "I think smoking is wrong, and it makes me uncomfortable to be around smokers, so I support making smoking in public illegal."


TYRANNY OF MAJORITY RULE

Please watch/listen to the following clip from 7:14 to about 8:10, which is from a speech by Ronald Reagan regarding the dangers of socialism and which contains a few gems of what I regard as sound political thought which relates to other issues:


I don't believe in "moral majority rule" in the sense it seems many conservative friends do. That, to me, is tyranny. Denying rights to some because you believe their decisions to be against God's will is shady territory, and I suspect many LDS people, for example, might change their tune if they lived in an Islamist nation, for example. If the population of the United States appeared to be tipping to a Wiccan majority, I suspect Christians everywhere would call for individual and religious freedom, not legislation of morality or religious values. I suspect they would say, "You do your thing, and I'll do mine, and as long as we're not infringing on someone else's rights, we're OK." But when you are part of the moral majority, it's a cozy place to enforce your beliefs and standards through law without considering whether you're really protecting freedoms or just letting your moral superiority call the shots to protect your own interests at the expense of truly upholding the freedoms which allowed your religion to grow in the first place.


MY PLEA

To my friends and family who actively oppose same-sex marriage (which includes most of you who read my blog, I think): I'm not saying you have to support same-sex marriage to be logical or for me to see you as fair-minded. I'm not saying opposing legalization of same-sex marriage is tantamount to tyranny. Notice I've not actually spent much time here debating the validity of each claim or making the case for same-sex marriage because that's actually beside the point for my purposes here. I'm just saying please, please make sure your reasons are just, true, and virtuous. Please make sure you're not denying your brother, mother, son, or friend his or her right to marry his or her sweetheart for reasons that are not based on true principles you would support even if you were on the other side of them, being denied what you regarded as a right but others did not. Please make sure your own feelings about the morality of same-sex partnerships aren't your only motivation for supporting legislation like Prop 8. Please consider your arguments the next time you're making them, and imagine a member of another church or an atheist making them against your church's practices or your own decisions they believe to be detrimental to the moral fiber of the country. Please express your position with love, with rationale, and with patience, and consider the possibility that if you can't do that, you're possibly not secure enough in your position to be denying an entire subset of our nation their rights over it. Please recognize the social and very personal impact of this cultural battle and be sensitive how it will affects those you love who may be granted or denied the ability to be married by either their church or state, along with its accompanying rights and responsibilities. Please consider the possibility that this is not an all-or-nothing issue and that there are compromises to be found. Just consider it? I know it won't change your mind, for most of you, but it will focus on the real issues and hopefully minimize unnecessary animosity and division.

The Demise of Friendship?

Someone posted an article on Facebook (ironically enough) about the change in or decline of friendship as a cultural phenomenon, particularly as it relates to trends perpetuated (or reflected?) by such social networking sites as Facebook and MySpace. I think everyone interested in "real" relationships but wondering why they can't seem to really connect with others should read it:

Faux Friendship

I agree with so much of what the author is saying about the nature of friendship and how real intimacy seems to be on the decline, and how the loss of classical, or romantic, friendship, the kind about which poets used to write, is tragic and a reflection of an increasingly impersonal society full of people seemingly phobic of true intimacy while clawing at it in futile ways.

I particularly agree with the argument that friendship used to be a relationship meant for mutual improvement, a true, hard-won intimacy strong enough to be truly honest and open in helping bring out each other's best and grow together. Friendship was a dedication and investment, not a mere affinity. Friendship was personal and intuitive, not a manipulative checklist of dirt one has on the other. It was a support for weathering storms, not a relationship which loses its usefulness when the "fun" wears off. True friendship was considered a lasting, committed, mutually beneficial, intimate relationship, not the fluffy playmateship on which so many seem fixated today. With the classical kind of friendships, who could be truly lonely?

On the other hand, maybe that is a romantic or exaggerated notion, that friendship "used to be" something it's not today. Maybe the form of finding such friendships has simply changed. Maybe people in the romantic past also struggled to find true connection but for an entirely different set of reasons, such as having to hide socially unacceptable parts of themselves from even their closest friends. Maybe friendship has made strides in some ways even while declining in others. Maybe it's not that different, fundamentally, from how it's always been. But I'm inclined to agree that it seems like friendship is cheaper today, hollower, and tinny like most of what comes out of Hollywood. I strive for better. I prefer friends who will not tell me I'm perfect while watching me march into a pit of snakes or desecrate my integrity in violation of my own values and principles. That's not to say I want preachy friends or friends who think their values and principles should be mine, in the same priority they hold them. I just don't think anyone who always says, "You're perfect the way you are, and anyone who doesn't see that is stupid," can be trusted, and I have to trust my friends.

What I disagree with in this article is that Facebook is, in and of itself, some kind of friendship destroyer, a monster hacking away at the roots of intimacy. Facebook is a tool. It is admittedly a tool many use for self-flattery, false celebrity, professional and social networking, self-marketing, divulgence of information nobody needs or wants to hear (I don't care what genitalia you would be if your personality were made into a body part, for example), or amassing a collection of "friends" which should more accurately be called "people with whom I have some kind of connection." But blaming Facebook for the way people use it is a bit like blaming higher education for snobbery and elitism, or religion for genocide and hatred. It may make sense on a social level, depending on your perspective, but the thing isn't the cause or the problem: it's how it's interpreted and used.

I, for one, only add people on Facebook whom I've met and connected with on some level. I occasionally have approved requests from people I only met once and don't necessarily expect to get to know better (and I adjust their access to my profile accordingly), and I have approved a very small number of people I hadn't yet met, usually spouses of friends or some similar level of incidental connection, but whom I later meet. Have there been hotties or interesting people I'd like to add and become incidentally familiar with by window shopping their Facebook profile before deciding whether to meet in person? Yeah, definitely. But I've refused to do it on principle. I've just never really wanted to meet people that way, for the most part.

But what of people who do meet that way? Does the use of a tool in initial acquaintance preclude the development of intimacy? Does having 500 Facebook friends automatically rule out the possibility of selectively becoming close with a few of them? Do the benefits of maintaining many connections and acquaintances outweigh the loss of time with a few close friends? Is there a balance to be struck? Can I maintain incidental contact through the efficiency of sites like Facebook even while investing time in my more intimate friendships sufficient to develop rich and meaningful relationships with them? I think so. Have I found that balance? Probably not. But I'm working on it. Live life deliberately, right? Nobody's perfectly balanced. It seems the cultural scale is tilted heavily towards hollow relationships, but I'm trying to keep my scale where I want it: leaning towards the intimacy even while maintaining a useful and productive number of casual friendships and acquaintances, some of which may someday become more intimate friendships.

Yes, friendships may wax and wane. And with the mobility of our society, people moving around from place to place in search of education and work, that's bound to happen. If we all stayed put more often, as I think old-timers did, we'd have more opportunity for lasting, life-long friendships, which I think is a beautiful thing. But with mobility comes more contact and more opportunities to learn from more people with more perspectives. Fortunately, tools like Facebook help us remember friends who are distant and more efficiently see what they're up to and share our adventures with them. Yes, it can be painful to see their lives marching on while you start from scratch, but not being aware of it doesn't stop it from happening, and you can control whether these things are shoved in your face or quietly happening out of view if you want to. Learn the tool, use it well. Trade-offs. Balance.

One point made in the article I found particularly interesting is that of memories being sort of whitewashed by the present. It's poignantly stated, but I'm not sure I completely buy it. Having "reconnected" with childhood or otherwise years-past friends, in that electronic, online way, I've discovered we remember some things differently, and we remember different things, and re-evaluating my mental snapshots in that light has expanded and refined my perception of those memories. I would rather see clearly than remember it however I find most comfortable, but there's more to it than that. There may be touchy-feely, emotional motives to remember things how we want to, or comfort in leaving people firmly in the past where they "belong", but I'm fascinated by people and relationships and development, and I find it interesting to hear how they remember things, or to see what they're up to these days and how they seem to have changed or remained the same, even if I only look at their profile once. I see my childhood friends pop up on Facebook, clubbing in New York, or living in a trailer in rural Idaho, or playing with their two or six children, and I consciously know I no longer really "know" them, but I like knowing, at the very least, that they're alive somewhere, carrying memories of me as I carry memories of them. In some way, for better or worse, we've been a part of each other's development and memory, even if only incidentally. It reminds me to make the most of today, to be a positive memory for today's friends and coworkers. And then, when I'm tired of seeing information about them, I hide them from my feed and only go back when, one day, I think, "I wonder whatever happened to So-and-so. Oh yeah, they're on Facebook, let's see." A minute later, I've moved on, but for that minute, a part of my life that contributed to who I am today was brought back into view, sparked by information and pictures that elicited memories the mere incidental thought never would have. Am I a changed man because I spent a minute looking at the profile of a friend I've not spoken with in years? Maybe not. Could I have spent that minute calling a loved one I am close with? Yes. Would I have? Probably not. But the perspective--the little adjustment, the reminder of one's influence, the reminder of who you used to be and how things have changed--can, if you allow it, be useful.

In short, I fully support the caution flags raised by the author, and I share the author's lament for the nature of friendship in our culture, but I think deleting your Facebook account in response would be extreme and silly. While I think the author makes some scapegoating leaps, I really enjoyed the article and recommend it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have plans with friends to spend time, in person, sharing our stories and updates, seeing what's behind the words in each other's eyes and gestures, sharing energy and sensation, and just being together. I think much of what the author is trying to say is summed up in a quote from one of my favorite movies, Good Will Hunting:

So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel.

Nostalgia for the Jazz Choir Days

I have a few friends in various choirs around the country, and partially because of their updates on Facebook et al, I've been reminiscing lately on my years in the good ol' University of Idaho Jazz Choir I. I think being at the symphony helped revive that nostalgia for being part of something which brought visible pleasure and delight to a small sea of faces and practicing discipline and learning little life lessons, like the fact that there's tension and intensity in the pauses--the silence makes the sound that much more energetic and impacting, things like that that give a sometimes annoyingly analytical mind like mine fodder for analogy. I loved performing in concerts, lost in the wave of 200 faces but striving to perform with all the accuracy and intensity to carry your section if the rest of them were suddenly and tragically picked off by a sniper, for example. It could happen. And I relished enveloping myself in the rhythmic energy of songs like Song of the River or Jambalaya, the purity of joyous African songs like Fana Naye and Mabalabala, and the soothing dissonance or lulling sweetness of songs like La Golondrina or My God Is Real.

Tonight, I was reminded again of the nostalgia of jazz choir participation and wondering if there's anything comparable here that's audition-free, but I realized even a comparable choir would just be missing something without Dan Bukvich, our beloved, feared, and respected conductor. I'm not sure if there's anyone quite like him. I miss his unique compositions and arrangements, his simultaneously authoritative and personal demeanor, his antics such as kicking boxes when we'd screw up, yelling at us that we were genetically flawed and that we needed to read his mind, etc. I remember trying to stifle a smile one time as he was scolding the choir rather aggressively, with the freshmen quaking and trembling in fear before his commanding presence. I tilted my face downward as I tried to cover my smile with my hand, and just as I did, he looked at me, saw my expression, and for just a very brief flash showed that he, too, was hiding a grin with a twinkle in his eye before going back to his intimidation of the undisciplined choir.



One of the best things while performing was to feel like a part of a living organism, a vividly dynamic and precisely responsive organic wave of sound that swelled and flowed with Dan's hands as he pulled the strings and intensified our energy with his stare. It was exhilarating when the choir was so responsive, so disciplined, so alert that it almost felt like we were a speeding freight train of voice and percussion, a big Thunder Mountain Railroad twisting and turning and seemingly about to speed out of control before being brought firmly back onto the tracks in precise rhythm and controlled dynamics in a flash. The very best moments were when we'd be hitting the rhythm and tune well, and he'd get that glimmer in his eye that forewarned he was about to step it up a notch, and suddenly, his hands would hush the choir at a completely unexpected place or speed us up beyond anything we'd rehearsed, and we'd respond with an almost arresting change in the music which reminded me that music is a living, breathing creation, full of life of its own, fed by the discipline and passion of its performers and composers. There was something deeply satisfying about seeing him close his eyes after such a transition into the previously unknown as if he was simply soaking in the newness, savoring the flavor and letting the energy of the music harmonize with his soul, as it did with ours, to tell him what was next, as we awaited the next signals with sharp alertness.

There were other bonuses, too, like when he reported to us that Claudio Roditi had expressed real enthusiasm for joining us on stage during the Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival again the next year, or some children at the elementary school adjacent to the university had expressed their awe and glee for the jungle songs we sang.

Mind you, this was no professional choir. We were amateurs in every sense, and many of us couldn't always even carry the tune precisely. Even those moments which felt most rewarding to me probably sounded acceptable at best to the polished ear. But the energy, the effort, the connection, the focus, those were what it was about. While my first year or so in the choir seemed to have more of those moments (is that because I got used to them or because I entered the choir at a really good time?), I always looked forward to more of them, and they came, though not easily. Like he always said, it's not like riding a bike: professional performance requires ever-increasing effort to maintain the focus required. I learned from my choir experience in addition to having a great time.

Out of curiosity, I looked up Dan Bukvich on YouTube tonight and found a couple of pieces some schools had performed, one a percussion piece and another a band piece. No choir stuff. So I went to his web site and there found the piece I'd been waiting for since we recorded it years ago: Missa de Montunos. I don't know if this is the recording we did or a newer one, but I just downloaded it and am listening to it now. I loved performing this piece: it was one of my faves. My favorite movements to listen to are the Allelujah, Sanctus, and Gloria movements, and my favorites to perform were Credo, Sanctus, and Gloria.

If you're curious about or are a fellow former jazz choir member (as I know a few of you are) and would like to download other pieces, there are a few more available here, though the recording quality on all of these is not great: you really have to be in the recital hall or auditorium to get the full experience of UI's jazz choirs.

Some recommendations to sample his style:
Missa Africa
Song of the River
Loolah

Older stuff that's fun:
Mambo!
Pop Music
Samba!

Christmas:
Jingle Bells

There are many others I've loved performing and listening to that are only available on CDs or in DVDs of performances, like Missa Samba, Jambalaya, Skip To My Lou, Samba de Orfeu, Soolaimon, Kanyoni Kairu, The Bells, La Golondrina, Fana Naye, Mabalabala,...

Now the trick, as always, is to take these fond memories and make sure I put my energy into something I'll look back on equally fondly a few years from now. But for just this moment, I'm going to finish listening to the Missa in my car and reliving a little as I belt out my part while driving. *grin*

Moral Foundation

There's a web site organized by researchers tracking trends in morals among politically liberal and conservative people and what motivates them. Interesting stuff. This is just one of many surveys you can participate in on the site.


YourMorals.org

Apparently, I consider fairness, loyalty, and authority less important than most liberals AND most conservatives. I'm not sure that's true on the "fairness": I mean, people don't act equally, so they needn't be treated as if they do, but I do firmly believe in treating all individuals respectfully and in making sure the law applies evenly to all citizens. I think I just read into the questions a bit much. As far as loyalty and authority go, it's true: I don't put much stock in them. Loyalty must be earned, and even then, my principles and belief in what's right far outweigh any sense of obligation to toe a party line (whether political, family, employment, etc) if the party line conflicts with my own principles. And authority is only as meaningful as the wisdom of those in authority. Truth is the authority, not people.

I also do have a sort of inexplicable sense of "purity" that I believe in, so that's no surprise there. And while I believe people "suffer" by their own reactions, I do believe it's my personal responsibility to do what I reasonably can to minimize the negative impact of my decisions on others, so being higher on the "Harm" scale is also no surprise.

I also find it interesting that conservatives seem to have very evenly-balanced moral priorities. There's no single one that stands way out over the others. Very interesting indeed...

No True Vacuums

On one hand, I'm drawn to the stability of believing concrete truths, clear doctrinal scaffolding, scientific laws. On the other hand, I bristle against strict, unalterable conclusions or policies, and I'm not satisfied simply by asserting an absolute truth if there are still reasonable, valid counterarguments unanswered or factors not taken into account. And most often, there is subtlety and perspective far beyond what readily comes to mind.

Example: in Physics, I understood the basic laws of gravity, etc, but it always bothered me that there would be inherent imprecision in calculations unless you perfectly took into account every seemingly chaotic factor, which seemed virtually impossible to do in almost all situations. We could study the principles, but to test them in the real world was difficult or problematic. How often do you find a perfect vacuum with perfect measuring equipment to quantify the force of gravity on a perfect object? Even then, you have to account for the distance from Earth's gravitational center, don't you? Fortunately, our textbook told us to assume no other factors than those given (AKA assume all other factors are NOT, in fact, factors) in order to work out example problems. This stripped the equations of real-world factors to illustrate scientific principles but leaving them in real-world situations, which makes them easier for most students to grasp and learn.

In addition to elevation, factors that would affect REAL-world situations could include air resistance, the breeze on any particular day that is constantly shifting direction and magnitude along with seeds and particles carried on that breeze, a possible imperceptible dimple made by a hailstone on the wing of an airplane, the varying density of or moisture in the air at any given place, subtle seismic activity hundreds of miles away from a given plain, imperceptible intermittent slipping of an object rolling down a plain due to imperfect friction, the interference of grains of dust and imperfect roundness of a ball rolling down the imperfectly-surfaced plain, maybe even the interference of light acting as wave-particles...

I knew I could theoretically ignore those factors for the sake of (often very accurate) approximation. And I marveled that even the hard sciences are largely based on theoretical logic and calculations that can't be 100% proven because nobody has ever invented perfect instruments to take measurements of perfect objects in perfect vacuums. I won't say my world was shaken, but the fact that so few people even seemed to express awareness of those factors bothered me just enough to hope that NASA scientists were more attentive. And I was a bit wary of other people's results and research and found it a touch challenging to readily "trust" others enough to just accept what was taught in a textbook or by one lecturer, even though I acknowledged their knowledge far surpassed mine. But I was especially wary of the students who seemed oblivious to the confounding subtleties.

I guess it kind of comes down to this: it felt a little unnatural to approach problems fully pretending those factors in Physics don't exist because...they do. But I also appreciated learning the principles with the caveat that the principle will rarely, if ever, be observed perfectly in real life.

I see a similarity with life in general. Maybe that's one part of why I stopped enjoying most church meetings or religious discussions with most people: I'm not convinced most people are looking beyond their simplified view by even considering the subtleties or anomalies of people's unique experiences or all of the confounding factors of life in this world in general--the dust on the plains or the differences in gravitational force--so I have trouble believing that the things they are saying are as valid as they seem to think they are when they offer all of their "real life" confirmation of this or that doctrine or practice.

It's hard to listen to rules, creeds, or checklists that are taught as if the conditions of peoples lives are simpler than they are. Checklists are often held up as browbeating ideals when in reality, I think to check them all off, you would likely have to have been handed a theoretical vacuum of a life. Now, some people may love the vacuum life, the tidy, no-complications world they live in or think they live in. Such a person definitely has no right to--nicely or otherwise--inform others who are not living in such vacuums for whatever reason that they are somehow lacking for not checking those things off or even for having a different list due to their more complicated situation, regardless of how they found themselves in that situation. We teach principles and then expect people, including ourselves, to put them into perfect practice in a very natural, imperfect world, and we get judgmental or critical when people choose differently than we would like to think we would have or when we fail to live up to our own expectations.

Sometimes, the most motivating, powerful truths or principles are, indeed, the simplest, and we often over-complicate things when we try to quantify them according to our own imperfect measurements and rules. When you're talking about theology, religious convictions, or life philosophies, where there is no tangible quantification, isn't it more effective to focus on serving your fellow man, loving your neighbor, being willing to do all righteous things asked of you, and having a broken heart and a contrite spirit than to focus on whether your tithing is paid from net or gross, whether you drink the right drinks, whether Earth is 6,000 years old, or how anyone should vote on the next political referendum?

I guess when you look at it, though, some real-world application is necessary and helpful, and we all can use help learning how to translate the principles into behavior and action. I mean, Jesus asked a man to give away all of his belongings. But we don't always see each other and know each other's needs so accurately as we believe he sees us, do we? I suppose I'd just like to see more focus, among what I've considered my own religious community, on the principles and the "why" and the "good news", and less on the "to do" lists we hold ourselves and others up to in critical light, even if some of that is necessary for helping keep ourselves accountable and to remind ourselves of a few indicators of where we may be on our spiritual journeys.

Maybe I guess a trick I'm still trying to learn is to focus on the basic principles behind what people say, even if they seem clueless to the fact that their application of the principle may not be a viable approach for someone else. When I can cut past the fluff and get to the principle behind their blather, I think the principles are often true and good. I can't change the people whose preaching I find abrasive, but I can change myself as necessary.

Coping With Scrapping Celibacy

Preface:
Some of you who read my blog may, whether I know it or not, be the very people I'm talking about here. I want you to know that I do love and care about you, and not just in a pitiable sinner kind of way, and while a lot of what I've been writing lately may sound preachy and judgmental, or just plain archaic and naive, please understand that I am trying to process everything verbally so I can get feedback and help in sorting everything out. If you feel like I'm talking about you, or you "used to" feel the same things I'm describing but have found constructive ways to be bothered less or more "open", you're welcome to share your thoughts with me to help me better understand where you're coming from: my purpose is not to lambaste a whole subset of my friends publicly but to sort out what the @#$% I'm going through personally.

To all readers: if you can't handle some pointed questioning and blunt or somewhat explicit language, or if you will just roll your eyes, stop here and go do something more useful with your time.
--------------------------------------

My Conundrum

Obviously, if you look at a couple of my recent posts, one of my biggest current emotional/paradigm crises is this whole chastity/morality/sexual expression thing. It's just been a very, very long time since I've watched friends actually choose to become "sexually active". Many of my friends are celibate. A few "slip up" here and there, but they claim, at least, to believe those were mistakes and try to do "better" in the future. And some friends were already sexually active when I met them. But some are shifting, crossing over that line, and watching friends go from "celibate" to "sexually active" has always, for some reason, been really hard on me, and I'm wondering why.

Since junior high and high school, I've not really run into the phenomenon of friends choosing to go from celibate to unabashedly sexually active, usually with multiple partners, whether serially or concurrently...until I moved to Utah (go fig, I guess the whole "late bloomers" thing applies more here). Maybe I should clarify what I mean by "sexually active": I mean deciding that genital stimulation to climax by various means is acceptable and desirable regardless of the commitment level of the relationship.

It's not just the fact that people open up to having sex that bothers me as much as the fact that when they do, it's most often with a careless flippancy, a self-serving arrogance, or reckless abandon. The problem I see is that isn't really about relationships and intimacy but about "fun" and self-gratification. It's that they decide to fool around often as a result of already having crossed a line they hadn't intended to and not as a deliberate, premeditated choice and most often start exploring sex without any real relationship. I guess that's the norm in most of society, but it doesn't feel right to me, it just doesn't sit well.

I think what most bothers me is that as my friends let go of their moral standards, I often see changes that are hard to watch. The way they approach relationships becomes baser, more shallow and pleasure-seeking. I see many of them losing sensitivity to others and becoming more callous and self-absorbed, which seems the opposite of what should happen if you've experienced something that truly makes you happy and enriches your life. I see them becoming absorbed into their self-serving world and looking condescendingly, almost with laughing eyes, though some try to hide it, when someone expresses a hint of concern. I see their eyes go cold and their general warmth diminish. They start speaking in more nonchalant tones and arrogantly shrugging off what they now regard as prudish notions. They change, unless it's just my view of them that changes. I can't be sure, I guess.

Whatever is really going on with them in the process, and whatever is just my perceptions and paradigms, it's hard for me to watch. I understand, to some extent, the process and what people go through on their way to sexual exploration.



Slippery Slope or Natural Progression

It usually starts with grinding and "heavy petting" during making out, which I don't count as "sexually active" but is definitely going through some of the key motions. Sometimes, I've known people to make out naked, and that's not regarded as sex, just naked kissing. Then, people often decide it's OK to "dry hump", because it's not really sex, and pants, at least, stay on, and nobody is "touching" anyone's privates, so even though a guy may reach orgasm in the process, it's just a byproduct of making out, not "sex" per se, right? Then they decide genital stimulation with the hands is OK, because it's not really sex, it's just...well, when you've had your hands on every other part of the body while making out, what's the big deal touching that additional, small area of flesh? It's just a tiny step, and it's not penetration or anything. Then they often decide oral sex is OK; it's just another way of making out with some extra benefits. Then they admit they just don't believe sex is something worth "saving for marriage" (often because they don't think they'll ever be married anyway, so they're entitled to a little enjoyment in life too), and it is just a recreational thing you do with someone you're attracted to, as long as you're "responsible" about not spreading diseases, making babies, or hurting other people.

I know at least some of what goes on in the process that leads up to this. I know that you make out with someone, and it's hot and heavy and maybe lusty, and you don't feel the least bit guilty for your passionate interaction. You really like and appreciate your make-out partner, and you both were "in the moment". You both might have said previously that you "shouldn't" do this or that, but when the moment arrived, and you were both "in the mood", things happened, and it takes two to tango, so it's not like anyone was being coerced. You may think, "well, I hadn't expected to do it and wouldn't have chosen to in advance, but I just got caught up in the moment," but you don't feel "bad" or "guilty" for having gotten "carried away" because it wasn't a conscious choice, it just happened. The next time, you go farther, and you're again surprised that you feel like you could've gone "all the way" and probably not felt guilty about that either. Weird. Isn't this supposed to be "sinful"? If it's so wrong, why don't I feel bad about it? So the next time...


Whoa Nelly

I'll be honest, quite possibly the only thing stopping me, at one point, was the fact that I had made a decision ahead of time that I would only cross certain specific boundaries if I had previously, in emotional/mental soberness, decided I was ready to make that call the next time the opportunity presented itself. I knew that "in the moment", I am not thinking totally clearly, and rather than determine my decisions based on circumstance, I wanted to be my own agent and determine where I'd express sexuality, not become guided by or slave to my (sometimes very strong) sexual appetite. I realize not everyone sees this as a valid way of doing things. I'm just saying that I do understand that, in the moment, things don't seem at all wrong that you previously thought were taboo. I also know that, in the moment, you're generally not thinking about much of anything outside of that one experience. I also could see that, once you've been naked with someone, or let's say you've groped each other everywhere but "there", or you've "dry humped", the line is so blurred that I imagine it'd be really easy to just say, "Who are we kidding? If we've done this and that, it's hardly different to just go ahead with the full thing. Let's stop being so childish playing these games and just do what 'normal people' do when they're into each other like we are." The blurring of the lines...I get that.


Factors Other Than "We Got Hot and Heavy One Time"

I know what it's like to feel totally unsure whether you'll ever get married, which is rough for those from a background with certain moral codes. Until you find someone to marry and start a family with, the law of chastity as taught by the LDS Church (and many other churches) declares that you are to practice abstinence your entire life, if necessary. So until marriage, you're left trying to figure out exactly how strict you're supposed to be with each relationship and at what point your affection and physical intimacy has crossed over to "inappropriate" territory. It's especially hard when you aren't sure where the relationship is going but you feel really close to each other and, let's be honest, intensely attracted to each other.

I imagine it's especially hard when dating someone who doesn't come from the same background and for whom sex is just a part of every romantic relationship, and there's the pressure of knowing that if you don't "put out", someone else will. I think sometimes people stay in relationships and compromise their own values for fear of losing the relationship if they don't.

There's also a kind of double whammy for gay (or same-sex attracted) LDS folks because even if you find someone you want a romantic relationship with, if you're trying to live by church standards, you're not allowed a "committed" relationship of the kind that feels most fulfilling and natural anyway (meaning one with someone of the same sex). This creates a couple of difficulties. First, there's nobody to be "faithful" to, since you're not allowed to be, which lends an inherent tendency to regard random fooling around or "slipping up" as actually less "immoral" than having a committed relationship. Second, for many with little or no hope of a "proper" mixed-gender relationship, there's an understandable (regardless of correctness) sense of entitlement or abandon: "Everyone else gets to have a little fun while dating...and everyone else gets to get married and experience sexual intimacy...and I'm supposed to not only be single by choice and celibate but not even kiss the people I'm attracted to? And I'm never allowed to have a civil union or marriage other people are allowed because same-sex relationships aren't condoned by the church, so I am never allowed a relationship in which sex is OK unless I either miraculously feel for someone of the opposite sex the way I've felt for people of my own or I lie to fit the mold? If I don't fit into the 'plan of happiness' anyway, then I need to chart my own rules for my anomaly of a life." I imagine single people in various places in life struggle with whether they'll ever be married or "fit the mold".


Yet I Struggle To Accept It: Why?

Knowing what I've described above about the natural process people often go through, why am I so shaken when another friend jumps off of the "chastity" train and decides to abandon sexual restraint and just have fun? Why don't I "understand" and just get over the fact that most people my age and in my situation are doing things differently than I am and get over it?

Is it because I rarely see anyone return from it? It seems like once that dam is broken, there's no going back most of the time until someone catches an STD or falls in love with someone who forces them to wait, and they re-assess the value or role of sexuality as a result.

Does my inability to shrug it off go back to my LDS upbringing in which chastity seems to be one of the highest, most sacred laws of mortality? Is it because I am somehow, even in my agnosticism regarding certain principles, concerned that people are jeopardizing their eternal welfare and derailing their spiritual direction for nothing but repeated, momentary self-gratification? Do I actually have a conviction I'm not in touch with and can't stand to see people "giving up" on chastity so impatiently in their mid-to-late-twenties as if they've "done their part" to live it and are nonchalantly throwing in the towel in a way they might deeply regret in 5, 10, or 20 years?

Is it simply because I see their behavior as foolishly self-centered and childish unless it's an intimately bonding experience between two adults in a committed relationship?

Is it because I need to believe others are doing what I'm doing to validate my own restraint? Is it my own insecurity? Do I want to shake people and slap them because I, personally, don't know what I believe and am looking for someone to prove that chastity does, in fact, lead to happiness, and I'm devastated when another friend fails to provide evidence of it?

Is it because there really is something inherently dangerous or reckless about the way they're going about it and I have very good reason to be concerned?

Is it because it's so far outside of my own limited paradigm that I can't handle my friends leaving my narrow scope of perspective?

Is it because I am, at heart, judgmental and unforgiving?

I've had so much trouble when I've heard friends shift their story from "I really don't want things to go in X direction," or "I really, really don't want X to happen with so-and-so. I'm not ready to go there, and we're not even officially dating." Then, a few days later, they put themselves in a highly tempting situation which they insisted wouldn't be "a problem" (though any objective observer knew it would be), stuff happens, they cross the line they said they didn't want to cross, and the next day, their song has changed to, "I'm just comfortable doing things you're not. You need to accept that I have different boundaries." I'm left thinking, "Your boundaries only changed after you'd crossed them anyway! Or you were lying to me about your true intentions, and maybe to yourself. What kind of half-assed decisions are you making with things you've been so careful about for your whole life until now, anyway?"

But I know that's not how it seems or feels to them most of the time, and they may have other reasons for doing what they're doing, and maybe they're OK to explore and, if needed, repent later and be that much stronger and sure in their course for it. And if they don't "come back" to celibacy, maybe that's OK too and I'm just an old-fashioned prude who needs to get over it. Maybe I'm totally off base and will change my mind next week. Or maybe...I just need to let it go somehow.


My Tentative Conclusion

I generally approach things from a calm, moderated perspective. Why do I flip out over this issue? Maybe it's because of a mix of all of the above reasons. I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to think it's especially because:

a) I'm questioning my own boundaries to some extent and whether I really am excessively prudish and would get over all of this if I just went ahead and experienced some things for myself.

b) I've seen a lot of people "fall into" patterns of behavior they didn't "mean to" adopt, and they most often never fully get out of them because they become slave to their appetites and have given up on boundaries because they are, in fact, hard to maintain, particularly for those who have never learned to avoid situations in which temptation to do what they intended not to do ends up right in their face.

c) Sexual expression often interferes with real emotional, intellectual, and spiritual bonding and intimacy rather than enhancing it as I think it should and fools people into thinking they're "in love" when they don't show the maturity, selflessness, or dedication of lasting, active "love", which they would recognize if they weren't thinking with their lusty bits. Maybe that's all some people are capable of, but when I've seen a glimpse of more, of their potential for real love and intimacy among their friends, family, and their past boyfriends/girlfriends, it worries me when they go chasing after what appears to be a cheap imitation, particularly when I really love the person and want to see them happy and fulfilled.

d) I really would like to experience sex as a special, intimate experience with someone special to me, and I'm less and less convinced that there are more than a handful of people in the world who would consider it as "special" as I would, so I get bent out of shape when another one drops off.

What To Do About It?

So in short...it's me. I've just got to deal with it and learn to cope. I've got to learn to not worry about other people's consequences. I've got to learn to let people self-destruct a little when there's nothing I can do to stop it. I've got to learn that when someone seems to choose sexual gratification over sexual intimacy, there's not much I can do to convince them otherwise, and I probably shouldn't even try, especially when I'm not sure they share my values or beliefs, regardless of religious affiliation or whatever lip service they've given in the past. I've got to learn that when someone seems to have chosen a shallow relationship over a deep one, I can't always see what qualities the relationship has that aren't obvious to me or what the person is really looking for in a relationship, despite what they may say. I've got to let people seek out frivolous or fun-based sexuality because that's what they want even when it pains me to think they're settling for a shell of what they could easily have and deserve, and besides, I've done some of that myself. I've got to learn not to be jealous that others are experiencing what I want to but am saving until it means something more, since I'm the one making that decision. And I've got to hold out some hope that maybe, just maybe, there's someone else in the world like me with whom I match up, and our paths may cross someday, and we'll both be glad we didn't let sex become just another form of recreation when we experience it (for the first time or not) as a soaring, intimate, special, unique-between-us (not to mention really fun and completely free and passionate) expression of deep, heartfelt, selfless love, appreciation, and simple hotness.

Or, more simply, I could use the more scientific method: experiment the next time I feel inclined to do so with whoever I have a budding romance with, with whom it wouldn't just be a trashy one-night-stand, and see where it takes me. Or decide to fool around with a friend where there's a mutual attraction--friends with benefits. If there's a real friendship, and we're both aware it's just for fun, maybe there's really nothing wrong with that. How do you know until you try, right? Just let go and let the consequences fall as they may. After all, you build your principles on experience, and if you've never had an experience to "prove" a principle, you try the alternatives to see what the results are, right? Maybe this whole clinging to principles because someone said so and it just seems logical and right isn't enough, and at some point, we all have to venture outside of the bounds to know if the bounds are where they even should be. Maybe it's OK to risk being a "bad example" for the sake of "learning for yourself".

I'm just not sure I'm interested in doing something that doesn't ring true just because the alternative has lost its luster or seems hard. So for now, until I decide to further loosen up my sexual strictures, if I ever do, I've just got to cope and hold on to a shred of hope that there's a meaningful reason for not loosening up those strictures and that there are others out there, however bleakly rare they seem, to whom I could be attracted and who see it as I do and won't run off to more sexually casual candidates when they discover just how much I mean it when I say I want to wait. Is that what it amounts to? Maybe so. I'm glad we had this talk.

Happiness and True Love

I posted this on Facebook, so I thought I'd post it here, too:

Does Being in a Gay Relationship Make One Happy? Does Gay Love Qualify as Love? - a personal blog post by a man in reference and response to Happiness and the Art of Loving, an essay by a good friend of mine.

I hesitated somewhat to post this because I do not want this good man's blog to become a battlefield of debate or bombarded by comments from strangers needing to defend their views by spouting off. But it is, after all, a public blog, and it's a dialog I think many will benefit from hearing(reading). Please, please respect the tone and spirit of conversation being maintained there.

I think EVERYONE would benefit from the ideas and experiences voiced therein (BOTH the referenced article on North Star AND the blog entry, as well as the conversation in the blog comments) if only to give one pause to consider the nature of love and whether what each of us is seeking in our relationships (through our desires and decisions) is really what we ultimately even want it to be, let alone what it "should" be.

Live Life Deliberately

Live life deliberately.

A friend named her blog by this title, and every time I see it, it speaks truth to me. I don't know if she sees the phrase quite the way I do, and I know I don't fully live it the way I perceive it. But it encapsulates, in so few words, something I have always thought, something I think few people grasp, and something with a significance I just can't shake. Something about principle. Something about realizing that you are the one calling the shots in your life, even if only in your reactions to what is outside of your control. Something about magnifying that amazing part of the human soul or psyche that is making choices that can, at times, defy all opposition and exceed all expectation, the part that refuses to be completely bound by environmental or past limitations.

I may live too "deliberately" in some ways. In some cases, you must let go of the idea that you can or should control every step of your life. There are greater forces to yield to at times, greater perspective you have yet to obtain, greater opportunities and rewards in risking something. But even that choice to let go is deliberate on some level.

I believe everything we do is deliberate to some degree, even choosing not to adopt principles or to just "ride the wave" in life. Some things we do because we truly don't know better or because our upbringing has thoroughly programmed us. But I'm inclined to think most of what we do is quite deliberate, whether or not we care to own up to that fact and face the reality of our decisions.

While there is value in enjoying the moment and letting it fill your soul with intensity of emotion and in experiencing the richness life has to offer, my personal opinion is that most people's application of "live in the moment" is utterly hollow, selfish, hedonistic crap that destroys the beauty and significance of relationships and of life in general.

Hm. Sometimes, I do have firm opinions about things.

Slave To Moderation

A good friend of mine recently posted a "quote of the week" by Bill Cosby on his blog:

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody."

- Bill Cosby

It's a good quote, and it's true that I will paralyze myself and my causes if I try to please everyone, because I can't fully satisfy both sides of a polar issue.

Still, in every issue, even the views I am opposed to are likely right in some nuance or aspect, and I'd do well to at least try to be open to that.

So I have a reservation with this line of thinking when not taken in moderation. It is often misused as a weak excuse to discard diplomacy, a copout to avoid putting on someone else's shoes for a day, or a lazy guise of noble, unyielding conviction to cover stubborn, narrow pigheadedness.

I started composing these comments on his blog, and then I thought, "Wait, this is a reasonable quote and a productive thought, and instead of just shrugging and going away with a good reminder, I find myself debating its validity, skeptical of how some readers will interpret it, feeling the need to voice that concern to moderate the behaviors I foresee sprouting from an imbalanced interpretation...I'm a freak."

OK, I reject that. I'm not a freak. But I am, I think, a fairly moderate thinker, and sometimes to a fault, becoming annoyingly so for many people. I am skeptical of information and rarely accept something as fact until I have verified it in some way. Actually, I'm probably flattering myself by making that assertion because I probably buy more easily into what I want to hear than what I don't. I'm a gullible, limited human being. And as my Jazz Choir conductor, Dan Bukvich, used to yell at us (while thinly masking a wry grin), "You're genetically flawed!" And I am. Go fig.

But with all the debating, enemy-making, and misinformation I've read and listened to over the past few weeks regarding the election, prop 8 in California, and other more personal or local issues, I've gone into turbo moderation mode. To little avail, I'm afraid. McCain- and Obama-supporters alike seem to think the nation would crumble under the leadership of the other guy. Prop 8 crusaders on both sides seem to be unable to really see the reasoning and rationale behind their opponents' positions. And I've reached the point where, though I may continue to make token efforts, I am re-realizing I just can't change people's minds or force them to step into someone else's shoes. That's something you just have to want to do on a personal level. You have to care more about truth than about causes. You have to care more about people than about strictures. You have to care more about reconciliation than about vilifying opponents. And exploring the grey, or the middle ground, or the ambiguous, just doesn't seem productive or comfortable to most people, it seems.

Under fermenting righteous indignation, open, loving dialog is transformed into harsh and destructive rhetoric. Under pretense of correctness, brothers and sisters who disagree become perceived as mindless drones of the tyrannical opposition. Under the din of "us or them" battle cries, the call to stand for something becomes entrenched refusal to sit down at dialog with perceived enemies.

Yes, I'm just an idealistic, naive boy who doesn't realize the harsh realities of the spiritual, political, and cultural wars in which we find ourselves. I'm foolish to imply that we must validate or dignify our subversive enemies' cries by hearing them out. I'm short-sighted to think that there is any time for forbearance while our opponents are mobilized in opposition. I'm lukewarm and useless to the cause if I stay back and withhold judgment or side-taking until I feel fully comfortable doing so. And yes, it's true that you cannot please everyone and should probably not even endeavor to do so.

You might say I am a slave to moderation, a believer that truth is often found in listening to those with whom I disagree, which requires shutting my trap long enough to hear it without incessantly calculating my counter-response. And accepting truth comes at the uncomfortable cost of some degree of self-assurance, the acknowledgment that I am limited in experience, mental capacity, and perspective, and even a fool knows something I don't. Recognizing truth wherever it is found also requires recognizing that, even if my conclusion is correct (assuming there is a "correct" or "incorrect" conclusion to be reached in a given debate), if I have done nothing more than defend faulty logic to the right conclusion, I may be worse off, morally, than I would be if I made a different conclusion but for more righteous, or correct, reasons.

Pansy politics? Appeasement? Moral relativism? Never mind how some might choose to slant it with their favorite negative labels. I see admirable traits in people who strive to understand both sides of each story, whether or not they agree: humility, truth-seeking, building on common ground, understanding of nuance. Those are virtues in my eyes, and traits I would like to emulate, along with other traits such as integrity, conviction, principle, and courage to stand up for what I believe, come what may.

Someone to Believe

I've always liked this song, since I was little. Honesty, by Billy Joel. But I'd not realized how completely I identify with the lyrics until tonight, when this song randomly played on my mp3 player at the gym. I found myself saying, "Amen, brother!" OK, I didn't actually say it, but I came really darn close.

I've written much less poetically and more ad nauseum about related themes before, so while I could expound on related thoughts like how my sincere but overzealous desire for "honesty" has affected relationships for better or for worse, for tonight, I'll just leave it to the song to speak for itself. My own personal interpretations aside, it's a beautiful song.

To listen to the song, find it in my playlist on the right-hand side of my blog.

The lyrics:

If you search for tenderness
it isn't hard to find.
You can have the love you need to live.
But if you look for truthfulness
You might just as well be blind.
It always seems to be so hard to give.

Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.

I can always find someone
to say they sympathize.
If I wear my heart out on my sleeve.
But I don't want some pretty face
to tell me pretty lies.
All I want is someone to believe.

Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.

I can find a lover.
I can find a friend.
I can have security until the bitter end.
Anyone can comfort me
with promises again.
I know, I know.

When I'm deep inside of me
don't be too concerned.
I won't ask for nothin' while I'm gone.
But when I want sincerity
tell me where else can I turn?
Because you're the one I depend upon.

Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.

Friends For...What?

I know people whom most people seem to love. One such is fabled to be able to obtain most people's whole life history within 10 minutes after first meeting. Another is charming, talented, good-looking, and fun. Another makes you feel immediately at ease with her warmly outgoing demeanor. Another is supposedly as sweet as any person you'll ever meet. When you get right down to it, I think most people you meet have admirable qualities and are generally well-intended. And I know many people don't understand or agree with me when I say this, but I'm convinced almost everyone in this world, including those whom 99% of the population would call any of an array of unpleasant words, has a relative or a close friend who will insist that "deep down, he/she is a sweetheart, and you just have to get past the layers."

There are quite a few people I can "click" with in some way. There are many really fun people in this world. A lot of funny ones. "Sweethearts" all over. Highly successful and talented people. People who can stroke my ego are everywhere. People who lend levity and laughter are pretty common. People who will engage in a lively intellectual debate are possibly less common but still in no short supply. People who will lecture me on my faults are also on every street corner. And speaking of street corners, I don't imagine I'd have to pay for sex if I really wanted to go out and find it--there are plenty of people willing to offer physical affection in various forms with or without trust and familiarity. I'd even guess there are few people in this world who, if they were really in trouble, wouldn't have somebody to come and help them.

Some argue you should embrace all friendships and learn from them and just let relationships blossom and die as they are needed. Part of me agrees and tells myself, "Why be choosy with all friendships? Why not just love people for who they are as far as you can see with your flawed vision and follow your 'heart'? Why not let anyone and everyone into your life, if only for a moment?" The problem is that hearts are fickle. Affection waxes and wanes, often in conjunction with hormonal cycles or how needy you feel at a given time. And affection is, to put it bluntly, fairly cheap and easy to come by. It can even be directed at people who don't deserve it but abuse it.

Paradoxically, the most "romantic" notion of following your heart and the intensity of emotion and letting relationships ebb and flow based on your current affections seems the most hollow, insincere, non-romantic approach I can think of. Fully indulging all passions or attractions (speaking sexually or non-) actually nullifies and empties them of richness and savor. When I've really thought about approaching relationships from that seemingly hedonistic perspective, or when I've tried to do it, it has felt so empty and meaningless to me. There are other people's feelings to consider, and energy spent, and to pick up friendships because they're shiny and new only to drop them on the sidewalk when the newness wears off seems awfully self-serving. It seems like relationship gluttony. I'll sample random foods at a buffet and not finish them if they don't appeal, but I think relationships are different. ...aren't they? I mean, beyond college freshman age, at least.

Here's the thing: I only have who-knows-how-much time in which to develop relationships that enrich my life and make me a better person where needed and build and uplift and magnify the best parts of me, and I them. I also only have so much energy to invest in each potential friendship that crosses my path. Maybe it's the curse of being so very introverted, but if I simply explore every one that comes along, it's that much harder to achieve the kind of depth of connection and commitment I want and need. Therefore, being really fun, totally charming, or extremely good-looking, having a naughty body, or being unusually talented, highly intelligent, or "really nice", and even being "helpful" and giving me lots of things are simply not enough for me. Weird? Maybe. But I feel a need for other qualities, at least in friends I hope to keep around at all.

I sometimes forget what I value most in friendships. I have caught myself, at times, trying to see that everyone I meet is "conquered" or wooed in some way. Each new meeting is an opportunity to convince one more person how clever, desirable, fun, or intelligent I am. It's about satisfying an experimental curiosity to see whether I can win this one over, too. And I've sometimes let attraction overpower my better judgment in the development of relationships, or occasionally ignored potential friendships based on shallow measures like lack of attractiveness.

It seems somehow paradoxical, but I suspect what I want most from a friendship is more about who the other person is, beyond the immediate appearances, than about how much we "like" each other or how much "affection" we feel towards each other. Though I do know some very respectable people I just have little interest in getting to know. And I know some very "lovable" people I wouldn't trust with anything. So I guess the friendships I consider most valuable are those with a healthy appreciation or respect for who the other person is, independent of our relationship, and affection. The kinds of traits that matter, then, do not come from a "fun" friendship but from who that friend is as a person, independent of or in spite of my presence in their life.

I want friends who challenge me as they support me. Friends who know me beyond what pop culture tidbits we both follow. Friends who will help others without demands of recompense. Friends who compliment with no expectation of returned praise. Friends who support my positive goals. Friends who will tell me when they're concerned about me but will try to understand and love me when I respectfully choose differently than they would. Friends who are basically the same people no matter who they're with, not playing to a crowd, no matter who that crowd is or how respected. Friends who let me know where I stand with them, good or bad, so I know where our strengths are and what we can work on strengthening. Friends who don't play politics with their relationships and who work through the rough spots together rather than ignore them or point fingers. Friends I can trust, and they me. Friends who would not knowingly try to hurt or degrade me, even if they thought I deserved it. Friends who make decisions by principle, not by the passing whims of emotion and situational ethics.

I guess when I put it that way, I'm demanding a lot. Maybe too much. Do I fit all of those descriptors from all perspectives? No, I think not. So I try to strike a balance between enjoying people for who they are and savoring the "sampling" I may get of each person. After all, how can you ever get beyond the surface if you only allow people into your life based on initial impressions? So I suppose I should try to learn what I can from all people, no matter how different they may seem from my ideals (I'm not good at this but getting better) and appreciate passing relationships for what they are, moving on while holding on to a few enduring, close relationships that are more productive in the long-run. And I'm happy to say I think my closest friendships do fit the bill, and for that I am grateful, which I probably don't express nearly enough.

Open Book?

*** LONG-WINDEDNESS WARNING: The following post is likely to cause severe drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading ***

On the radio tonight, there was a discussion of the marital and societal influence of pornography and the need to love and help people addicted to pornography, as the addiction may be a symptom of deeper psychological issues, such as past sexual abuse, about which the addicted person's spouse may or may not know.

My mind veered off into a tangent upon the proposition that a husband or wife might not know about his or her spouse's prior sexual abuse. That seems like something you would absolutely, unquestionably tell someone you trusted and loved enough to marry. It is likely to affect relationships. It's undoubtedly relevant. I see no good reason to keep it from the person supposedly closest to you. It honestly puzzled me.

I've seen enough examples and talked to enough people to know that very many people do not share my views that if you are marrying someone, you'd better darn well be willing to share your past, let them see your embarrassing, awkward teenage pics, see each other naked, fart in front of each other, tell them how you're feeling and know they'll not abuse that trust, etc.

I don't understand not being able to feel totally open with your spouse. Seriously. One flesh? Sacred union? Come on, people! You don't take that step without serious trust and connection. ...or do you? Is that why the divorce rate is so high?

I do understand not divulging the sordid details of each past transgression or unpleasant experience. I understand letting the story of your life unfold naturally as the relationship deepens and cements. But to not disclose to your spouse the fact that you were abused as a child? Your spouse? I don't understand how people view relationships of that nature if they can't share something like that. It seems so foreign to me, not to mention unhealthy.

I've never had a marital relationship, and I've not been sexually abused, so maybe I just don't get it, and I certainly don't want to be insensitive by calling it unhealthy. I appreciate the fact that sometimes there's fear of rejection or other reactions. I understand that some things aren't particularly significant, and it's just a matter of time before they come up.

I most definitely understand feeling like you're ugly or unlovable because of some part of your life that you don't think anyone will fully understand. The feeling that you must keep part of your life or your psyche carefully tucked away and hidden is very, very familiar to me. Painfully familiar, which may be partially why I am so vocal about this. Life seems so much better when you're not afraid of, running from, or ignoring parts of it or parts of yourself.

I'm not totally forthright about everything to everyone. I recognize that. I don't think you must open every page of your book for every person. Trust and openness are built over time, and some people take longer than others. But I try to work towards being open in healthy ways rather than focusing energy on keeping things hidden. It's unnecessarily stressful, I think, to be constantly fearful or hyper-cautious of what page your friends and loved ones might turn to. I've been there, done that. I don't want to go back to it. And when it comes to the person you marry, if you can't open up to them, to whom can you?

Maybe someday I'll say, "Now I see; while I wish I could be fully open with those closest to me, I've put myself in a situation where being totally open about this would cause unnecessary pain to those I most love. It's best to let it go and put that chapter away for good." But call me cynical: I do not believe most people keep things from their spouse or partner for the good of the other person. I think it's most often for their own protection, allowing them to avoid accountability or preventing the need to really integrate their life rather than keeping their life fractured into independent variations. That integration is often uncomfortable. But no matter how closely I guard parts of my life, those things simply are part of my development and experience, or part of me. And if I don't trust the other person will love me regardless of my past, with all my flaws, and see me for who I am today and the decisions I'm making now, what kind of love do I have for them? What kind of relationship? What kind of bond? If they only love me according to the shiny parts of me I've selectively shown them, how unfair I've been to snooker them into marrying only most of a person and to deny them the opportunity to show the real extent of their love.

At one point, I would've thought I could withhold certain things from a spouse. "Our relationship is fine, and this is obviously not ruining it, so no need to rock the boat, right?" Sometimes, a relationship is too new, too fragile to introduce more challenges into it. And few relationships merit full disclosure. Hopefully, by the time marriage is on the horizon, both parties are familiar enough with each other and committed enough to be confident that no matter what, they're going to work through things, difficult or not. And before entering into a covenant with someone, you'd best let them know what they're in for.

Even as I write this, I realize that 10 years ago, or even 5, I was probably the person I'm lecturing to. It's a little surreal. But something has changed in my perspective. There is so much beauty and healthy authenticity in opening yourself up, and I don't want to go back to being more closed. Relationships that aren't building towards that kind of trust are those I would personally rather just keep casual and incidental.

So let others live their lives how they choose. Let them build their relationships the way they say works for them. While it may seem, to me, like an unnecessary blueprint for building shame, compartmentalization, distrust, and division into the relationship, maybe other people just ascribe different importance to different things, and I just have to find someone compatible with me who values the same kinds of openness and communication. I wouldn't want anything else. I couldn't commit to anything else. If I were to marry, I would want my spouse to become part of me and vice versa as completely as anyone can, and there would be no part of me I fear being seen or touched, even if it's not totally comfortable. I can't imagine it being any other way. There are some naive ideals I'm not willing to set aside. This doesn't, by any means, imply that this is the most important part of a relationship or that I'm anywhere close to perfect. I'm well aware I wouldn't be the easiest person in the world to marry. It's just something that's essential to me.

So, to my hypothetical future companion, if we are in love, if we are committing to each other, if we are merging our lives into one, please trust me with things like past sexual abuse. Please believe me when I say I will try to be sensitive and respectful. Trust that if you are who you appear to be today, and I love you the way you deserve, I will not love you less for having imperfections, or for something in your past you still are affected by today. Hang on the hope that I will be able to see through your supposed flaws to the underlying and overarching strengths and qualities. Give me the chance to choose to know and love all of you, the complete you.