rm | (no subject)

Despite my whining, directing makes me hot, and we're making good progress.

I hate my gf's comprehensives. I want to make it better but there's little I can do and no time for it besides. The whole process seems arbitrarily torturous, which I realize is the point, but really sucks when it's happening to someone you care about as opposed to existing merely in a conceptual and exacting manner. Obviously, she's more than equal to it, but still -- suckage.

Tomorrow I'll be home and able to chill by 8pm, and I'm really grateful for that too. Especially since we're doing a three hour rehearsal on Thursday.

Finally, remember the story of the kid who was being sent to some camp by his parents so he wouldn't be gay anymore? Well, it looks like it was effective at least in the short term. The whole story makes me sad. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=7428306&blogID=39349496&Mytoken=20050809220730

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

kosub.livejournal.com

Here's a wild idea: maybe he actually managed to get some perspective on the whole thing.

What annoys me the most about this entire clusterfrick is that no one's paid attention to the central issue involved here: Zach is sixteen years old and attempting to make a major life decision. Such decisions entail a level of responsibility for consequences that he clearly wasn't ready to handle. It seems to me that the time spent at Love in Action has been beneficial to him.

Of course this pleases no one in the gay activist community, because gay advocacy has a nasty, infantilizing quality about it that denies such things as personal responsibility. Judging from just a handful of the 450+ comments on his latest announcement, the focus continues to be on vague issues like sexuality and not on the human center at the core of this little melodrama.

From:

rm.livejournal.com

I'm glad the kid's all right and do see the wisdom (albeit dubiously derived) of not wanting this little chapter of Internet celebrity related to one facet of who he is to define him.

However, while I do not view all sexuality as simply biological in origin (we're too complex and varied for that), I take umbrage both at your assertion that sexual identity is merely life choice (and an apparently an immutable one, which speaks mainly to a lack of imagination on your part) and that an older teen somehow isn't capable of understanding their own identity and desires, simply because they are not 100% mainstream or to your liking. Certianly, no one would question the self-perceptions of a teen who was simply heterosexual. And what "consequences" you are referring to, I can only guess in a post that so obviously has an outlook that isn't welcome here. Your condescension, worldview and complete disregard for the obvious fact that I'm queer is not just rude, revolting and unwarranted, but pointless.

While I cannot speak to Love in Action, presumeably any more than you can, having no firsthand experience with the program, I remain shocked and dismayed by the initial rules he posted from the program that were simply arbitrary, dehumanizing and ultimately bullying about petty surface issues (and really don't we all have enough of that in high school? shouldn't adults be protecting kids from that type of behavior, not perpetrating it?) - contrary to their belief, many heterosexual women do not shave their legs, and in fact can maintain their heterosexuality in the face of the apparent horror of being mamals. And that's just one example of the program's petty viciousness.

Additionally the assertion, if true, that the program stated that he was better off dead with an "intact" soul than gay with a "damaged" one, is both cruel and horrifying and potentially criminally negligent. Youth suicide in general (and queer youths have a particularly high suicide rate because of the lack of support for their mere right of existence) strikes me as a much greater sin to encourage than that of some teenager trying to sort out what type of person he wants to spend his life with.

Despite managing to stop yourself from writing a screed about the "gay agenda," you obviously lack both compassion and common sense and are not welcome here.

From: (Anonymous)

Wow, what a poorly thought-out response.

From:

splix.livejournal.com

I disagree that sexuality is a vague issue. It is a core component of my identity and always has been, even as a kid. I feel bad for the boy; I can only imagine my own misery if my parents had shipped me off to a camp like that.

From: (Anonymous)

I use vague in the sense that it's employed in a very general fashion in the Zach case, as opposed to dealing with the specifics. From the beginning Zach's plight (if it can be called that) was defined in terms of The Battle Over Homosexuality, and pretty much ignored the parent/child dynamic, not to mention the idea of responsibility for one's decisions.

RM has some issues (clearly) with my use of the word consequences, but didn't bother to visit my blog to get more detail before banning me. What I meant by that was that being sent to Love in Action was a consequence of Zach's decision to come out. He made an adult decision to act on his orientation and become openly gay. Consequently he ended up being sent to reparative therapy.

Deciding to live as a gay person is a big decision and, despite what RM states, it's not the kind of choice that one can unmake without great difficulty. At sixteen years of age, Zach decided to cross a line, and it was pretty clear from the outset that he didn't anticipate the kind of backlash he was about to experience. Someone older, and with a commensurate amount of common sense, would have seen the result coming and handled things differently. Given that Zach lacks the life experience to make those kinds of decisions appropriately, he took the course he chose and this was the outcome.

I am not at all lacking in compassion on this issue. However, I choose the route of genuine compassion, which is to not pick sides. This mess hurt Zach, but it hurt his family, too. Just because I don't have a lot in common with Zach's parents (and I don't) doesn't mean I'm going to simply ignore them. Or, worse yet, vilify them.

As for Love in Action itself: there's nothing going on there in terms of discipline that doesn't happen in, say, the military. RM seems to have a real problem with shaving, but daily shaving is part of military discipline, too. Like it or not, we life in a society where unkempt hair (on the head or on the body) is a control issue. There's nothing inherently vicious about enforcing strict behavioral standards. It may suck, but it's not vicious.

From:

splix.livejournal.com

I can only reply from my heart on this issue. I'd prefer to keep it out of

rm's LJ; please email me at splix71 at yahoo dot com if you'd like to continue this dialogue.

From:

00goddess.livejournal.com

The military does not insist that women shave their legs; they insist that men be clean-shaven. One is an arbitrary indicator of "femininity", whereas the other is a matter of grooming. That's the difference.

Enforcing a behavioral standard that has no purpose except to enforce an arbitrary standard of behavior is, in many cases, abusive.

THe military is a volunteer organization. LOve In Action is not.

I agree that ths kid made a mistake in coming out- when I first heard of his story, I was shocked by his decision. I would never have come out to the adults in my home life at that age, because I knew their views; I did what kept me safe. My first thought was to question why he was so determined to come out. HOwever, we don't know what his home life was like before. Maybe he was confident of his parents love; maybe he thought they would love and accept him no matter what his orientation (surprise!) Maybe he was not aware of how strongly homophobic they were.

From:

sola.livejournal.com

and as a somewhat random aside, the military insists that men be clean shaven because A: it can be a form of identity concealment, and B, and more importantly: they don't want someone on the battlefield to grab your beard and pull you down onto their weapon. (no long hair for the same reason.) it's pure praticality, and as the idea of shaving's original context was clearly an example of enforced gender-types, i don't understand why it's being brought up.

As for the kid, yes: it was kind of a foolish thing for him to do, but he couldn't have known that. God forbid he should expect the emotional support of his family in a difficult circumstance.

From:

00goddess.livejournal.com

as a somewhat random aside, the military insists that men be clean shaven because A: it can be a form of identity concealment, and B, and more importantly: they don't want someone on the battlefield to grab your beard and pull you down onto their weapon. (no long hair for the same reason.) it's pure praticality, and as the idea of shaving's original context was clearly an example of enforced gender-types, i don't understand why it's being brought up.

Thanks for that information! That makes perfect sense. And I agree, it is a totally different thing than forcing someone to shave their legs to conform with a standard of gender. I know plenty of dykes who shave their legs.

it was kind of a foolish thing for him to do, but he couldn't have known that.

Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.