Being the delightful young homosexual that I am, I have a particular taste for topics that are relevant to the gay community. The male gay community, if I am to be precise. Amongst my more ‘pro queer’ friends, (keeping in mind that queer is used to describe a cacophony of divergent sexual orientations) there is a particular contempt held for the heteronormative. This is naturally understandable, as the nuclear family with approximately 2.3 children does not seem particular appealing. There is also the view of the detrimental impact of the heterosexual influence within the lives of those that consider themselves to be queer. As a response to this notion it has be theorised that queer people should celebrate their divergent sexual practices and not to allow the heteronormative to influence our sex lives and even our relationships. The rejection of monogamy and the acceptance of open relationships being the pervading result in a good chunk of male homosexual interaction. In this quasi-intellectual article, I cherish the opportunity to deal with these notions and perhaps relate them to secular and logical morality.
It was once said in my social circles, that to have an open relationship, one is just asking for trouble, and in all honesty I simply must agree. Inviting other parties into a relationship, whilst an honour for the outside party, is calling for division within the original bond. Humanity is a jealous species; this is reflected in the pervading social taboo against cheating on partners.
Open relationships remove the idea of jealousy, and is most commonly justified with the ideology that sex and love, or perhaps not even love, sex and emotion are separated for the purposes of ensuring the longevity of this particular kind of relationship. To put it in colloquial terms, you can fuck whoever you want, so long as it remains, sex and only sex, and you remain emotionally ‘loyal,’ to your partner. Does this or not raise a few eyebrows, or is it justified?
Those in favour of open relationships might suggest that in committed monogamous situations there is a subconscious or conscious objectification of humanity. That is, a mentality of one partner to the other that they are indeed their property and in sexual terms no one else is allowed to ‘play’ with them. But this is simply not apt. Commitment being a two way street implies a form of equality, or perhaps mutual objectification that is agreed upon with the consent (albeit subconscious) of both parties. This would naturally mean that partners in committed relationships are afforded the same freedoms and responsibilities as the other. Naturally my own sense of devil advocacy says that this would mean that people in committed relationships are lesser people than their single counterparts. Why? – As they are not provided the same freedoms, surely there must be some price for an emotionally stable, healthy relationship…and let’s not forget the guarantee of sex.
Power is also a massive element of each relationship, it even has made its way into the social vernacular with the ‘reacher,’ and ‘settler’ complex. The power play evident within any relationship, keeps the bond interesting, constantly evolving. Allowing the freedom, of both partners to sleep with whoever they wish, immediately brings this power relationship into disrepute. Whilst this might seem positive, to ‘break the bonds’ of some ridiculous power struggle, it merely allows it to move into the wider community. Power then becomes about the amount of men or perhaps the sexual appeal of those that a partner will sleep with. I would ask, does this appear beneficial in the long run? In my opinion it speaks as a lack of respect for our partners as individuals not to mention the additional sexual partners who are merely being used as some form of leverage in order to gain the respect of, or to spark interest by a partner.
Moving to a matter of personal development, I wanted to speak briefly of the role of sex in a relationship. Every heterosexual relationship evident on television some-how manages to always display the long running joke of one partner (usually the female) withholding sex from the other in order to achieve what they desire. In reality, there is a distinct lack, except for perhaps the usual jibe at the idea of withholding sex for a particular purpose. The usual reason behind a lack of sexual activity is a combination of lifestyle factors and emotional issues between the partners. To place the ability to achieve sexual gratification outside a relationship is to advocate for laziness in a relationship. It is to allow sexual pleasure to be provided to a partner that may require a certain period of introspection in order to better themselves as a person. Additionally this also means that a partner has no beneficial action of working on developing (or perhaps repairing) their relationship as sexual gratification can be found elsewhere.
As a way of attacking the heteronormative, I find open relationships the most trivial and ridiculous manner in which to do so. A scattered, unorganised, string of private relationships hardly creates any notoriety against the dominant heteronormative.
I always have found it ridiculous those who always desire to attack the heterosexual dominance of society, or perhaps view its pervading nature as an attack on our right to be different. Honestly, honestly? How absurd a statement! At last glance majority of these people were created from the heteronormative, I cannot understand rationally why so many people desire to bite the hand that feeds them! Like it or not, the heteronormative has numerous institutions that will assure its longevity long into the future and if some queer people lack the capacity to understand this, then they, by all means deserve to be screaming and constantly frustrated for the rest of their lives. The fact of the matter is that heterosexual dominance in society is sound, but this does not mean that there necessary need be homophobic hate speech flung around on the streets.
The notion of transvaluation provides us with a solid resolution to the issue at hand. In order to gain what we desire, what the long speculated ‘gay agenda,’ states, i.e. equality, then a process of putting a new slant on old ideas and traditions is necessary. Furthermore it is simply not possible for this to occur if all the queer community does is shout at the top of its lungs at the woeful inequality still evident in our society. It is not necessary to distance ourselves from our heterosexual brothers and sisters, stooping our souls in bitter brine over the taunts received in high school. The value of this lesson lies in human connection. People lack the capacity to fear something they are informed of; perhaps the best way to achieve equality is to spread ourselves amongst the ‘straight,’ community. To move away from the gossiping cliques and inconsequential drama of the ‘queer,’ community and stand amongst every member of our society allowing them to view us, exactly for what we are, human.
Tonight, as I write this, I wonder what I could say, what small impact I could have on the thoughts of those who read this. But then I recall how much interest can be derived from personal stories, so I thought to myself, ‘I am going to be completely self-indulgent this evening and write about a few experiences here and there.’ Naturally I would need to include some underlying moral message or it really is, white trash vomiting more trash, which will be digested and processed by more trash.
Moving onto the matter at hand. In essence I am an arrogant, hypocritical, vain product of the societal influence. This is not to say that I do not exhibit positive qualities, yet I always find the negative ones much more interesting to explore. Considering myself ‘gay,’ is a total and utter non-event and a superfluous statement to be made. Personally I believe a person is defined to a large degree on their action and personality, and to a lesser degree, what they are and their function. This is always an interesting topic to explore, and I would ask any reader that feels the need to respond to the proceeding ‘call to self-evaluative arms.’ What are you? In every sense of the world, the manner in which we define ourselves to the world, is often more interesting than the definition itself. In any case I will that challenge to anyone who has courage enough to say [contact details are also listed on this site].
I am a complete and utter swirl of emotion based thought, it gets rather distracting at times. This is not to say I discredit logic, but, and to use a physical example, there are points in life where issues may not be solved by using any of the five senses apart from touch. This in turn speaks of a powerful need for human contact, which whilst it is made out to be rather insignificant, plays a massive role in the behaviour of the individual. Desire and the outcome of action designed to fulfil such desires.
Of late it has been a manner of some confusion. Muddled with the snares of alcohol and cheap but costly socialisation. These appearances as a flirtatious, sexually devious, drag queen, faggot for lack of a better term, have led to a questioning of ones own morality. I was raised with morals, I know that much, where did they disappear? Perhaps to another dimension leaving one to wallow in the jilted realisation of one’s past romantic exploits. Morality, a seemingly innocent convention that provokes the most niche like behaviour and beliefs, so as to individualise a human. What use is that, in relation to desire? Morality surely, cannot dictate individuals most desperate and pervading desire. –Can it? Casting ones mind back to the previous year, I have recollections of a resolution for the year to come. I refused to believe that on New Years Eve, 2010, I would stand-alone as hordes of humanity romanticised the New Year. Yet, here I am once more, heading toward the end of the year, without anyone to call my own. But it is not only the un-fulfillment of ones own desire that provokes a feeling of personal shame, but the knowledge, or lack thereof, of a person in my life that I see suitable to the task. It is horrible to think of romance in such a manner, one of the reasons behind this loneliness. Harsh reality of the world is that people miss meetings by chance, people do not meet those they were destined for, and that’s even if you believe in that ethereal waste. Paranoia rises within my being as I begin to delve into the past, the number of, “could have been,” meetings. However, what does that achieve? A man may ask himself questions in the dark for eternity, without ever achieving any form of personal enlightenment. It was once stated that apathy is one of the biggest detrimental influences to the youth of the globe, and this is true. Apathy has the capacity to clutch the heart with such force so as to have a person never move, not for fear, but for realisation that nothing will come out of action. I would concede that this is the state that I am presently residing. Knowledge that an attempt for “love,” is useless and worth nothing more than mirthless laughter. I would not ask to break this cycle of thinking, as it would appear that I feel to view the world in a more encompassing manner. This does not mean that I enjoy, refute, deny or accept this state of mind. One thing is for sure, it certainly is a dampener on time spent alone. That being said, it is also a tool that can be used for clarity when in social situations. In all honestly, I despise reputation, I find it incomprehensible that one may be judged in future upon past deeds, or one night in particular. But should it be something that I reside myself to? If I am to ever find the person that makes my heart sing, to shed a tear in hope and joy, I must break this ill-informed judge of mine own character. Perhaps I should clarify what I desire.
I desire a man with which conversation flows – A person through which he and I have the capacity to experience a profound emotional connection. Intellectual for the purposes of aided development on both parts. And a true spark and connection with life. One that comes alive with energy, yet knows when his energies are better put to intellectual use. Looks, I wont deny, assist to quite a degree in the initial connection. Yet all these attributes mean nothing, if he is not my friend – An unequivocal companion through which nothing and everything may flow. Friend, in that we may giggle like immature seven-year-olds before shifting to a highly intellectual argument about the state of morality, the economy, or the notion that no left wing political party exists in the Australian political spectrum.
Obviously this is all too much to ask. But that does not quash the burning desire within my heart to be united with a being of this calibre. Perhaps it will never happen. Perhaps it will. Yet I would postulate that writing long-winded pieces on the nature of my desire would not be the best way to go about finding what I so require.
“In short I wish this world the best, and hope to find resolution and rest.
From these shackles of apathy which bind the mind.
Yet I am at a loss, my desire, a better where to find.” – Braiden Dunn