So I was reading an article on one of the various websites I visit daily. This post was from a site called GayGamer.net, in which the various correspondents discuss the blending of videogames and LGBT culture. It's a fun site and community, and while most of their articles are about the latest games, sometimes they come up with a really interesting read. In this instance, VorpalBunny, a long-time writer, shared a story about coming out over an online game. If you care to, feel free to read the article here: http://gaygamer.net/2011/02/coming_out_of_my_virtual_close.html#more.
Anyway, this got me thinking about my own story. I've had conversations with friends in the past about how I feel a little spoiled when discussing this with others, as my story was relatively uneventful. But, let me take a moment to tell the whole story.
It's true, yes, that not much happened. In my sophomore year of college (so, 2005-2006), I met a young woman through a ballroom dancing club the campus at started. She was sweet and quite fun to hang around, so I asked her for coffee after the club one week. We chatted for a while, and hit it off, so I took the next step and asked her out for Valentine's Day. It was very cute, really: I wrote her a sonnet to ask her, and attached the note to her apartment door with a flower. Even thinking about it, it makes me want to puke, but what can I say? I'm a romantic. Anyway... we went out to dinner and had a good evening, and then went back to my apartment to watch a movie. We spent the entirety of the movie within 3 feet of each other, and about 3/4 of the way through, I realised that I hadn't made any moves to be closer to her, or anything of the sort. More importantly, I didn't want to. I forced the thought down, walked her home when the movie was over, and ended the night just fine.
For the next few weeks, I was in personal hell. I couldn't figure out what was going on, I couldn't understand why I had never really felt any physical attraction to this lovely lady. It occurred to me that I never really had. Ever. So, I reached the conclusion that I was, in fact, attracted to other men. After about another week, I worked up the courage to have all of my close friends over (this was about 10 or so people, including my three roommates at the time), and to break the news to them. As I mentioned previously, nobody really had an issue with this, and life went on just fine. I was relieved.
The following weekend, I made the trek home, and after some gentle prodding as to what was wrong, my parents rung the information out of me, as well. Again, there was little to be worried about in the first place. A few reassurances later, I left with a large weight off my chest. Since then, I've developed a very satisfying life, despite some setbacks recently. I'm very proud of who I am, and refuse to feel any shame for the life I have.
The sad part, though, is that I've managed to lose some friends along the way. It's been quite some time since I've spoken to my high school friends, and I'm quite sure that this is a result of my coming out. HOWEVER, I want to point out that I believe this is an indirect result. Let me explain: once I came out of the closet, I went through a process of personal discovery, which led to a lot of changes in my personality and perspective. This led to a large distance being formed between myself and the young man I was in high school. So, no, I don't think my high school friends and I fell out of contact because I came out of the closet. In fact, I'm sure that most of them responded with something akin to "could've told you that" when they found out. No, my life has moved in a very different direction, and I think that friends and acquaintances have come and gone as a result of the simple developments in my personality over the years.
So, I suppose the point of this little rant is that coming out changed my entire life, most specifically my perspective on many things I didn't give the smallest shit about when I was younger. And I couldn't be happier about that. Despite my struggles through the years, I wouldn't trade it for anything, because being honest with myself has led to some of my most treasured memories, and will lead to my greatest happiness in the future, I'm sure. In short, I regret nothing, and am waiting for what my destiny has in store for me next.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Tragedy
I know, it's a terrible way to start out any blog, let alone one with such a relatively loose idea behind it, but I was struck but this occurrence in Tucson, AZ, and had to share my thoughts with someone, at least. And in this instance, that someone is you, readers, whomever you are.
So, first, the story:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona
Now, this is a tragedy in and of itself. I'm not a very religious person, but the loss of a human life; of any human life, saddens me greatly. And while Rep. Giffords has been reported to be on the way to recovery (as of this posting), others were killed in the crossfire including, apparently, a nine-year-old child and senior District Judge John M. Roll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/08/AR2011010802422.html?hpid=topnews).
But the question is, why does this bother me so? Well, take a look at this: http://www.businessinsider.com/gabrielle-giffords-was-on-sarah-palins-hit-list-2011-1
You'll see that Rep. Giffords is on this list. Also of note, the original website (www.takebackthe20.com), has been taken down. Go ahead, try to link to it. See?
So, anyway, my point. I don't blame Palin and her ilk for the attack on Giffords. Unless given compelling evidence to the contrary, I try to think the best of people, even if I do think them fairly stupid, like Mrs. Palin. But this kind of propaganda could clearly have led to this kind of outcome! I know it's a bit of slippery slope to assume that if you put crosshairs over a representative's district (which is, admittedly, not a direct reference to the person him/herself), someone is going to pull a gun and start shooting. But the inference must be acknowledged and safeguarded against! I have a Bachelor's in Psych which focused mainly on research methodology; I don't know the first thing about politics, and I grasp that! Yes, the level of precaution I imply may seem over the top, given the catchy-ness of the campaign (not to mention the attention-grabbing potential of the imagery), but there is a limit to which we can use violent metaphors in everyday life. A "war" on drugs is one thing. A "war" on specific representatives? You're simply asking for something like the Giffords incident to take place.
Basic psychology, nay, basic common sense states that the group-mind is one of the stupidest animals on the planet. Get enough people listening long enough, they'll buy anything you're selling. And that, ironically, is the strategy that people like Palin implement in their campaigns. They say the right things to the right people, and suddenly you have movements like the Tea Party. Hell, it's what any good politician does. And who knows? Maybe they even believe in what they're preaching (perish the thought).
But all of this is trumped by one simple rule: it should never come to violence. When we allow ourselves to be pushed to the point of wanting to commit an violent act on someone who opposes us, we've regressed to the level of the animals we so proudly hold ourselves above. Also, as stupid at this rhetoric sounds to me (and it does sound stupid), are we no better than the terrorists we're all so afraid of? Is this level of violence not an act of terrorism as well? If we start acting like this, don't the terrorists win? If terrorism is the act of placing enemies in a state of panic and fear, I believe this sort of action clearly demonstrates the fundamentals of the -ism.
What I'm looking forward to hearing is the testimony of the young man, Mr. Loughner, as he explains his motivations. Certainly nothing he says will excuse his actions, but I'm interested nonetheless. Maybe he even was coerced by the ideas of people like Sarah Palin.
At the very least, it makes for a good plot line for a primetime TV drama. You hear that, Law & Order? I'm talking to you!
So, first, the story:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona
Now, this is a tragedy in and of itself. I'm not a very religious person, but the loss of a human life; of any human life, saddens me greatly. And while Rep. Giffords has been reported to be on the way to recovery (as of this posting), others were killed in the crossfire including, apparently, a nine-year-old child and senior District Judge John M. Roll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/08/AR2011010802422.html?hpid=topnews).
But the question is, why does this bother me so? Well, take a look at this: http://www.businessinsider.com/gabrielle-giffords-was-on-sarah-palins-hit-list-2011-1
You'll see that Rep. Giffords is on this list. Also of note, the original website (www.takebackthe20.com), has been taken down. Go ahead, try to link to it. See?
So, anyway, my point. I don't blame Palin and her ilk for the attack on Giffords. Unless given compelling evidence to the contrary, I try to think the best of people, even if I do think them fairly stupid, like Mrs. Palin. But this kind of propaganda could clearly have led to this kind of outcome! I know it's a bit of slippery slope to assume that if you put crosshairs over a representative's district (which is, admittedly, not a direct reference to the person him/herself), someone is going to pull a gun and start shooting. But the inference must be acknowledged and safeguarded against! I have a Bachelor's in Psych which focused mainly on research methodology; I don't know the first thing about politics, and I grasp that! Yes, the level of precaution I imply may seem over the top, given the catchy-ness of the campaign (not to mention the attention-grabbing potential of the imagery), but there is a limit to which we can use violent metaphors in everyday life. A "war" on drugs is one thing. A "war" on specific representatives? You're simply asking for something like the Giffords incident to take place.
Basic psychology, nay, basic common sense states that the group-mind is one of the stupidest animals on the planet. Get enough people listening long enough, they'll buy anything you're selling. And that, ironically, is the strategy that people like Palin implement in their campaigns. They say the right things to the right people, and suddenly you have movements like the Tea Party. Hell, it's what any good politician does. And who knows? Maybe they even believe in what they're preaching (perish the thought).
But all of this is trumped by one simple rule: it should never come to violence. When we allow ourselves to be pushed to the point of wanting to commit an violent act on someone who opposes us, we've regressed to the level of the animals we so proudly hold ourselves above. Also, as stupid at this rhetoric sounds to me (and it does sound stupid), are we no better than the terrorists we're all so afraid of? Is this level of violence not an act of terrorism as well? If we start acting like this, don't the terrorists win? If terrorism is the act of placing enemies in a state of panic and fear, I believe this sort of action clearly demonstrates the fundamentals of the -ism.
What I'm looking forward to hearing is the testimony of the young man, Mr. Loughner, as he explains his motivations. Certainly nothing he says will excuse his actions, but I'm interested nonetheless. Maybe he even was coerced by the ideas of people like Sarah Palin.
At the very least, it makes for a good plot line for a primetime TV drama. You hear that, Law & Order? I'm talking to you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)