The Idolatry of the Masculine

When conservative Christians think of "Gay Spirituality", many consider it an oxymoron at best, blasphemy at worst.  This viewpoint is increasingly in the news, with this week seeing a spate of media coverage concerning ministries who work with "ex-gays" (or ex-gay wanna-bes).  To many (not only conservative Christians, but Jews and Mormons, who each have their own corresponding ministry to the "struggling homosexual"), the only way that "Gay Spirituality" can be practiced is through the rigors of celibacy and self-denial.

As a lesbian who has spent some time working within that framework, even on the couch (actually, he had chairs) of relatively well-known counselor Warren Throckmorton, I have been watching the news closely.

Salon.com ran a four part series (you'll have to subscribe or watch an ad to view the articles) about "reparative therapy", even going so far as to have a straight man masquerade as a homosexual seeking conversion.  I'll be honest--I was reading the coverage for any mention of lesbianism, or women who struggle with "SSA (same-sex attraction)."  The coverage I've seen is disappointing, and I believe it is linked with wider religious attitudes towards women, women's sexuality and spirituality...

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I affirm the right of any individual to pursue spiritual and sexual wholeness in the manner which they see fit: if they truly believe that celibacy is God's choice for them, I endorse it.  My concern is that dialogue about celibacy and spirituality, gender roles and the approval of God, etc., be entered into honestly, with a willingness to re-interpret narrative in different frameworks, to see what best explains the reality experienced by those men and women who have, since a young age, viewed themselves as not fitting into the heterosexual grid assumed by their religions.

Only one of the four part series focused on a former lesbian, Grace Harley, one whose life consisted primarily of doing cocaine and finding "hoochie-mama-looking women" that she could marry while passing as a man.  She recovered from this when she saw Jesus in church, and turned her life over to him.

I went to her website looking for a better understanding of Ms. Harley's experience, but when I clicked on her link for "testimony", what I found was an interspersing of Bible texts with descriptions of her life--they were written to parallel one another, effectively masking any self-disclosure she might have given the reader.  The only hint she gives is a statement which is written to mimic Luke 13:11 (describing a woman suffering with illness for years):

"And, behold, there I sat, a woman who had lived a transgendered life and had a spirit of infirmity ( a spirit of lust and lesbianism) for eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift myself up."

Finding little help there, I went to the Exodus International website and found another testimonial, by Melissa Fryrear, who now works for Focus on the Family.  She wrote about how she was attracted to girls at age seven, found a Bible verse against homosexuality at age thirteen (interpreting it to mean "Melissa is detestable"), and began to question why she hated "being a girl."  Eventually, she came to a program called Crossover, where she "began to learn about this thing called womanhood."  She writes "Goodness! Who knew there was so much to learn: plucking eyebrows, hair bleaches, hair waxings, facial mud masks, eye lash curlers, manicures, pedicures, push-up bras, tummy tuckers, rear-end boosters, last year’s colors, and next year’s fashions?"

Here's my question: is it possible that Melissa made the jump from "Why am I not like other girls" to "Why do I hate being a girl?" because of messages from her church?  I was hoping to find more in her story than the same rehashed psychological explanations (which are strikingly absent in the timeline of most narratives until the struggling lesbian finds therapy) which, though mysteriously different in each story, somehow form same-sex attractions.

I was also hoping to find more than "next year's fashions" as the solution to this self-image problem.  It's funny--Ms. Harley's "hoochie-mamas" were lesbians (or at least interested in sex with women), and I would think they were wearing makeup and fashionable clothing.  The assumption seems to be that women who are interested in different than traditional gender roles (tomboyish, or eschewing makeup), the solution to their attraction to women must be in taking on those roles.  Women who are "lipstick lesbians" seem to fly below the radar in these narratives.  Why?  Let me make at least a speculation, one which many will reject, but which I think is worth considering.

Within those who are traditionalist within religions, whether it is Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, or Islam, there are many who find direct guidance for gender roles within their sacred scriptures.  They do so, typically, by reading select stories as commandments (i.e., the Genesis narrative) while overlooking others (i.e., Tamar).  As others have noted, gay and lesbian people are a direct threat to the status quo with regard to gender roles.  For those who believe that all intimate relationships must be composed of man and a woman in order to be loving, no matter what the gay relationship looks like, it will be interepreted in other ways.

For Melissa, the fact that her partner--while she was in her mid-twenties--went to church at her request, was an example (in her narrative looking back on these events) of their "emotional enmeshment."  If she had been in a relationship with a man, would she have claimed the same thing? 

My guess is no.  There are few articles on the Exodus website devoted specifically to lesbianism, but one is particularly interesting as it relates to their view of spirituality.  It's entitled "Control: The Last Stronghold of Lesbianism."  After claiming that the roots of a lesbian orientation lie in sexual abuse or mistreatment, Alan Medinger (the author) goes on to describe how this abuse is rooted in God's curse ( "...your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" Gen. 3:16).  This is an interesting interpretation of a curse directed at the the husband-wife relationship, especially for women whose "desire" is not for any husband.  He goes on to characterize the lesbian relationship as characterized by "manipulation, jealousy, co-dependency", a generalization which he does not back up through citing any studies.  Is it possible that the women who most struggle with their self-image as a lesbian resort to such unhealthy activity in order to retain their significant other at all costs?  Is it possible that these are the sorts of women most likely to seek out a program like Exodus?  These questions aren't addressed--they are ignored in favor of a sweeping generalization which appears to be supported by Medinger's reading of scripture.

The solution for this wounded, scared woman?  To start seeing Jesus as her potential lover:

"But Jesus is seen as a man. Although a Christian woman knows that He is a man free of sin and could never hurt or abuse her, in the depth of her wounded heart she may be a long time coming to accept this truth. Emotionally and psychologically there is great difficulty in trusting even Jesus. But He can overcome this. He has a wonderful patience that will just keep wooing her until she can begin to trust Him."

We are now closer to the thrust of Medinger's argument--lesbian women are those who don't trust Jesus enough.  If they were to follow more closely the old hymn, "Trust and Obey", they might find themselves (under the curse of God) desiring their husband and wishing that he rule over them.

The rest of the article describes, in broad descriptions, Jesus "[wooing the lesbian] until she can trust Him" and the now former lesbian "mov[ing] out from a lifetime of control and self-protection."  There is no discussion of how these actions are linked to loving other women, to precisely what about a same-sex relationship requires "manipulation", or how the lesbian is to go about undergoing these changes.

These are the questions which I would like to put to Medinger and others, and see discussed more openly in the media, which is preoccupied with the nuances of gay men's lives in comparison to the occasional lesbian kiss-a-thon aired for ratings during sweeps.

1.  Where is your evidence that all lesbian relationships are foundationally made up of manipulation and emotional enmeshment?  How would your description of two relationships differ, given the same attitude and actions within each, if the couples were straight or lesbian?

2.  Why do you consider "spiritual healing" for women to require steps like learning about mascara and tummy tuckers?  If the goal is not obtaining a spouse, why the emphasis on beautification which is determined by the (secular) culture, for the sake of watching men?

3.  (To the Christians) How do you explain the varied portraits of men and women interacting in the Bible, and the dearth of explicit verses describing the courting process, the way men and women "should" interact, and what "masculinity" and "feminity" really are?

4.  Why is homosexuality, whether male or female, defined in your publications primarily around the concept of "masculinity"?  For men, it is being "drawn to the masculine", and for women, it is desiring to "be masculine."  Is it possible that your emphasis on a specific cultural manifestation of "masculinity" is itself a kind of idolatry, a lack of ability to really see the variety of ways that God allows humans to relate to one another?

These are just starting points for the dialogue.  If America is going to move forward in understanding what the questions are in this discussion, it needs to move beyond stereotypes revolving around a static concept of "masculinity" (whether defined as a lack thereof, or an attempt to falsely attain it).  If America is going to move forward, it needs to recognize that lesbian relationships are not merely sad copies of male-female marriages, cobbled together by needy and wounded women.

Unfortunately, the current discussion is lop-sided and focused on, dare I put it this way, the fears of straight men with regard to penetration by another man (yet another fear of the "feminine", defined as penetration).  Let's move beyond this, begin to look at the full spectrum of relationships in our country, and do so with our blinders off, asking the hard questions.

Comments

[Nio]

you'll have to subscribe or watch an ad to view the articles

Try Bug Me Not http://www.bugmenot.com/ to side step having to subscribe.

Great post.

[ck]

Sadly, Nio, it doesn't look like Salon.com is listed yet on Bugmenot. Good idea, though!

[chuck molitor]

Hi,
I just discovered your website. I am a gay male who also has a website chuck@masculinespirituality.com. I am intrigued by the first part I read because I am not so sure there is a specifically gay/lesbian spirituality. As men and women we are gifted and blessed as well as challenged by God as persons, whole persons not gifted on the basis of gender. It is true that men and women may approach living and therefore spirituality differently but I pose the question as to whether that difference is based on gender or other elements. I would be happy to engage in a discussion on the matter and please check my website. Even though it is called masculine spirituality itmay an does apply to anyone.
Thanks
Chuck.

[pennyjane]

hi ck. well, we do live in a masculine oriented society. i remember not to long ago being asked how i am treated since my transition. the answer came immediately and spontaniously..."it seems now that i have to earn the respect that used to be offered so freely to my suit and tie.

i just can't think of another reasonable explanation for us lgbt folks then just simply that God wanted us this way. we have as much not in common as we have in common, as diverse and as unique as anyone else. i really don't think the objection to us has anything to do with sex persay, it's about accessable scapegoats. if we, as a species, could get past our need for bullying i think all objections would just fall away of their own dead weight.

why would you even read anything from the family research council? they aren't about family and they have never done a piece of objective research on anything. the real world is moving past that...i see it every day. the more we get ourselves out there and let people get to know us without hiding behind the facade of misplaced shame and guilt the more we will be understood and the less we will be bullied. much love and hope, pj