Crooked perspective

What is up with so many guys in the arts being gay? It’s nowhere near a majority, thank heavens, but there are enough of them that a man who’s heavily into the arts is almost always immediately suspect, at least at a first encounter. Why is that?

Is it social stigmatization? If the arts aren’t considered to be a “real” profession (as opposed to going into medicine or law or business), then perhaps some men put themselves into the category that women used to occupy, before the women’s lib movement, and somehow they figure that effeminization is in order. Or is it that the arts require sensitivity, and being sensitive is usually seen as a feminine trait?

I don’t know. Any ideas? If all the modern histories are right about Da Vinci and Michelangelo and the rest of them (and I’m still not sure they’re not just pushing an agenda and rewriting history in their own image), then this connection has been around for a while, which means there may actually be something to it.

Now, as an artist (and one who likes Jane Austen movies, no less!), I occasionally feel like I have to justify myself, explaining that I’m straight as an arrow and have absolutely no inclinations toward men, none whatsoever. I don’t want homosexuals to take over the arts. I have no problem with them being in the arts, of course (as long as they don’t tread on my rights or anyone else’s), but if “arts = homosexuality,” then I’m bailing. Except I can’t. The arts are an inextricable part of who I am. And yet I don’t want to be connected with a movement I completely oppose. ~sigh~

If the arts aren’t considered to be a “real” profession (as opposed to going into medicine or law or business), then perhaps some men put themselves into the category that women used to occupy, before the women’s lib movement, and somehow they figure that effeminization is in order. Or is it that the arts require sensitivity, and being sensitive is usually seen as a feminine trait?

I think you’re putting the cart before the horse, Ben. Nowadays, people self-select into careers that fit their personalities. Thus, guys who are more “sensitive” or “effeminate” sort themselves into the arts. The arts don’t make them that way.

Not that I’m questioning your masculinity. In fact, I used you as an example of a chauvinist pig in class today. J/K

It seems to me that homosexuality is more accepted in the arts. This could cause two things. One, it could attract people with that temptation. Second, people could be more open about it in the arts than in other professions, making the difference seem larger than it really is.

I graduated from BYU in Art and Design 1980. I do not remember any male artists that I went to school with being gay. I had one art teacher from Africa that flipped, left his wife, and went that way. I had another art teacher that left his wife and joined a polygamist group too. However, most of my art teachers were monogomous and straight. I know many men that are very gifted artists, who are “men.” no need to bail. Well, if the gifted non-gay bail, then what is left? Solution????

I had a roommate, she married a guy in pre-dental. He had male attraction issues before his mission. No one said a word. She married him in the Temple, put him through dental school, they had two children, and then he came out of the closet. Can you spell D-i-v-o-r-c-e! If you throw out the arts, you’ll have to throw out the sciences too.

Separate in your mind the gift from the poor choices of a few. One can be a great artist and be straight.

There are solutions to reducing the ratio. Homosexuals do not usually reproduce themselves. Marry and raise lots of little children of destiny, and pass on your gifts. Shift the genepool to the right! Afterall, we have not yet created Latterday Rembrandts!

Where will we find those Latter-day Rembrandts if all the straight guys hide their talent under a bushel?

We had a gay man with an agenda come talk to my sociology class. He wanted federal money to counsel male teens that had been raped by gay men. His concern was that so many of these young men were suicidal. His counsel to them would be to accept their homosexuality…after all didn’t it feel good…

The man was very persuasive and the class of over 150 students was falling for his game. I prayed for inspiration. It came and I raised my hand. He called on me expecting another interested question accompanied with a comment of support. I said:

“There is a light panel with at least a dozen switches on it on the front wall of this room. If I switch on the light switches, the lights go on. If I use my hand to do it…the lights go on. If I use a ruler to do it…the lights go on, and if I use a hair brush to do it…the lights go on and the lights don’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, I’m hairbrush oriented.’ The lights just know that a master electrician wired them to go on whenever their circuits are triggered. And so it is with the young men you want to indoctrinate and brainwash. They don’t need someone like you to tell them that they are gay. They need to hear that God wired them with lights that are working properly. They are ok, they are men. They were the unfortunate victims of an ugly crime.” (The class burst out with laughter and that put an end to his game.)

As for you dear Ben, the best known author in history, the greatest song writer, painter, inventor, and creator of the most beautiful works in the world is the most sensitive personage that I know. I call him MY Father in Heaven. Did you know that you were created in His image? No wonder that you are sensitive and artistic.

Is it any wonder that Satan tries to associate some of God’s most wonderful attributes with being gay? What better way to stifle the spirit of a man than to label it effeminate? What? Do you think fighting, drinking, womanizing, and watching war movies is more manly than reciting a sonnet to the woman you love, painting a picture, or tenderly holding a child to give it a name and a blessing? The world needs to get real and allow men to be real men.

Liz: LOL, good. I don’t think that the arts themselves make anyone gay, of course — if I did, I would run far, far away. :)

Laura: Good points. Assuming, of course, that Ian McKellen is wrong. I don’t know either way.

Donna: Don’t worry, I’m not really going to bail. :) I don’t actually think that there’s any connection between homosexuality and the core of being an artist, of course; my question is whether there’s something in the trappings — in the culture — that tends to bend men to it. And if there is, then my question becomes how we can go about changing it. Yes, homosexuals do run into the whole reproduction problem. I wonder if they really want the whole world to be gay. Let’s hope they’re not that stupid, because then the human race would be gone in a single generation. Hmm, I feel a fiery line coming… Here it is: the homosexual agenda, if it should run its full course, would mean the genocide of the whole human race. If them’s not fightin’ words, I don’t know what is. ;)

J: I agree, and I myself don’t think that being sensitive is effeminate, but I rather believe that it’s at the core of humanity itself. This labeling — and I could easily see Satan as being behind it, though of course it may just be our own misdoing — of tender attributes as feminine is unfortunate. It’s understandable why they do, granted, but still unfortunate. (And this seems to be a one-way street. A guy who is interested in knitting is looked at with far more suspicion than a girl who is interested in football.)

Ben, I am a graphic designer. I have a real job. I make money.

I dress well, love shoes, can’t stand sports, enjoy theater and independent films, and have several pink shirts and ties (and like Depeche Mode).

And I’m not ashamed to say—I like boobs.

I say that not to be crass, but to illustrate that one’s profession does not dictate one’s sexual preference. The reasoning is so totally backward that it boggles the mind.

I served my mission in San Francisco, and must say that I know a lot of people NOT in the arts that are homosexual. I think the only difference between the arts and a “real” profession is that in other professions, people are much more willling to bring a beatdown on you if you’re gay, so that’s incentive to keep it a secret.

Secrecy≠Nonexistence

If that is indeed the case — that there are just as many homosexuals in other professions as there are in the arts — then yes, I agree that the difference is in the level of secrecy (or lack thereof). If not, then it looks like homosexuals gravitate towards the arts. I don’t know what the actual statistics are, so it’s anyone’s guess at this point.

At any rate, I guess I didn’t make it clear that I don’t mean one’s profession dictates one’s sexual preference, but just that there seems to be some kind of connection between the arts and homosexuality, and it looks like the connection is in how far the closet door is open. I’m not saying that all artists are gay.

Is it any wonder that Satan tries to associate some of God’s most wonderful attributes with being gay? What better way to stifle the spirit of a man than to label it effeminate? What? Do you think fighting, drinking, womanizing, and watching war movies is more manly than reciting a sonnet to the woman you love, painting a picture, or tenderly holding a child to give it a name and a blessing? The world needs to get real and allow men to be real men.

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes and yes.

I agree.

Not only that, Madame J, but also what better way to curb a man from bettering himself?

The personality traits of Christ transcend gender. Compassion, weeping, mercy, friendship, love and forgiveness, all these things are generally frowned upon in men and yet the Son of Man held them all. Satan’s plan is to make us men think that if you have these traits you must be gay. A young man is generally ‘left’ with two choices: eschew these traits or accept them because he’s gay.

Quite the clever strategy.

Of course we know, and more people should know, that there’s so much more to being a man than that.

See Richard C. Edgley’s talk ‘Behold The Man’ Nov ‘99 Ensign
link

Ben,
I have lots of male friends in the arts and quite a few of them struggle with same sex attraction. I’d be a bit careful about how you broach this topic. I know you feel it important to emphasize the fact that you’re not gay and that you don’t want to be associated with homosexuality, but in my experience, many men struggle with SSA to one degree or another. I’m hoping that when you use the terms “gay” and “homosexual” you’re talking exclusively about people who have chosen to live gay lifestyles and not about those who struggle with SSA. I think they have it hard enough as it is without hearing other men talk about SSA as though it were something terrible.

You make a good point when you say the following:

“Is it any wonder that Satan tries to associate some of God’s most wonderful attributes with being gay? What better way to stifle the spirit of a man than to label it effeminate? What? Do you think fighting, drinking, womanizing, and watching war movies is more manly than reciting a sonnet to the woman you love, painting a picture, or tenderly holding a child to give it a name and a blessing? The world needs to get real and allow men to be real men.”

The arts foster sensitivity and introspection–qualities that our society does not allow heterosexual men to have. Society says either (a) you’re a heterosexual male and thus don’t have these qualities or (b) you do have these qualities and must therefore question your sexuality because of it. It really is a sad state of affairs. I wish more males were comfortable enough with their masculinity and sexuality that they wouldn’t be frightened by cultivating stereotypically “effeminate” qualities. I wish society didn’t condition men to begin questioning their sexuality when they realize they interests don’t lie in the realm of stereotypically masculine pursuits.

I don’t think that making disclaimers about your sexuality really helps these societal trends, though. It emphasizes the idea that it’s not really normal, and it plays into the idea that men can’t be secure in their sexuality when they’re engaging in artistic pursuits. It also reinforces the idea that SSA is something to be ashamed of, which doesn’t really help those who struggle with SSA.

I think I’m preaching now, but my suggestion is to just be you, and if it makes them wonder, than let them wonder. You don’t have anything to be ashamed of, so don’t apologize.

“If the arts aren’t considered to be a “real” profession (as opposed to going into medicine or law or business), then perhaps some men put themselves into the category that women used to occupy, before the women’s lib movement, and somehow they figure that effeminization is in order.”

A small quibble. The “arts”, which I assume you mean as being literature, painting, sculpture, etc., did used to be considered crafts just as much as shoe-making, house-building, etc. I’m not entirely sure if you are saying that the arts are an area that once used to be only occupied by women, which is certainly not historically accurate. Or perhaps that jobs performed by women before women’s lib were only peripheral, or at least perceived as such, and now the arts are peripheral and so require feminization? However, the artist has been an “outsider” particularly since the 19th century, so…
No real matter. I agree fully with Katherine M.

sixline: Exactly! I’ve felt that very same way — that Christ’s characteristics transcend gender. It’s not about masculine or feminine. It’s beyond that. (And yet without obliterating masculinity or femininity in its wake, for both do exist and are very important.) Bishop Edgley’s talk is very nice, too; thanks for the link!

Katherine: While I myself don’t struggle with SSA, I feel bad for those that do, and I certainly don’t want to make things harder for them. So in one sense, yes, I’m using “gay” and “homosexual” to mean active homosexuals, not those repressing their SSA. And yet if there are a lot of males in the arts who struggle with SSA, and since SSA obviously leads to homosexuality if given free reign, that’s basically bringing us back to my original question (as to whether there’s a connection).

Anyway, if those struggling with SSA are so fragile that my saying I’m straight somehow shatters their self-esteem, they’ve got abnormal problems. There’s nothing wrong with making disclaimers about being straight. After all, SSA is not normal, at least not among almost all the men I’ve ever known. Pretending like it’s normal is not going to help things. Sure, we don’t persecute those who have it, and we do try to understand them and help them as much as we can, but that doesn’t mean we have to say that their temptation is something normal. It isn’t.

Also, the quote you mentioned was actually by J — just wanted to make that clear, although of course I would like to take credit for it. ;)

Anna: Your second assumption (that women’s occupations were peripheral before women’s lib) was correct; I’m certainly not saying that the arts were only occupied by women. Even I’m not that dense. ;)

I think Katherine put beautifully what I was going to say. You need to make a clearer distinction between the “homosexual agenda” and “people who struggle with SSA.”
As to whether or not their temptations are normal, Ben, I suppose it depends on what you mean by “normal.” Have you ever considered that some of the men you know DO struggle with SSA and just don’t tell you about it because they know how you’ll feel about it? Perhaps because they hate feeling the way they do, hate themselves, can’t understand what’s wrong with them or why God would allow them to feel this way?
Perhaps their temptation is something quite normal. Just because you don’t experience it personally doesn’t mean that it’s very real and very hard, even widespread. I don’t think we need to relegate those whose self-esteem is indeed very fragile because of all the shame, secrecy, self-loathing, and hurt that come with SSA to the area of those with “abnormal problems.” We’re supposed to strengthen our brothers and sisters, not denigrate them for their trials.
If you want a good book on the subject, check out “In Quiet Desperation,” which is applicable to all mortals, no matter their particular trials. It might give you a different perspective.

I think the issue here is that I see some common trends in LDS culture that concern me. Many of the LDS young men I know are more interested in trying to feel secure in their sexuality than in supporting those who struggle with issues of sexual orientation. They feel so threatened by the idea that anyone might suspect them of being gay that they speak defensively at best. The problem is that this doesn’t exactly foster an environment for those who do struggle with SSA to feel safe and accepted.

It wasn’t you saying you’re straight that concerns me (and honestly Ben, who who knows anything about you would think you were anything but “straight as an arrow”?), it’s you saying it defensively and emphatically—in your own words, feeling that you have to “justify” yourself so as not to be suspected of being anything other than straight. The tone of your posted implied that you want nothing whatsoever to do with gays. That’s why I was concerned that you didn’t make much of a distinction between those living a homosexual lifestyle (i.e. breaking God’s commandments) and those with SSA (i.e. those struggling to live God’s commandments and who could use some support in doing so).

As I’ve mentioned, I have many friends who struggle with SSA. Recently I’ve see one of my friends starting to seek acceptance outside of the LDS community because he hasn’t found tons of it inside the LDS community. That sort of thing is dangerous and, if continued, inevitably leads to paths of sin. I certainly don’t condone it. No matter how much compassion I feel for those who struggle and how much I understand their need for acceptance, I firmly believe that ultimately the responsibility is with them if they choose to leave the Church. I mean, after all, if someone were justified in leaving the church because they didn’t feel accepted, then pretty much all of us would have ample justification to do so. However, I also feel like members have a responsibility to cultivate an environment where people who struggle with SSA feel safe and accepted.

I guess to me it’s a similar to the issue of giving and taking offense. If someone leaves the Church because I offended them, ultimately they are responsible for their actions. On the other hand, if a little sensitivity from me can be part of the reason someone doesn’t leave, or even part of the reason they stay, then being a little sensitive seems like a jolly important thing for me to do.

I don’t believe in compassion trumping righteousness. It actually really bothers me (as in it makes me want to throw things) when people support same-sex marriage in the name of compassion. I don’t understand it. If I really love my SSA brothers and sisters, wouldn’t I get terribly upset by the idea that anyone would dare encourage them to give up the best God has to offer them (i.e. celestial glory) simply because living a lesser law is easier? Sometimes people need to be told hard things because that’s simply the way it is. I think anyone who struggles with a temptation or weakness can stand be told at some point (by someone who loves them) that they need to get over themselves. It’s not healthy to constantly dwell on and feel victimized by one’s temptations.

However, I still maintain that our culture can stand to be better informed about this particular struggle and to develop a better sense of compassion if we really are interested in keeping our SSA brothers and sisters among us. I hope that by loving them and being a bit more sensitive, we can at the very least give them fewer excuses to leave.

Okay, this is me climbing down from my soapbox now…

Amy: By “normal” I mean that the vast majority of men do not struggle with SSA. It is not the default. Perhaps widespread, if you mean geographically or diachronically, but if you’re going to say that SSA is normal, then you’d better have statistics to back it up. I have a very hard time believing that I’m one of the few males in the world who doesn’t struggle with it. Seriously, now.

Even if it were as prevalent as you make it out to be, I would still hesitate to call it “normal,” at least from a religious perspective. God is the standard for normal, as far as possible. That’s our goal. Yes, we’re fallen humans, and so we obviously fall short of that standard, but the standard is there nonetheless. The danger in labeling temptations “normal,” as I see it, is that they cease to be as abhorrent to us, but rather become run-of-the-mill. Extramarital sex has become normal, and look at how society views it — as something as ordinary as brushing your teeth or eating breakfast. The other danger is that it’s all to easy to let the “normal” label spread to other temptations which you might find less tolerable — say, pedophilia or wife abuse. Before long the line between good and evil will have been rubbed over so many times that it’s as good as gone.

Again, I’m not saying that we should give a cold shoulder to those who struggle with SSA. But it seems to me that you’re trying to paint lipstick on the pig that is SSA. Being attracted to members of one’s own gender is against the order of things. It is an aberration. It is wrong. (And by that I mean that it is something not good, not that it is a sin for someone to feel that way.) Let it be wrong, for crying out loud. Yes, we need compassion and understanding, but if we keep telling our SSA-laden friends that SSA is okay, then in my opinion we’re doing more damage than good. Someone struggling with pornography does not need to be told that looking at porn is normal. (And I hope it’s obvious that the case for pornography being normal is far stronger than the case for SSA.) They need to know that the temptation to view explicit material is something they need to fight against, but if we keep telling them that it’s normal, how on earth will they be able to muster up the strength they need to fight it?

One last word. I’m not denigrating the people themselves for their trials. I feel for them. I can only imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. But if I were in their shoes, then I would want strength to come from an increase of light from heaven, not from a relabeling of my condition to make me feel like it’s not as bad a thing as I thought it was. Calling SSA normal is dishonest and destructive.

Katherine: I’ll reply to your comment shortly. :)

In The Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi said, “…for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.” 1 Nephi 20:23. So what does the Lord tell us in the scriptures and through the mouths of his holy prophets about evil thoughts and thinking evil?

“O, my beloved brethren, remember the awfulness in transgressing against that Holy God, and also the awfulness of yielding to the enticings of that cunning one. Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal.” 2 Nephi 9: 39.

“For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” 2 Nephi 26: 23.

“Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves – to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.” 2 Nephi 10: 23-24.

It is not enough for an alcoholic to stand at the door of a bar and congratulate himself because he hasn’t gone in for a drink. It is not enough for a man to flip through the pages of a magazine in an adult book store and rejoice that he didn’t buy the book. Thinking is also an action!

I know that the devil would have us think otherwise, but the Lord told us that he created two types of human beings – male and female and he even told us why. When a child is born and the doctor slaps the child on the butt and says, “It’s a boy, or it’s a girl!” for me that settles any questions and then it is up to the individual to decide what kind of man or woman they choose to be.

In the parable of the olive tree, the Lord of the vineyard pruned and grafted the branches of the precious trees of his vineyard to preserve the roots and the branches of the trees that brought forth good fruit. He didn’t want that which was evil to cumber the ground of his vineyard or to overtake the good fruit. In the fight against sin and evil, we must do the same in the vineyards of our minds. We must cut down the evil branches of sinful thoughts and ugly temptations and burn them in the fire. We must eradicate the roots of our evil thoughts and destroy them before they destroy our minds, our hearts and our souls for all eternity.

“Yea, why should I give way to temptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul?” 2 Nephi 4: 27.

The Lord has warned us, as a man thinketh, so is he…we become our thoughts. We are to guard our thoughts. “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman [or man] to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of they members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell,” St. Matthew 5: 27-30. Shouldn’t we be even more diligent in protecting our minds and hearts? It is an interesting string of concepts to ponder.

It doesn’t matter if a person of either gender is tempted with SSA, OSA, or CSA, the fact is that the person is tempted with SA and needs to repent. Sexual Attraction outside the bonds of holy matrimony is lust and lust is a sin. It seems to me that those who openly wear the SA label are advertising…hmm I wonder why?

We know that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to overcome. Eradicating sin takes work even for a prophet…Consider the prayer of a prophet - “O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities…I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me…O Lord, wilt thou redeem my soul?…Wilt thou make me that I may shake at the appearance of sin?…Yea, I know that God will give liberally to him that asketh. Yea, my God will give me if I ask not amiss…” 2 Nephi 4: 17, 18, 31, 35.

The Lord has counseled us, “Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart I have written my law, fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings… I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken,” 2 Nephi 9: 7-40. The Lord has counseled us to treat his children with compassion and to have charity towards all men. However, he didn’t join in with Thumper’s advice to Bambi, “if you can’t say nothin nice, don’t say nothin at all.” Politically correct speach is Satan’s “silent” weapon in gaining the hearts and the minds of God’s children.

“It doesn’t matter if a person of either gender is tempted with SSA, OSA, or CSA, the fact is that the person is tempted with SA and needs to repent.”

Obviously people who are tempted with sexual sin should not entertain sinful thoughts, but it’s my understanding that there is a difference between sinning (which includes sinful thoughts) and being tempted to sin:

“…we should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation.”
-Elder Oaks

I’m trying to think of something to add to Elder Oaks’s comment, but it pretty much sums up what I was so awkwardly trying to communicate in my previous comments.

It occurs to me that I didn’t include the source for the comment by Elder Oaks:
Dallin H. Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct 1995, 7

Ben,

By your own definition of normal, God is not normal. God is perfect.

There is a wide chasm between those two points, which is the entire purpose of mortality.

I do find it interesting and pertinent that in Mormon doctrine, we continue to progress even after this life is over, which I believe is a salient point.

Please, please tell me that one can be sexually attracted to another person and yet not move over into actual lust. Otherwise there seems to be a serious impingement on the entire dating/mating process.

Is it moral to lust within the bonds of matrimony? Or does that state suddenly render any level of sexual attraction moral?

I find that I prefer Augustine’s approach to lust, which is that it is a form of misguided love which ultimately is entirely selfish. I don’t believe that simple sexual attraction necessarily has to be taken to the level of lust; this is the point where self control and responsibility comes into play.

Katherine: If the tone of my post implied anything, I hope it was that I want nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality, not with gays themselves. (I’ll admit that being around men who could ostensibly be attracted to me is extremely unnerving, but we’re supposed to love everyone, so I could deal with that as long as they don’t come on to me.) I have nothing against homosexuals as people, but I have everything against homosexuality as a sexual orientation and as a philosophy and worldview.

I do agree that we need to be sensitive, charitable, and Christlike to those struggling with SSA. My whole point has been solely that it’s the people we need to accept, not their SSA. And from the last few paragraphs of your comment, it looks like you feel the same way. I guess I just get worked up when it sounds like people are trying to rationalize evil. :) So, if it appeared like I was condemning the sinner and not the sin, my bad.

J: We need to be careful here to distinguish between the temptation and acting on the temptation. (And by “acting on” I mean thoughts as well.) We can’t be held accountable for something beyond our control. In my experience, attraction is initially out of our control. Once the initial spark flies, however, we are free to either ignore it or feed it. If we do feed it — by savoring it or by imagined intimacy or by actually acting out on our lustful thoughts — then we’re clearly accountable, for that is sin. But if we shun the temptation as it buzzes around our head, we’re not sinning.

Those who openly wear the SSA label are, I think, out of line, but I don’t think that those who are struggling with it are often “open” about it. It’s more of a secret, ashamed, desperate whisper to a friend, I’d imagine.

Katherine (again): Exactly.

Anna: By my own definition of normal, we are not normal. :P But I realize that I was somewhat sloppy in my terms, using several different meanings of “normal” when I should have split it out. I first intended “normal” to mean widespread, common, or ubiquitous among men. In the second paragraph, I meant “normal” to represent God’s standard of righteousness and goodness. Marriage between a man and a woman, as is God’s standard, is normal in that sense, and marriage of any other sort is abnormal, deviant, and wrong. And finally, in the paragraph about pornography I again returned to using “normal” as widespread or common.

So yes, there is certainly a chasm between us and God, and that chasm is not bridged until long after we’re dead. What I meant to say was not that we need to be perfect here and now, but rather that the institution of marriage (as a principle or a philosophy) does follow God’s pattern and therefore is compliant with that standard. (Yes, marriages aren’t perfect, I know. All I’m saying is that man woman = marriage.)

Yes, one can be attracted to another without lusting, and I agree that self-control and responsibility form the line between the two. (Or at least they’re the bouncers.) I don’t know whether it’s moral to lust within the bonds of matrimony, but my gut feeling tells me that it’s not. As I see it, when someone lusts, the thing they lust after becomes just that in their eyes: a thing. It objectifies the person, and it’s selfish, and both are rather bad. So even though matrimony does give its blessing to sexual interactions, I imagine that it still doesn’t condone lust, since I can’t see how objectifying one’s spouse could possibly be a good thing. But then again, I’m not married, so I could be wrong.

Anna,
I heartily agree that sexual attraction is not the same thing as lust, and I certainly hope my future husband is sexually attracted to me (meaning he’s definitely okay with and even looks forward to being sexually intimate after we’re married), ’cause otherwise things could get super awkward later on.

I’ve had at least one bishop and one professor at BYU say, a bit more frankly than I’d have put it, “If you don’t want to have sex with the person you’re thinking of marrying, don’t marry them!” How can one possibly know this if one hasn’t had some thoughts and feelings on the subject? I think it’s quite possible (and probably even healthy) for a person to think about sex without sinning (though obviously you have to be careful).

I also agree that sexual attraction (a) must be kept appropriately in check and (b) must stem from one’s love of the other person and not primarily from physical desires (that part that Ben mentioned about not objectifying the other person comes into play here), otherwise it does become lust, which is not okay under any circumstances. But, from what I hear, and judging from my own rather limited experience, sexual attraction is kind of important in romantic relationships.

Well, as long as I’m on the subject, I might as well add a link to this super interesting article my mom sent me recently: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucmg/20070403/cm_ucmg/themormonadvantage

Katherine: Fascinating article. :) I completely agree that sexual attraction (which I usually call chemistry) is essential in romantic relationships. At times I’ve thought about possibly marrying girls who are almost perfect on paper and are rather pretty, but towards whom I feel no chemistry. And while I could ostensibly talk myself into going through with it (at least in my imagination), there’s no way I could really do it, because the chemistry is so important. That said, chemistry alone doth not a marriage make, and I’ve certainly felt it towards girls who I know I shouldn’t marry. Someday the chemistry will be there and the girl will be the right type. And she won’t be interested. ;) No, just kidding, she will, and we’ll get married and raise dozens of children and live happily ever after.