Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: "The Invisible Partners"
Message-ID: <2155@pucc-h>
Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 06:42:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.2155
Posted: Sat Jul 27 06:42:09 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 06:20:47 EDT
References: <2135@pucc-h>, <230@bbncc5.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 61

It is a bit saddening when I post an article which is intended to show that
I have a new degree of understanding of possible causes for people to be
gay -- when I try to show that, though I still consider homosexuality
suboptimal, I am making an effort to understand those who are in that
lifestyle -- and I am met with a flame.  It seems that no one wants to
believe that a person can change (or be changed) considerably for the
better in a period of only a few months.  As other articles in this forum
have pointed out, we can choose our reactions:  Steve Dyer, it is your
choice to be infuriated rather than to calmly correct any inaccurate
statements that I may have made...or are they really not inaccurate at
all, and hitting too close to home?

> Wonderful, too, that you have discovered a second classification [the
> "Dr. Zhivago"] for the "problem" of the "anima" so you needn't
> be stigmatized with the "problem" of "homosexuality."

> Note that I'm not arguing with the issue that some men may display
> qualities which are traditionally considered "feminine", but rather that
> 1.) this reflects more on the classification system than on the person.
> 2.) this issue is entirely orthogonal to the person's sexual preference.

So, if #2 is true, why was the paragraph preceding that so flaming (by
virtue [or vice] of its implying a calumnious accusation)?  If, as you
yourself state, a heterosexual man can display archetypally feminine
qualities, why take issue with the fact that someone else has stated the
same thing?

> Jeff Sargent, more than anyone else, has been responsible for foolish
> statements about gay people in the midst of his public self-analysis.
> Too bad Jeff seems incapable of showing sensitivity in this issue,
> for he does it again and again and again and again...  

You will note that my self-analysis has been public only minimally in
recent months, partly because I have a group of actual people that I meet
with once a week for mutual support, and partly because net.singles did
not meet my needs (quite the opposite; there seemed to be a flame-throwing
contest going on for a while).  As I wrote above, I was trying to show
sensitivity; if you didn't take it that way, that's YOUR problem.

> Jeff just can't seem to get away from the "gay" thing, generally posed in the
> form of a statement about gay people (invariably perjorative) loosely tied to
> an issue he is currently struggling with.

Pejorativeness is in the eye of the beholder.  This concept certainly helped
me to start integrating the archetypally masculine side of me into my life;
and I figured that a concept which was directly on target and helpful for me
stood a good chance of being generally true.  After all, I *am* a human being.

Basically I'm saying this:  As I reach a state of greater personal wholeness
and integration, the homosexual desires I have felt in the past recede more
and more, and the heterosexual desires get (sometimes inconveniently) stronger.
I would invite you to examine yourself honestly and see how well-integrated
you really are.  Start with these data:  You put me in a stereotype of myself
which is months out of date, and you reacted angrily to a statement intended
to show understanding and sensitivity.

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.  (James 5:16)
The prayer of a not-so-righteous man availeth sometimes....  (Rich McDaniel)