Thanks for posting this conversation, Josh—I missed the subscriber conversation you had with Joseph a few months ago.
One thing that didn’t come up while you guys were talking was the developmental impact on gay adolescents of never having to interact with sexual behaviors of the opposite sex. E.g. gay teenage boys are basically in a market with people who are as out-of-control-horny as they are. I’ve recently started to wonder if that lack of development is part of why so much of the gay community is subject narcissistic hubris associated with Pride Month.
I agree that there is a developmental component along the lines you suggest. But there is also a structural component, practically mathematical. You could almost model the dynamics with a stochastic differential equation.
This causes me despair. It takes a strong act of will to resist the common trajectory. Such a thing is possible (I point to myself and a handful of others as examples). However, outliers are part of the statistical description: the mean trajectory is what it is, and most will follow it.
It seems like these two things play off of one another. How much more unlikely is it for someone to develop the willpower to go against prevailing culture if the developmental aspects strongly push towards an unbalanced sexuality?
Also, I respect your right to whinge a tiny bit at the idea of subscriber conversations. I recently faced a decision with a different author whose work I admire but so far hadn't subscribed to. In my case I did this: I subscribed for one month (that option is generally available) to pay for the fewer times that I access, or wish to access, the author's content. Also, a "tip jar" is sometimes available at a very low price (but at the cost of your contact and electronic data).
Fascinating conversation to listen to. Thank you both for having it publicly.
I'd be interested to know more about your personal path, Josh. You mention that you're single / chaste by choice... what brought you to that decision, when did you come to it, what has it been like?
I'm curious because I know so many lovely gay people who seem deeply troubled. Learning more about probable abuse rates at first shocked me (and made me so sad for those guys) but later led me to uncomfortable questions. If we acknowledge that the clicheed porn star whose uncle abused her sexually as a child is self-harming through her actions (maybe grounded in some sort of repetition compulsion), then shouldn't we *entertain* that some vaguely similar dynamic might be at work here? In which case blanket affirmation is maybe something we ought not to be doing? But blanket demands of celibacy also seem like too much to suggest (at least when made by the straights).
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you're willing to share them. Best to you.
It's possible to have a healthy relationship. My life is made substantially richer by my same-sex legal spouse, with whom I have a monogamous and fulfilling relationship. But (as I mention in another comment in this thread) it takes a conscious act of will to resist the mean trajectory.
This is a difficult topic. It seems unwise, even cruel, to force people who are naturally homoerotically inclined to live sexually unfulfilled lives and, more importantly, draw another (opposite-sex) partner into the sphere of unhappiness. However, on the other hand, the homoerotic inclination itself will draw most people (statistically speaking) into a potentially even greater misery. Not sure what the solution is.
Sorry about the delay in response (see my comment to Josh for my mea culpa).
As you say, this is difficult territory. I agree with you on the topic of 'questionable' wisdom or cruelty in *enforced* lifelong celibacy / abstinence - it was tried and found wanting. As a matter of public policy, I think the hands-off approach is generally the right approach, although this, too, admits of exceptions - e.g. the bathhouse scene seems like a valid area of state interference on public health grounds (no more or less than brothels or swingers' clubs meant for the straights, for that matter).
I am aware that I am in most respects an outsider to the matter and, moreover, a participant in groups which, understandably, could be viewed as "enemy" (politically conservative, Catholic).^ I'm certainly not interested to lecture anyone on the matter. I consider myself to be a learner who is trying to sort out *my own* thoughts on this because being called to Christianity, let alone *Catholicism* was not on my bingo card. And I *am* answerable to others for my willing participation in those groups.
Not least: I have three children and a fourth on the way, who I love completely, and if one or more turned out to be homosexual, I want to be able to know how best to love them and what advice I should give them as a parent.
So I'm really appreciative for the honest engagement. And I'm glad you've got your little oasis!
Best.
^But I think, based on your self-description in your bio, that you'll have some tolerance for that yourself - my Christianity is also Buddhist flavoured. I'd be interested to chat more about that, in any case.
My view is that homosexuality is a handicap. A naturally occurring one, but a handicap nonetheless. Blindness is a good comparison. We wouldn't want our any of children to become blind, but if they were, we would love them and we would wish them the maximum happiness within the bounds of their handicap, even so far as instituting reasonable societal accommodations for blind people to be able live as fully as they can. We should also be willing to make *reasonable* accommodations for homosexuals.
State recognition of committed same-sex relationships is a reasonable accommodation (I don't care if you call it "civil union" and not "marriage" as long as it comes with the same critical privileges, e.g. power-of-attorney, inheritance, etc.) It should go without saying that public sex and bathhouse sex are *not* reasonable accommodations (sadly this is controversial, maybe even taboo, to propose in gay circles). There are some gray areas: I don't really think same-sex parenting is best for children (I am against surrogacy for the same reasons Josh is, I think adoption might be OK if the child has no other options, but in that case you're dealing with children who have substantial attachment trauma so it's a very hard road to traverse).
I am not naive about our overall predicament. Even with the kindest and most carefully considered legal framework, the dynamics of male sexuality, with the consequent positive feedback loops that enter into male homosexual dynamics, all but ensure that a culture of debauchery will emerge whenever male homosexuality is allowed to flourish.
A turning point for me was the MPOX outbreak a couple of years ago. I came of age in the 90s and remember the devasation of AIDS, and here again we saw gay men failing to take responsibility for a public health crisis, blaming everyone but themselves. At some point I remembered Romans 26:27, and my reaction was "OMG this shit has been happening for 2000 years". Nowadays I find it difficult to have much of a meaningful conversation with other gay men (spouse excluded), so my spouse and I now socialize entirely with heterosexuals.
Yes, I do think the same kind of self-harm is going on, for the same reasons.
I decided to be celibate about 6 years ago; I had slowed way down by that point.
In my youth, I was wildly promiscuous to a degree that many gay men are, but that would shock most sensible people. Almost every dangerous "too much" thing, I've done.
At my age, I'm no longer sure there's anything about my sexuality that isn't trauma based, and isn't a form of self-harm (onlookers, I'm talking about me, not making a judgment about you).
Also, I'm not good at romantic relationships, and I don't want to hurt someone else. Nor do I want to be hurt again myself, or to be that (psychological/spiritual sense) "naked" in front of someone.
Perhaps that will change in years to come, but right now, I want to be alone.
Thank you for taking the time to respond (sorry I didn't say so sooner, but I was away for the last few days and only had my phone with me and I find it truly difficult to say worthwhile things on it).
I appreciate hearing about your personal experience. It's rare to hear a "dissenting" view as an outsider... generally, LGB people are understandably loath to disclose what someone might construe as negative about their lives / lifestyles / scenes, even if they might themselves not be so pleased with those same aspects. I have had to infer from near-contact and reading-between-the-lines and what you say strikes me as generally aligned with what I have understood.
Also, I think it's a good and wise thing for anyone, anywhere on any spectrum whatsoever to be able to say "you know what, I'm not in a good headspace right now and I shouldn't inflict that on others in relationship"... so often people do the *precise opposite* and it's always a trainwreck.
This was really great and I appreciate so much that you had the courage to bring up another problem that I see: "The Left's" demonization of the traditional family and normalization of surrogacy and same-sex parents. No thought is ever given to the child's ultimate welfare. People can insert whatever "yabbits" they need to here. Also: KITTY!!
I liked this interview very much. I have bever heard the abuse gay connection articulated before.
I came to a similar conclusion but based it more on attachnent theory, lack of connection to their father and a dysfunctional family.
Before I ventured into the gay community I had a lot of therapy sorting out these issues. I was already anti LGBT movement at the time gor their communist origins abd political actions that violated tge rights and opinions of others.
The firist thing I realized after interacting in some of these groups is that these people were sick. They engaged in dangerous and extreme behaviors. They were intolerant abd queer theory infused their reality or should I say fantasy. I got away from them as quick as i could.
The other issue is the entire gay culture is based on dysfuncional strategies for dealing with their gayness. Drag queens mean and rejecting you before you can reject them. Exterme compulsive behaviors. Everyone on anti depressants and in all the partying and unmistakable aloneness. And the fake community were the various faction can't stand each other.Very sad and depressing.
I was mildly confused and frustrated when Joseph complained that all the conservatives do is post click-bait every year. You were right to ask, "So what do you think they should do?"
Joseph is coming at it from the perspective of someone who's been trying to rescue people from the dysfunctional lifestyle that he abandoned, and so his approach is predicated on his nuanced understanding of the issue.
But as a conventional conservative, I can assert that we are Not Allowed to grapple with the issue from a nuanced perspective. Part of the problem is we don't HAVE a nuanced perspective. The idea that homosexuality is inherently disordered -- born that way or made -- is not something we're allowed to explore outside of this substack. The right-wing fever swamps are fixated on SIN SIN SIN, and so they don't see the humanity (not on this or any other subject, actually). Moderate, religious cons like me have learned to accept "born that way," and we've tried to thread the needle between compassion on the one hand and recognizing the disorder on the other, and we haven't come up with satisfactory answers.
Other cons have decided that there's no disorder at all, and so they're fine with same-sex couples obtaining children and starting families. Might as well help them be successful, right? When Joseph said, "If you object to the adoption and surrogacy, maybe you shouldn't have legalized same-sex marriage," I totally plotzed. It was made legal by the courts, not by the electorate.
Now that SSM is legal, it is highly unlikely to be rescinded. What, we're going to break up these nice little families? Deny the blessings of family to people who happen to not conform to the norm, through no fault of their own? Like you said, Josh, there's no getting out of this. At least not in the foreseeable future.
So what's left to us? Thoughtful essays that tentatively insinuate that gays are disordered? Anyone who tries that would be crucified by both left and right. Missionary efforts similar to Joseph's? I'm an aging spinster in a red state with a religious background. I have absolutely no standing to approach any gay person with the idea that their sexuality is disordered. They'd smack me upside the head and get me unpersoned, and I'd likely deserve it.
Whatever negative effects there be from legalizing SSM, they won't be evident for at least another generation, maybe two, and there's a chance that by then we won't see those effects as a problem. Even if we did, how do you roll back two generations of same-sex marriages and families? Unless the effects on society are especially egregious (or there's a total collapse of society), you don't roll it back at all. So why try?
I see nothing wrong with "pride" per se. But it's gone far, far beyond anything sane. It's become some kind of badge of honor. Like you've just rescued a bunch of children from a burning building. And of course like anything else (think Christmas) it's become crass commercialism. It's also become a symbol from victimhood. If you were born gay and feel yourself "victim" it's not your sexual orientation or society that is the problem. It's you.
About friggon time someone stepped up to the plate.
This shit has gone far beyond ridiculous.
Thanks for posting this conversation, Josh—I missed the subscriber conversation you had with Joseph a few months ago.
One thing that didn’t come up while you guys were talking was the developmental impact on gay adolescents of never having to interact with sexual behaviors of the opposite sex. E.g. gay teenage boys are basically in a market with people who are as out-of-control-horny as they are. I’ve recently started to wonder if that lack of development is part of why so much of the gay community is subject narcissistic hubris associated with Pride Month.
I agree that there is a developmental component along the lines you suggest. But there is also a structural component, practically mathematical. You could almost model the dynamics with a stochastic differential equation.
This causes me despair. It takes a strong act of will to resist the common trajectory. Such a thing is possible (I point to myself and a handful of others as examples). However, outliers are part of the statistical description: the mean trajectory is what it is, and most will follow it.
It seems like these two things play off of one another. How much more unlikely is it for someone to develop the willpower to go against prevailing culture if the developmental aspects strongly push towards an unbalanced sexuality?
I like your thinking!
Also, I respect your right to whinge a tiny bit at the idea of subscriber conversations. I recently faced a decision with a different author whose work I admire but so far hadn't subscribed to. In my case I did this: I subscribed for one month (that option is generally available) to pay for the fewer times that I access, or wish to access, the author's content. Also, a "tip jar" is sometimes available at a very low price (but at the cost of your contact and electronic data).
Fascinating conversation to listen to. Thank you both for having it publicly.
I'd be interested to know more about your personal path, Josh. You mention that you're single / chaste by choice... what brought you to that decision, when did you come to it, what has it been like?
I'm curious because I know so many lovely gay people who seem deeply troubled. Learning more about probable abuse rates at first shocked me (and made me so sad for those guys) but later led me to uncomfortable questions. If we acknowledge that the clicheed porn star whose uncle abused her sexually as a child is self-harming through her actions (maybe grounded in some sort of repetition compulsion), then shouldn't we *entertain* that some vaguely similar dynamic might be at work here? In which case blanket affirmation is maybe something we ought not to be doing? But blanket demands of celibacy also seem like too much to suggest (at least when made by the straights).
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you're willing to share them. Best to you.
It's possible to have a healthy relationship. My life is made substantially richer by my same-sex legal spouse, with whom I have a monogamous and fulfilling relationship. But (as I mention in another comment in this thread) it takes a conscious act of will to resist the mean trajectory.
This is a difficult topic. It seems unwise, even cruel, to force people who are naturally homoerotically inclined to live sexually unfulfilled lives and, more importantly, draw another (opposite-sex) partner into the sphere of unhappiness. However, on the other hand, the homoerotic inclination itself will draw most people (statistically speaking) into a potentially even greater misery. Not sure what the solution is.
Sorry about the delay in response (see my comment to Josh for my mea culpa).
As you say, this is difficult territory. I agree with you on the topic of 'questionable' wisdom or cruelty in *enforced* lifelong celibacy / abstinence - it was tried and found wanting. As a matter of public policy, I think the hands-off approach is generally the right approach, although this, too, admits of exceptions - e.g. the bathhouse scene seems like a valid area of state interference on public health grounds (no more or less than brothels or swingers' clubs meant for the straights, for that matter).
I am aware that I am in most respects an outsider to the matter and, moreover, a participant in groups which, understandably, could be viewed as "enemy" (politically conservative, Catholic).^ I'm certainly not interested to lecture anyone on the matter. I consider myself to be a learner who is trying to sort out *my own* thoughts on this because being called to Christianity, let alone *Catholicism* was not on my bingo card. And I *am* answerable to others for my willing participation in those groups.
Not least: I have three children and a fourth on the way, who I love completely, and if one or more turned out to be homosexual, I want to be able to know how best to love them and what advice I should give them as a parent.
So I'm really appreciative for the honest engagement. And I'm glad you've got your little oasis!
Best.
^But I think, based on your self-description in your bio, that you'll have some tolerance for that yourself - my Christianity is also Buddhist flavoured. I'd be interested to chat more about that, in any case.
Thank you for your compassionate thoughts.
My view is that homosexuality is a handicap. A naturally occurring one, but a handicap nonetheless. Blindness is a good comparison. We wouldn't want our any of children to become blind, but if they were, we would love them and we would wish them the maximum happiness within the bounds of their handicap, even so far as instituting reasonable societal accommodations for blind people to be able live as fully as they can. We should also be willing to make *reasonable* accommodations for homosexuals.
State recognition of committed same-sex relationships is a reasonable accommodation (I don't care if you call it "civil union" and not "marriage" as long as it comes with the same critical privileges, e.g. power-of-attorney, inheritance, etc.) It should go without saying that public sex and bathhouse sex are *not* reasonable accommodations (sadly this is controversial, maybe even taboo, to propose in gay circles). There are some gray areas: I don't really think same-sex parenting is best for children (I am against surrogacy for the same reasons Josh is, I think adoption might be OK if the child has no other options, but in that case you're dealing with children who have substantial attachment trauma so it's a very hard road to traverse).
I am not naive about our overall predicament. Even with the kindest and most carefully considered legal framework, the dynamics of male sexuality, with the consequent positive feedback loops that enter into male homosexual dynamics, all but ensure that a culture of debauchery will emerge whenever male homosexuality is allowed to flourish.
A turning point for me was the MPOX outbreak a couple of years ago. I came of age in the 90s and remember the devasation of AIDS, and here again we saw gay men failing to take responsibility for a public health crisis, blaming everyone but themselves. At some point I remembered Romans 26:27, and my reaction was "OMG this shit has been happening for 2000 years". Nowadays I find it difficult to have much of a meaningful conversation with other gay men (spouse excluded), so my spouse and I now socialize entirely with heterosexuals.
On the subject of religion: yes, life takes us strange places, doesn't it? I never expected to have the political and religious views I hold today.
Yes, I do think the same kind of self-harm is going on, for the same reasons.
I decided to be celibate about 6 years ago; I had slowed way down by that point.
In my youth, I was wildly promiscuous to a degree that many gay men are, but that would shock most sensible people. Almost every dangerous "too much" thing, I've done.
At my age, I'm no longer sure there's anything about my sexuality that isn't trauma based, and isn't a form of self-harm (onlookers, I'm talking about me, not making a judgment about you).
Also, I'm not good at romantic relationships, and I don't want to hurt someone else. Nor do I want to be hurt again myself, or to be that (psychological/spiritual sense) "naked" in front of someone.
Perhaps that will change in years to come, but right now, I want to be alone.
Thank you for taking the time to respond (sorry I didn't say so sooner, but I was away for the last few days and only had my phone with me and I find it truly difficult to say worthwhile things on it).
I appreciate hearing about your personal experience. It's rare to hear a "dissenting" view as an outsider... generally, LGB people are understandably loath to disclose what someone might construe as negative about their lives / lifestyles / scenes, even if they might themselves not be so pleased with those same aspects. I have had to infer from near-contact and reading-between-the-lines and what you say strikes me as generally aligned with what I have understood.
Also, I think it's a good and wise thing for anyone, anywhere on any spectrum whatsoever to be able to say "you know what, I'm not in a good headspace right now and I shouldn't inflict that on others in relationship"... so often people do the *precise opposite* and it's always a trainwreck.
Best to you!
Love this convo & the historical references fit in perfectly-Bravo to you both.👏
This was really great and I appreciate so much that you had the courage to bring up another problem that I see: "The Left's" demonization of the traditional family and normalization of surrogacy and same-sex parents. No thought is ever given to the child's ultimate welfare. People can insert whatever "yabbits" they need to here. Also: KITTY!!
I liked this interview very much. I have bever heard the abuse gay connection articulated before.
I came to a similar conclusion but based it more on attachnent theory, lack of connection to their father and a dysfunctional family.
Before I ventured into the gay community I had a lot of therapy sorting out these issues. I was already anti LGBT movement at the time gor their communist origins abd political actions that violated tge rights and opinions of others.
The firist thing I realized after interacting in some of these groups is that these people were sick. They engaged in dangerous and extreme behaviors. They were intolerant abd queer theory infused their reality or should I say fantasy. I got away from them as quick as i could.
The other issue is the entire gay culture is based on dysfuncional strategies for dealing with their gayness. Drag queens mean and rejecting you before you can reject them. Exterme compulsive behaviors. Everyone on anti depressants and in all the partying and unmistakable aloneness. And the fake community were the various faction can't stand each other.Very sad and depressing.
I was mildly confused and frustrated when Joseph complained that all the conservatives do is post click-bait every year. You were right to ask, "So what do you think they should do?"
Joseph is coming at it from the perspective of someone who's been trying to rescue people from the dysfunctional lifestyle that he abandoned, and so his approach is predicated on his nuanced understanding of the issue.
But as a conventional conservative, I can assert that we are Not Allowed to grapple with the issue from a nuanced perspective. Part of the problem is we don't HAVE a nuanced perspective. The idea that homosexuality is inherently disordered -- born that way or made -- is not something we're allowed to explore outside of this substack. The right-wing fever swamps are fixated on SIN SIN SIN, and so they don't see the humanity (not on this or any other subject, actually). Moderate, religious cons like me have learned to accept "born that way," and we've tried to thread the needle between compassion on the one hand and recognizing the disorder on the other, and we haven't come up with satisfactory answers.
Other cons have decided that there's no disorder at all, and so they're fine with same-sex couples obtaining children and starting families. Might as well help them be successful, right? When Joseph said, "If you object to the adoption and surrogacy, maybe you shouldn't have legalized same-sex marriage," I totally plotzed. It was made legal by the courts, not by the electorate.
Now that SSM is legal, it is highly unlikely to be rescinded. What, we're going to break up these nice little families? Deny the blessings of family to people who happen to not conform to the norm, through no fault of their own? Like you said, Josh, there's no getting out of this. At least not in the foreseeable future.
So what's left to us? Thoughtful essays that tentatively insinuate that gays are disordered? Anyone who tries that would be crucified by both left and right. Missionary efforts similar to Joseph's? I'm an aging spinster in a red state with a religious background. I have absolutely no standing to approach any gay person with the idea that their sexuality is disordered. They'd smack me upside the head and get me unpersoned, and I'd likely deserve it.
Whatever negative effects there be from legalizing SSM, they won't be evident for at least another generation, maybe two, and there's a chance that by then we won't see those effects as a problem. Even if we did, how do you roll back two generations of same-sex marriages and families? Unless the effects on society are especially egregious (or there's a total collapse of society), you don't roll it back at all. So why try?
Very good.
Great conversation, guys. I was especially tickled by Mina's cameo at the end. ❤🐾😂
I see nothing wrong with "pride" per se. But it's gone far, far beyond anything sane. It's become some kind of badge of honor. Like you've just rescued a bunch of children from a burning building. And of course like anything else (think Christmas) it's become crass commercialism. It's also become a symbol from victimhood. If you were born gay and feel yourself "victim" it's not your sexual orientation or society that is the problem. It's you.