Would you tell Mom and Dad?

[Guest TommyBoy]

I've told many of my friends I hire escorts, described the experiences etc. What's the point of friendship if you cannot or choose not to be honest? I certainly don't tell ALL my friends, but that has to do with the level of intimacy in the friendship--our sexual lives are not part of the equation.

 

That said, I can't imagine a situation where I would tell my parents or where they would want to know. They know I'm gay, they have met boyfriends etc. However, I can't imagine they want to discuss my sexual activities any more than I want to discuss theirs--and that goes for my straight siblings as well. And by the way--I LOVE my family and they love me--I'm very lucky.

 

My grandmother used to say "You should always tell the truth; but for heaven's sake you don't have to run around telling ALL the truth to EVERYONE." The wisdom of the Irish?

[Rod Hagen]

WOW! Cool responses. Now, lets do as someone else suggested. lets move onto which 'type' of friends you tell and how you make that decision.

 

There are plenty of gay and straight freinds who think I am using my ACE certification as a personal trainer. There are other, gay only, frineds who know Iam an escort, but the vast majority of those men I met sexually, so I figure someone whowho attends a sex party or who likes to hook up on AOL wont be too shocked that I am an escort.

 

How about you all?

 

http://www.rodhagen.com

"I AM THE PRINCE OF ALL SAIYANS ONCE AGAIN!"

[ted]

>I am deeply (even if some

>would think me naively) impressed

>by both Matt's and Rick's

>posts and thank them for

>writing.

 

Will-I am impressed with your post also, and wish I had known you or someone like you 20 years ago. Thank you for contributing. Its threads like this that help me forget some of the foolishness and mean spiritedness that goes on here all to often.

Ted

[+ deej]

Oh, there are definitely "types" of friends I will tell about hiring escorts. I have a close professional friend who, over the many years we've known each other, has also become a close personal friend. He and his wife are devout fundie Christians and I'm *certain* they wouldn't approve. (I'm not out to them, either.) They fall into the category of "their little minds can't handle the news" that I mentioned earlier. Besides, the topic just wouldn't come up between us.

 

I have another str8 female friend who recently ended a 7-year sexless relationship with a lesbian. (I still haven't quite figured that one out, but to each his own.) She routinely hangs out with me at gay bars & is always the life of the party (and constantly trying to hook me up ;-)). She knows I have many friends in the gay porn industry and thinks it's pretty cool. She's open minded enough to handle the news so she knows. I'm the only one in town who knows about her lesbian "affair". I returned that openness in kind.

 

Someone mentioned the term "generic family member" earlier. I think it's not just family members. Friendship happens on many levels. Very few of my friends know much about my sex life. (Unless we've bumped into each other at a bathhouse ;o).

 

The answer, really, on who you tell is "it depends".

[Guest TheOriginalMessage]

Rod as it has already been pointed out as a Gay man you should not be listening to Star. How pansy is that Be a man listen to KROQ instead. Putting aside your one error in life as you most likely are aware they tend to keep calls short intentionally... it isn't a talk show... they want to have a lot of voices heard in a short period of time. Sort of the MTV generation on radio now.

 

As for your question I find it brilliant! And I think you answered it yourself as you noted many gay men ARE (sorry whenever I hear that word in my head I think of The Weakest Kink... as in You ARE the Weakest Link, Goodbye), not out about being gay much less selling themselves for sex. Therefore, if you're not ashamed to tell others who know you are out as a Gay man then you are OK and made a good point. YET if you are ARE (oops that word again) ashamed of telling those who know that you're gay what you do then they actually had a good point. Goodbye.

[Rod Hagen]

>Rod as it has already been

>pointed out as a Gay

>man you should not be

>listening to Star. How pansy

>is that Be a

>man listen to KROQ instead.

 

KROQ is the closest thing to my type of music that LA has to offer. But the problem is that in the morning they don't play enough of it, and Kevin and Bean are from HELL. The only aspect of that morning schtick I can tolerate is the Entertainment news with the over-sexed Ralph.

 

Glad you like the post The-Original.

 

http://www.rodhagen.com

"I AM THE PRINCE OF ALL SAIYANS

ONCE AGAIN!"

[Boston Guy]

>As I said, people who don't

>have strong religious beliefs often

>find it difficult to understand

>those who do.

>

 

I agree. The president of a Jesuit college once told me that faith was something you either had or didn't have. He said he had tried many times to describe it and felt he had never really succeeded. When talking to people who had it, his descriptions were unnecessary; when talking to others, his descriptions didn't really help.

 

>

>When I read the Cardinal's second

>interview I had to admit

>that from his point of

>view -- and that of

>anyone who believes in the

>doctrines of the Church --

>his statement was perfectly reasonable.

> It's really all a

>matter of what one believes.

> And of whether one

>is willing to face up

>to the implications of those

>beliefs. So many people

>these days -- as in

>every other era of history

>-- are not willing to

>do so.

 

Yes, that's true. And it seems like the challenges of todays fast-paced world often present a sort of constant challenge to people's beliefs, with one ethical quandary after another, often as a result of another technical, medical or scientific advance.

 

Without intending any criticism, I have a suspicion that George Bush's faith -- which seems honestly and deeply felt -- is going to be stressed often over the next four years. As president, he's going to be confronted with issues that are complex and challenging and that might conflict with his faith but nevertheless require a decision. In some cases, the right decision for him to make as president -- where 'right' is the one he thinks is the right thing for the nation -- might well be in conflict with his personal beliefs.

 

I don't agree with his politics much, but my guess is that he'll do a pretty good job of staying centered because it doesn't seem like he takes himself too seriously. Being able to laugh at yourself is a help in trying to put things into perspective.

[Guest AllAmerEscrt]

Thank you, and I am happy to see that my message did not get ripped to shreds, like some have been lately. I know how fortunate I am, in regard to my relationship with my parents/family, and make a point to remember it daily so that I keep myself "in check" or grounded when it comes to the everyday handling of whatever I encounter. I want to share just one example of how amazing my Mom really is...

 

She knows that from the time I could comprehend what a relationship is, it has been my dream. To have that one special person who you want to share everything, good and bad, with.

So not too long ago, I thought it was all to sweet of her, after we had been discussing the topic of my "love interests", to say,

"Well, Son, just know that I pray every night that you will find someone and build the type of relationship that your Father and I have tried to set an example of."

By saying that, I was like, "wow". I have to say that I actually believe that she says that in her prayers every night.

 

... So I definitely know how fortunate I am to have the relationship that exists between us.

 

Matt

Tampa

 

 

PS I am still holding onto that dream, in case anyone wants

to "build" something with me.

[Scorpio]

Matt, very good addition to your post. I love your mom. I too have that dream of a special someone. It has been the thing I have dreamt about for as long as I can remember. Hopefully one day we will both find it. I'm not giving up hope either.

 

P.S. I'm glad your post didn't get ripped to shreds either.

[CT Dick]

I haven't told my parents about that box of videos under my bed, either.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Will,

 

Your post brings to mind a moving experience from the early seventies... I was a teaching assistant in grad school teaching ‘Rocks and Stars’ to the undergrads to satisfy their general science requirement. I was barely older than they, certainly not much life experience under my belt at the time. It was near the end of the Spring semester and finals were approaching. One of my students came to see me one day, I thought about the pending finals. He was terribly distraught, much too so for it to be the final exam, I thought.

 

I was not surprised when he confided that he was gay. He had just ‘come out’ to his parents over the phone and it had gone very badly... neither of his parents were happy but his mother, being a mother, could handle it. The father... well, he disowned his son and told him not to bother returning home. So this poor kid, not the street-wise type at all, was abandoned overnight by his parents, left on his own to fend for himself, no job, my impression that he had few friends at college, no resources to return home, facing closing dorms in a week. We talked for well over an hour about his situation: his parents, his siblings, his home, his uncertain future, his immediate need to address the pressures of the next week and his options and potential sources for help after that.

 

It certainly was a learning experience for me that parents could abandon their children at all, much less so completely and quickly. As a parent myself it is impossible for me to grasp. I never saw him after the finals though I did keep my eye out for him. I occasionally wonder whatever happened to him. To this day I don’t know why he chose me in which to confide. Two of those little questions in life that linger without answers...

[Guest bottomboykk]

The Weakest Kink???

 

Is that a freudian slip? Too funny!

[Guest regulation]

It's always hard for people who don't have strong religious beliefs themselves to appreciate the strength of others' beliefs. For many Christians and Jews, the story of Abraham and Isaac illustrates the point that one's allegiance to one's beliefs should come before everything else, including the lives of one's own children. I don't think people should be classified as unloving or uncaring because they remain true to their beliefs in that respect.

[Paul Revere]

>It's always hard for people who

>don't have strong religious beliefs

>themselves to appreciate the strength

>of others' beliefs. For

>many Christians and Jews, the

>story of Abraham and Isaac

>illustrates the point that one's

>allegiance to one's beliefs should

>come before everything else, including

>the lives of one's own

>children. I don't think

>people should be classified as

>unloving or uncaring because they

>remain true to their beliefs

>in that respect.

 

 

Hey Reg, this is one of the most outrageous of all of your outrageous posts, and I just couldn't let it pass. Are you advocating that is demonstrates high moral standings and strong religious beliefs when a parent disowns or abandons a child that does not live up to thier pre-concieved notions. Oh Mary!

 

Check out the Golden Rule sometime, a version of which is common in almost all relgious teachings. Not to mentions the incredible natural bond of parents and children. No, I am sure that there is a dark place in hell for those parents who abandon there children in times of trouble. But you will all be happy there together, I suppose.

[Boston Guy]

>It's always hard for people who

>don't have strong religious beliefs

>themselves to appreciate the strength

>of others' beliefs. For

>many Christians and Jews, the

>story of Abraham and Isaac

>illustrates the point that one's

>allegiance to one's beliefs should

>come before everything else, including

>the lives of one's own

>children. I don't think

>people should be classified as

>unloving or uncaring because they

>remain true to their beliefs

>in that respect.

 

 

It's ironic that people on the right who proclaim 'family values' so loudly sometimes seem to be the most willing to cast out their sons and daughters for transgressions against their beliefs. An example of the reverse type of behavior was described this week in Bay Windows, one of the Boston gay newspapers. In an article about Joan Parker, the wife of Robert Parker, the author of the Spencer novels, the reporter asked her about their two sons. Both sons are gay and she was asked how it was when they came out to their parents. She replied that she had known it for quite some time and that their father basically said "you are who you are and remember that we love you."

 

Using established beliefs as an excuse to cast out your children does indeed seem to me to be both 'unloving' and 'uncaring'. To allow allegiance to one's beliefs to blindly come before everything else, including the needs of one's family, strikes me as being not only morally questionable but also extremely selfish, an act of clearly putting one's own needs ahead of those of one's family.

[Justice]

Speaking of choosing to become an escort, about a year or so ago Rick Munroe provided us with a link to a college sponsored research study involving male escorts:

 

http://hometown.aol.com/escortproject

 

Does anyone know the results of the study? (The web site hasn't been updated since the study ended.)

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Sometimes our strength of belief can obscure our vision...

 

I certainly don’t pretend to be a theologian and offer the following solely as a lay opinion...

 

It is my view that fundamental religious texts (Bible, Koran ... etc.,) are filled with two types of parables: those illustrating moral philosophies central to the religion and those designed to perpetuate the religion itself. The second category, in my view, possesses lesser moral authority (if any) and commands less dedicated observance than the former.

[Guest regulation]

>Hey Reg, this is one of

>the most outrageous of all

>of your outrageous posts, and

>I just couldn't let it

>pass. Are you advocating

>that is demonstrates high moral

>standings and strong religious beliefs

>when a parent disowns or

>abandons a child that does

>not live up to thier

>pre-concieved notions. Oh Mary!

>

 

You don't show much respect for the religious beliefs of others when you trivialize them by describing them as "pre-conceived notions." Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be that our parents should respect our views and beliefs, but we needn't show any respect for theirs. Is that right?

 

 

>

>Check out the Golden Rule sometime,

>a version of which is

>common in almost all relgious

>teachings. Not to mentions

>the incredible natural bond of

>parents and children. No,

>I am sure that there

>is a dark place in

>hell for those parents who

>abandon there children in times

>of trouble.

 

Check out the Sermon on the Mount (it's in the Book of Matthew). In it, Jesus stated that "not one iota" of Biblical law should be changed. He also said that people who encourage others to disregard the law will occupy "the least place" in the Kingdom of God.

 

>But you

>will all be happy there

>together, I suppose.

 

Insulting someone just because you don't agree with an opinion he's expressed on an issue under discussion is a rotten thing to do, Paul. Can't you disagree with others without getting personal?

[Guest regulation]

>Using established beliefs as an excuse

>to cast out your children

>does indeed seem to me

>to be both 'unloving' and

>'uncaring'. To allow allegiance

>to one's beliefs to blindly

>come before everything else, including

>the needs of one's family,

>strikes me as being not

>only morally questionable but also

>extremely selfish, an act of

>clearly putting one's own needs

>ahead of those of one's

>family.

 

I guess I would agree with you if I agreed that everyone who does this is using his or her beliefs "as an excuse" or exalting his or her "own needs." But your statement leaves no room for the situation in which people follow the dictates of their beliefs even though those dictates conflict with their own desires and inclinations. Perhaps you don't believe that people ever really act that way. I think some people do.

 

I know of situations, for example, in which Hasidic Jews have cut ties with children who have married outside the faith or broken with the faith in some other fundamental way. Their custom in such situations is to go to the synagogue and recite the prayer for the dead, exactly as they would do if their children had died, to indicate that that is how they will treat these children in the future. I don't doubt that they loved their children. But some people can't ignore their beliefs and remain true to themselves. Should they be expected to do that? Is that one of the sacrifices parents are expected to make for their kids? In other words, should Abraham have told God to forget about it and leave him alone?

[Guest regulation]

>It's ironic that people on the

>right who proclaim 'family values'

>so loudly sometimes seem to

>be the most willing to

>cast out their sons and

>daughters for transgressions against their

>beliefs.

 

It's also ironic that people who proclaim their support for "diversity" often don't want to face up to the practical implications of that notion. One of those implications is that we are frequently going to find ourselves dealing with people whose sincere and deeply held beliefs are completely irreconcilable with ours. How do advocates of diversity deal with that problem? When they speak of tolerance and respect for the beliefs of others, do they really mean it, or is that just a lot of p.r.? Are they hoping that people whose beliefs are different from theirs will change or go away? What if they don't?

[Rod Hagen]

OFF TOPIC

 

> But some

>people can't ignore their beliefs

>and remain true to themselves.

> Should they be expected

>to do that?

 

How about this, people who aren't prepared to love their children unconditionaly should not have children.

 

Before I hear "what if you are the parents of Timothy McVeigh smart guy, are you just suppoosed to say his crimes are ok? Huh, smart guy?" No I did not say that, I did not say that you have to always accept, or even forgive, all that your children do. But they are yours. You created them. They would not exist if not for your will or whim.

 

Accept that responsibility, because bringing life into world is the ULTIMATE responsibility. Period. I can not and will not accept people putting their beliefs ahead of their children. Let me repeat that: regardless of whether you're Christian, Atheist, Hindu, or AYN RAND if there is the remotest possibility that your ultimate convictions may supercede your love for your children, DON'T fucking have kids. It is not every human being's right to raise children. It is, however, the most important decision there is.

 

Fine, this makes me "intolerant". Whatever. Actually, you know what this attitude 'makes me'? It makes me a humanist, and that is the best a man can be.

 

http://www.rodhagen.com

"I AM THE PRINCE OF ALL SAIYANS

ONCE AGAIN!"

[Bilbo]

CTD - One of the stupidest things I ever did was when a church hired my dear departed (wasn't departed yet at the time, of course) lover and I to clean a man's apartment before his relatives arrived. We didn't get it clear in our minds that he was not expected to ever leave the hospital again. We cleaned out the dead rat and all the mess and, well, everything except his collection of porn shots he had shot himself. We figured that if he did come out of the hospital, he wouldn't be in any condition to have sex other than with his hand and certainly wouldn't thank us for throwing his erotic memories away just when he needed them. Of course, he died and I never heard, but I'm afraid at least one of his relatives found his cache. What I'm saying is, please alert a friend to "straighten" up that stack of porno under your bed before you posthumously come out to your loved ones.

 

And even further off the subject, and here I feel like one of those guys who asks for clarification of an abreviation - Rod, you are the prince of what again? What does that refer to?

[Boston Guy]

>I know of situations, for example,

>in which Hasidic Jews have

>cut ties with children who

>have married outside the faith

>or broken with the faith

>in some other fundamental way.

> Their custom in such

>situations is to go to

>the synagogue and recite the

>prayer for the dead, exactly

>as they would do if

>their children had died, to

>indicate that that is how

>they will treat these children

>in the future. I

>don't doubt that they loved

>their children. But some

>people can't ignore their beliefs

>and remain true to themselves.

> Should they be expected

>to do that? Is

>that one of the sacrifices

>parents are expected to make

>for their kids? In

>other words, should Abraham have

>told God to forget about

>it and leave him alone?

>

 

I don't think there's any simple answer to the very complex question you pose. If there is one, I most certainly don't know what it is.

 

Religious beliefs are complex and highly personal. When confronted with them, I'm generally quite grateful that we have freedom of religion and prefer to leave each person to practice his or her own beliefs.

 

For myself, however, I would re-phrase the question. From a young age, I found the Catholic doctrine (an interesting word, sharing a history with indoctrination) I was being taught constantly in conflict with the science I was learning at the same time. I eventually found that I had come to reject much of what the doctrine wanted me to believe on faith, choosing instead to try to understand the universe from other points of view.

 

Today I view religious doctrine as an important part of our history, something that can help us understand where we came from. But I also view it as mostly myth, explanations of the universe that early man devised in an attempt to try to make sense of the unknowable. Early life was tough for mankind and religious rules that had to be followed could help believers to survive and prosper. Clearly it was good for early religions to encourage steps that would tend to create more of the faithful.

 

And that may have been the right thing to do at that time. But rules and regulations that might well have been correct for mankind 2000 years ago or 1000 years ago don't seem to me to always make sense today. And as a society, we tend to recognize this in many ways.

 

Most of us don't choose to make burnt offerings; many who are faithful nevertheless choose not to circumcise their children; we don't treat lepers the way Leviticus suggests; we don't put aldulters to death; most of us Americans have enjoyed a ham and cheese sandwich at one time or another, or a cheeseburger; many of us don't keep the Sabbath in any way envisioned by our forebears; and certainly the people who come to M4M have at least contemplated breaking all sorts of rules.

 

My point, of course, is that most of us seem to pick and choose among the religious prohibitions that have been handed down to us, trying to make sense of the world around us and how to live good lives in what has become a pretty complicated world.

 

I doubt most parents would throw their children out for eating a ham and cheese sandwich. Yet the prohibitions underlying that are written as strongly as the prohibitions against lying with your father or mother or with another man.

 

We still accept without question some of the things that were considered true two thousand years ago. For example, we think it's wrong to commit murder. But we still are faced daily with challenges never foreseen two thousand years ago.

 

Gay people and gay life probably make that list and undoubtedly present a difficult challenge for many parents. When facing that challenge, I would hope that most parents would decide what to do on the basis of their love for their child and consideration of that child's welfare, even when might conflict with Leviticus.

 

So, for me, I would re-phrase your question to ask how a parent can reconcile the love they have for their children and their knowledge of the modern world with the doctrine their faith has taught them -- and, as you say, be true to themselves.

 

I don't know how to tell people how to do that. We each have to figure it out for ourselves.

 

But as an aside, I have to admit to great suspicion with how right-wing politicians have dealt with the issue of gay people. I don't know this and could not prove it, but my gut tells me that right-wind leaders, in the privacy of their counsels, view gay people as a convenient substitute for the cold war. Political parties need to be for or against some things and being for 'family values' and against gay rights is an emotional issue that resonates with many people in middle America.

 

Fanning the flames of hatred is often effective as a political fundraising device.

[Guest regulation]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

>Fine, this makes me "intolerant".

>Whatever. Actually, you know

>what this attitude 'makes me'?

> It makes me a

>humanist, and that is the

>best a man can be.

>

 

I'd have to say that I don't see a lot of difference between the intolerance of the Right and the intolerance of the Left. One of my oldest friends is an evangelical Christian who has been trying to convert me for years. He's never been nasty about it, but he's made it clear that he thinks I'll go to Hell if I don't agree with his beliefs. And that is exactly what Paul Revere just said to me in his post above. What a coincidence!

[Guest AIM]

RE: OFF TOPIC

 

Amen!

 

And let us all hope that Regulation does not and never does have children.