Josh and Lolly Weed getting divorced

[_Res Ipsa]

Jesse and Shulem, hearing about your lives today makes me smile.

That is all.

[_Res Ipsa]

Water Dog, for a sincere attempt at an adult conversation, follow this link: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=48326

Other folks: trigger warning: lots of cussing and stuff.

[_Meadowchik]

Water Dog, for a sincere attempt at an adult conversation, follow this link: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=48326

Other folks: trigger warning: lots of cussing and stuff.

I replied there, too, and I'll also put it here since it still works and also relates back to Mormonism:

Thanks for opening up that specific part of the topic.

My math is not wrong. One can interpret, if they like, "Homosexuality is a beautiful gift to the world," into "Homosexuality helps improve the probability of human pairings, thus attachment, which tend to improve the well-being of individuals and communities. There are also other ways homosexuality contributes to improved social adaptability, but I'll focus on the pairings math now:

Assume a given number of bisexual people in the population, X. Assume a given number of homosexual people in the population, Y.

When the social norms prohibit same-sex pairings, there are Y number of people who are completely prohibited by social norms to pair within their sexual orientation and there are X number of people restricted to only one kind of pairing within their sexual orientation.

So let's examine the difference made by homosexuals. Because attachment is such a basic human need, the more restricted group would tend to be more desperate to violate the social norms. Once that social barrier is broken, same-sex pairings become a possibility not only for Y homosexuals but also X bisexuals.

As I said in the original thread, the extreme case opening up the more variational cases is not unlike the dynamics of the Stonewall Riots:

It was those who had "nothing else to lose" who were putting their necks out more, resisting and even fighting police and bringing the issues of gay rights to the attention of the public.

Sexual orientations are another story of human adaptation, improved adaptability. As stated previously, there is more going on than just an increase in possible pairings, there is a subversion of gender-based social norms. Gays and lesbians, by fighting for social acceptance of how they are, how they relate social and present themselves in ways that tend to stretch or violate gender norms, more likely fighting because they have no other choice (except to hide) make it easier for everyone else to cross the socially acceptable boundaries of gender norms.

In other words, homosexuality subverts sexism.

By the way, this is one reason why it would be so difficult for the LDS Church to accept gay couples, it would completely upset the priesthood doctrine of celestial marriage, and then the divine roles of husbands and wives.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

For the first time in my life, I have a sexual relationship with someone who is truly sexually attracted to me. The difference is astounding. I'm sure that my ex feels much better being able to have sex with another gay man. Just like your situation, Shulem, our situation now is MUCH better.

Amen to that. My boyfirend is laying here next to me and just read your post and smiled. We are watching a nature show about volcanoes and animals.

How cute! My fiancé is coming over this morning. We cherish the weekends. Our work schedules are so insane that we don’t get to see each other much during the week. I’ll be happy when we’re able to buy a house together and actually live together every day.

[_candygal]

Gosh,I am so jealous of all of you who have partners...lonesome is as lonesome does.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Gosh,I am so jealous of all of you who have partners...lonesome is as lonesome does.

Awww...it's OK, Candygal. Be patient. It will happen.

[_Morley]

I'm so sorry that your wife has a flat chest, Water Dog. It's too bad you didn't get to experience "different shapes and sizes."

That didn't take long. Funny but classless, you get the award.

Apologies. My bad self.

[_Res Ipsa]

Meadowchick, thanks for expanding on the “math” topic. Having read that, I don’t think the issue is the math. What I read your original statement, I thought you were saying that the simple existence of homosexual individuals increased the opportunity for coupling. Reading your last post, I understand you as saying that acceptance of homosexuality increases the opportunity for coupling for homosexual folks in the population. Every one’s math was fine — they just were doing different problems.

[_Meadowchik]

Meadowchick, thanks for expanding on the “math” topic. Having read that, I don’t think the issue is the math. What I read your original statement, I thought you were saying that the simple existence of homosexual individuals increased the opportunity for coupling. Reading your last post, I understand you as saying that acceptance of homosexuality increases the opportunity for coupling for homosexual folks in the population. Every one’s math was fine — they just were doing different problems.

I think the mathematical problem would possibly fit, more specifically, into a topological problem. Once that is understood the statistical model becomes more clear. It has been a while since I studied topological models, though.

Yes, the existence of homosexual individuals increased the opportunity for coupling. It is probably easier understood from an economic perspective, though:

Because homosexuals exist and would by definition find non-homosexual coupling less tolerable, they were more likely to be willing to pay the social price for homosexual coupling. Once same-sex coupling becomes more normalized (by those who can live without it the least,) the social cost of same-sex coupling reduces for others. Therefore bisexuals, pansexuals, and others may be more able to afford that social cost of same-sex pairing, thus their social choices have increased.

And of course such models can also be used to describe the social cost of changing gender roles as well, where the existence of homosexuals again benefits people other than homosexuals. As a woman, I think that the existence of gays have benefited me by being a significant force in society's expanded notions of gender roles.

[_beastie]

I have to comment on this, because I would say that this issue heavily contributed to the major dysfunction of my younger life and I deal with the ripple effects even today, 20 plus years past my divorce.

Although I don’t have the satisfaction of my ex-husband coming out of the closet, and I doubt I ever will, I have no doubt that he’s gay, and that was a major contributor to his psychological distress. He grew up LDS and was exposed to abusive behavior, and, although I don’t know if molestation occurred, I do know that a sexually predatory relative engaged in grooming behavior with him when he was a child. I also know that his volatile father would never have been able to tolerate a gay son and would have beaten him until he was bloody. (He did beat him until he had bleeding welts on his legs for other issues.) His entire family would reject him, as they rejected his gay nephew decades later. Given his fragile psychology otherwise (untreated although diagnosed bipolar, likely heavily narcissistic borderline behaviors, emotionally abusive, financially unstable), there is no way he would survive without his family support – or today, without the support of the woman he’s lived with for 15 years. Yes, woman. He will always have a beard. I was his beard for 15 years, and his first wife his beard before me.

I read a book a few years ago when I finally realized he’s gay called “The Gay Husband Checklist: For Women Who Wonder” and there was a chapter in particular that described him perfectly. It’s about gay men who, for various reasons usually connected to religion, will never ever come out of the closet. They marry women and then emotionally abuse those same women, pouring out their internal anger and angst onto their confused victims. Although I will never have the satisfaction and closure that could come with hearing him admit it, his pattern is that he marries attractive women (he’s very charismatic) expecting them to “cure” him, and then when they can’t, he blames them and emotionally abuses them for their failure to fix him, their failure to make him attracted to them.

I would say he ruined my life, but I went on to have an incredibly fulfilling relationship with the love of my life. We’ve been together for 20 years, never married, and probably never will because we both had such miserable first marriages, but he’s the true husband of my heart. And we appreciate each other in ways we may not have had we not both experienced truly miserable prior relationships (he only stayed with his exwife for five years – she’s borderline as well, and has been in and out of mental hospitals since their divorce). It is intoxicating to be with a man who really is sexually attracted to you, and makes sex not only fulfilling but fun. Any heterosexual woman, or man, who marries a closeted (or openly, like Josh) gay person will never experience that, and it will tear at their soul and self-esteem. Obviously a lot more goes into a healthy relationship than a good sex life, but a good sex life is pretty high on the list in that recipe.

It was religion – obviously LDS – that created a family environment so hostile to homosexuality that my ex-husband thought it preferable to live a life of eternal angst and anger than to accept himself. I had ZERO suspicion that he was gay, and believed him when he told me that his sexual and emotional dysfunction was a result of his first wife cheating on him. I believed him when he told me that if I lost ten pounds – when I was already a size five – then he would be attracted to me. I believed him when he told me that the (very faint) scars I had from teenage acne was the reason he could never be attracted to me. Or that it was because my nose wasn’t quite right. Etc etc. I was so shocked that men were obviously attracted to me when divorced that I didn’t handle it well at first.

My three children have born the brunt of his dysfunction and anger. Although I had full custody of them, they were forced to visit him every weekend, and he continued to be emotionally toxic, even more so in his new relationship with an equally psychologically troubled partner. My children still pay the price of that today.

In retrospect, I can’t believe it took me so long to figure it out. I always knew he had a deep, dark secret. I used to have nightmares that he was really a secret serial killer. LOL. Although he always made sure I accepted responsibility for being sexually unattractive, and THAT was the problem, I should have been suspicious when he never showed any interest in or flirted with any other woman. He never had eyes for any woman. But he always had crushes on various male “friends”. They were intense relationships. He’d go for months or years with his current crush, spending more time with him than with me or the children. Oh, they were just friends, of course.
I actually have no idea if these male crushes were gay, too, or if they just really thought they were good friends. Some lasted longer than others, which makes me wonder if some finally got uncomfortable with the closeness and shut it down. Others I suspect were at least bi. But I’ll never know. Maybe my ex is so in denial about his homosexuality that he refuses to even admit to himself that he’s really in love with these friends. But he clearly was. He was obsessed with them. He idealized them. He spent every moment he could with them. He was in the flush of new love.

The LDS church, and other conservative churches who do the same thing, has committed a very grave and serious sin against gay people, and against the civilian casualties, like me, like my children. Our lives were deeply harmed by this charade. And that doesn’t even touch the harm they do gay children, making them hate themselves to the point where they commit suicide.

I hate the LDS church for this, probably more than for any of their other sins.