Sunday, March 29, 2009

A New Category: g0ys

"g0ys." It's spelled with a "zero." Not gUy, no gAy, but g0y.

Basically, it covers a wider range of Kinsey's homo-to-heterosexual spectrum than "gAy" does: from man-to-man sexual behavior (anything except anal sex, which is seen as "gAy") to non-sexual intimate connecting between men. The common theme tying together the thread is men who desire to have intimate emotional connection with other men. The main site even argues that the Bible prohibits anal sex, not g0y sex, which can include mutual masturbation, etc.

Someone told me that many Christians seem to be falling for this. I think one of the reasons is because of the appeal of the intimate emotional connecting. Indeed, the idea of a g0y gains more legitimacy given that the definition includes heterosexual men. As one g0y put it: "There are many g0y men who identify as hetero and desire nothing more from g0ys than a good friend, a deep bond with another man, short of sexual involvement." (from the g0y Facebook)

The trouble with this category for Christians is that mutual penile stimulation between men is a sexual thing. No matter how you try to gloss over it or rationalize it with historical argumentation, when a guy rubs his penis on another guy and ejaculates, that is sex, whether or not there is anal penetration.

I'm not trying to be "better than g0ys" here. In fact, the category is extremely attractive. It allows me to retain my homosexual (or should I say, g0ysexual) desires, but align it with heterosexuality short of having anal sex. I can say that I have mutual orgasms with 2-3 guys every month, but I am not gay. I am g0y. I can have my masculinity and eat my homosexuality too (pardon the innuendo).

G0ydom is rationalization, and it's not Christian. If g0y sex is acceptable to the Bible, then my fantasizing about rubbing my penis against a woman's breasts should be acceptable too. In fact, it should also be the case that I can also have multiple intimate emotional friendships with women, not have penile-vaginal-anal intercourse (but everything else, including oral sex), and call it "just deep friendship."

I would love it if I could be g0y. I would love it if I could genuinely say that I can be emotionally connected with some male friends, and have mutual masturbation experiences, share laughter and tears, and then go back to our wives and families as more manly than ever. But the problem is, once I connect my emotional relationship with a man with my sexual feelings, it changes that relationship. It has become homosexual, whether or not it involves anal sex.

I wish I could say that God blesses g0ydom, but He doesn't.

What God is blesses is the one part of the g0y definition that gives it "legitimacy": intimate, emotional male-bonding that is non-sexual.

That is the kind of love I am receiving from Brother, and it is making all the difference in the world in how I see men. I am less attracted to men sexually because Brother loves me deeply, fully, with all of his heart (oh, I could explode from how much I love him!) and is very, very clear that it is not sexual.

3 comments:

  1. I explored the g0y concept for aw while myself and blogged about it here: http://carleton1958.xanga.com/674589544/a-personal-dialogue-on-homosexuality-and-coming-out/

    Thanks for commenting on my blog. I'm glad I found yours (and just subscribed).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for sharing these thoughts on the g0y concept. I have been looking at it and questioning it. I tried to find the Jeff S. article but I can't open it. Does anyone know where there is an in depth study on the g0y theology? You have probably seen their theology on the www.g0ys.org website. They protest that the New Testament verses in Romans 1, and I Cor. 6:9 refer strictly to anal sex.

    I looked at the word "unseemly" in Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    The Complete Word Study Dictionary gives this definition of the word:

    G808

    ἀσχημοσύνη
    aschēmosúnē; gen. aschēmosúnēs, fem. noun from aschḗmōn (G809), uncomely, indecent. Deformity, indecency, obscenity (Rom_1:27); nakedness, shame, shameful parts (Rev_16:15; Sept.: Exo_20:26; Lev_18:6-7).
    Syn.: atimía (G819), dishonor; aischúnē (G152), shame, embarassment; entropḗ (G1791), inward shame, withdrawal.

    Ant.: aidṓs (G127), modesty resulting from inner conviction, a sense of respect toward the moral character of others, shamefacedness, a good moral quality; euprépeia (G2143), gracefulness; egkráteia (G1466), self-control, temperance; semnótēs (G4587), decency, uprightness.


    It appears to me that this could include mutual masturbation.

    A look at the "abusers of themselves with mankind" phrase in I Cor. 6:9 renders this definition in the Strong's Concordance:

    G733

    ἀρσενοκοίτης
    arsenokoitēs
    ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace
    From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.
    Total KJV occurrences: 2

    The G730 word means man. Here is the G2845 word:

    G2845

    κοίτη
    koitē
    koy'-tay
    From G2749; a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm: - bed, chambering, X conceive.
    Total KJV occurrences: 4

    It appears from the Greek word used that it is referring to men who get together and produce sperm (on a couch)...

    Of course the g0ys insist that it only refers to anal sex.

    I would like to see more study on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE!!! I was sincerely perplexed by this new theological idea that God was "ok" with sex between men as long as it was not penetrative. I really wanted to know if they were right. God let me see clearly. I recorded my findings on this web page: https://g0ytheology.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete