"Ex-Gays" | Gay Marriage | Mormon | Relationships | Religion

BigGayDeal.com

Josh Weed Is Gay, And Loves His Wife Very Much

JoshAndLollyThis is, I promise, one of the most fascinating things you'll read this June: The blog post in which Josh Weed, full-time "marriage and family therapist" and part-time humorist, comes out of the closet.

Thing is, Josh Weed is a very devout Mormon, and he's married to a woman. He and his wife, Lolly, have three daughters. Lolly and Josh have been friends since they were kids, and Lolly's known Josh was gay since he was 16. They got married anyway, and they reportedly have a "robust" sex life. But Josh says he's not bisexual. From the blog:

Some might assume that because I’m married to a woman, I must be bisexual. This would be true if sexual orientation was defined by sexual experience. Heck, if sexual orientation were defined by sexual experience, I would be as straight as the day is long even though I’ve never been turned on by a Victoria’s Secret commercial in my entire life. Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, not by experience. In my case, I am attracted sexually to men. Period. Yet my marriage is wonderful, and Lolly and I have an extremely healthy and robust sex life. How can this be?

The truth is, what people are really asking with the above question is “how can you be gay if your primary sex partner is a girl?” I didn’t fully understand the answer to this question until I was doing research on sexuality in grad school even though I had been happily married for almost five years at that point. I knew that I was gay, and I also knew that sex with my wife was enjoyable. But I didn’t understand how that was happening. Here is the basic reality that I actually think many people could use a lesson in: sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together (which dwindle dramatically after the first few years of marriage anyway). So, in a weird way, the circumstances of our marriage allowed us to build a sexual relationship that is based on everything partners should want in their sex-life: intimacy, communication, genuine love and affection. This has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know. Most of whom are straight. Go fig.

So -- Josh's gayness somehow improved his het sex life. It's a crazy world.

Josh's blog post is a little bonkers -- less because of his love life (which, like most love lives, looks a little bonkers to those on the outside looking in) than because of his Mormonism (which is just bonkers, full-stop) -- but it's kind of sweet, too. If he's to be taken at his word, it seems he ignored the imperatives of his own natural attractions to settle down with the person he believed to be his soul-mate, and with whom he wanted to build a family. If he was an atheist or a Unitarian or a Buddhist who did that and wrote about it, he'd be proclaimed a bold sexual rebel. The fact that he just happens to be a member of a religion that condemns homosexuality makes the decision feel a lot less bold, and more like the result of brainwashing --

-- but he's so nice! So reasonable! From the blog:

About two years ago, I saw a psychologist to get medication for my ADHD-I.  She was a lesbian, and when I told her that I was a gay man in a heterosexual marriage, she spent an entire session hammering me with questions about my situation in a genuine effort to make sure I was happy. I didn’t love that she did this, but as a clinician myself, I understood where she was coming from.

During our conversation, she told me about her life with her partner. She spoke of a girl, whom she considered her daughter, who is the biological child of her ex-lover, with whom she lived for only three years. She told me of how much she loved her daughter, but how infrequently she got to see her. And eventually, when talking about my sex life, she said “well, that’s good you enjoy sex with your wife, but I think it’s sad that you have to settle for something that is counterfeit.”

I was a little taken aback by this idea—I don’t consider my sex-life to be counterfeit. In response, I jokingly said “and I’m sorry that you have to settle for a counterfeit family.” She immediately saw my point and apologized for that comment. Obviously, I don’t actually think a family with non-biological members is counterfeit in any way. I also don’t feel that my sex-life is counterfeit. They are both examples of something that is different than the ideal. I made that joke to illustrate a point. If you are gay, you will have to choose to fill in the gaps somewhere. She chose to have a family in a way that is different than the ideal. I choose to enjoy sex in a way that is different than the ideal for a gay man. It all comes down to what you choose and why, and knowing what you want for yourself and why you want it. That’s basically what life is all about.

True! And it would sound even truer coming from somebody who doesn't base his life decisions on a book that claims Native Americans first sailed to America from the Levant.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. take solace - not only will he waste his life, and hers, by having a life barely-half lived, when he dies he's going to realize that it was all, yes, for nothing.

    "WHAT!? i had to be inside vaginas and then i end up in the exact same place as jews, and active orgy-loving gays and muslims and blacks and non-believers!? WHAT!?? this is a RIP OFF!!""

    yeah. well. sorry about that :D

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jun 9, 2012 12:54:38 PM


  2. This was posted on Gawker and they arranged for Josh Weed to answer questions submitted by readers. I haven't read all the responses but if you have questions he may have been asked them there.

    While life is complicated and people make all sorts of accommodations peculiar to their situation, that usually comes at a later point when experience has taught us what we can/can't, will/won't settle for. Josh has short-circuited that dynamic in deference to a religion that someone quite literally pulled out of a hat (with a "seeing-stone" in it), if not a bodily orifice.

    IMO his wife *deserves* to be with someone who is attracted to her, a relationship where she is not a means to an end for HIM to get what HE wants, children and a "traditional" family. She was the booby prize at her own wedding, which is only slightly mitigated by the fact she knew that going in.

    And though he's careful not to say every gay person should do what he's done, how exactly is this different from "ex-gay" teachings? Even though they have accepted that change is NOT possible, the fundamentalists of various stripes have just changed their message to "Do it anyway. Get married and deny yourself, it won't be THAT bad and you might even find things about it you'll like."

    So, "reasonable" as he is I think the overall message is harmful, that subverting self and sexuality to religious and/or tradition is admirable and a worthy goal. Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, from every Religious Right s**t-bird who comes down the pike. This is just a candy coated version of the same thing. So thanks just loads, but cram it, churchie!

    Posted by: Caliban | Jun 9, 2012 12:55:13 PM


  3. While life is complicated and people make all sorts of accommodations peculiar to their situation, that usually comes at a later point when experience has taught us what we can/can't, will/won't settle for. Josh has short-circuited that dynamic in deference to a religion that someone quite literally pulled out of a hat (with a "seeing-stone" in it), if not a bodily orifice.

    IMO his wife *deserves* to be with someone who is attracted to her, a relationship where she is not a means to an end for HIM to get what HE wants, children and a "traditional" family. She was the booby prize at her own wedding, which is only slightly mitigated by the fact she knew that going in.

    And though he's careful not to say every gay person should do what he's done, how exactly is this different from "ex-gay" teachings? Even though they have accepted that change is NOT possible, the fundamentalists of various stripes have just changed their message to "Do it anyway. Get married and deny yourself, it won't be THAT bad and you might even find things about it you'll like."

    So, "reasonable" as he is I think the overall message is harmful, that subverting self and sexuality to religious and/or tradition is admirable and a worthy goal. Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, from every Religious Right s**t-bird who comes down the pike. This is just a candy coated version of the same thing. So thanks just loads, but cram it, churchie!

    Posted by: Caliban | Jun 9, 2012 12:56:08 PM


  4. so is this the mormon equivalent of prison sex?

    Posted by: mld | Jun 9, 2012 12:57:44 PM


  5. &%#@#!

    Sorry about that. Didn't mean to post that several times. For whatever reason it wasn't showing up as it has ALWAYS done before so I posted multiple times.

    Mea Culpa.

    Posted by: Caliban | Jun 9, 2012 12:59:26 PM


  6. Ideally, yeah we'd simply say to each his own and let him be. But he chose to blog about and present himself as some kind of example of how gay people can live. He wants others to emulate him. And as said, other Mormons are going to use him as an example for the ex-gay fantasies. It's already happening. So by going public with this, he his hurting people.

    Posted by: Steve | Jun 9, 2012 1:00:53 PM


  7. Cole: So you're saying, as a gay man I should show respect to a religion that says I'm engaging in sin and going to hell, which then uses this as a justification for platforming against my civil rights?
    Sorry, I'm not respecting that one bit, keep your high horse and stockholm syndrome to yourself.

    Posted by: ohno | Jun 9, 2012 1:01:04 PM


  8. "Cole" - use your atheistic intellectual discernment to remember that there is indeed a valid time and place to "disrespect a faith" that hinges on disrespecting other faiths, beliefs and walks of life.


    in this case, it's entirely warranted.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jun 9, 2012 1:02:45 PM


  9. There are exceptions to rules.

    There was a pastor somewhere a few years back, wasn't it, who came out to his congregation and made it clear that he informed his wife when they started dating that he was gay. They made a decision to live that life together, and raised children. This story and that are similar ones.

    I don't get the impression that anyone held a gun to either man's head and forced him to publicly speak on their situation. I think they did because they are ultimately OK with their situations, and I don't think every guy in a situation like this is "living a lie," as some put it.

    But they're the exception. Is it possible for a gay man to marry a woman and be truly happy with his life? Most likely, but not ALL gay men can do that. Most can't.

    I'm sure a very, very small percentage of men who have gone through "Ex-Gay" therapy are happy with their lives as ex-gays, but that doesn't outweigh the damage it does to the majority of men who go through it.

    It's kind of like how some women will get an abortion, be a little shaken up, and then move on, and some women will fall completely apart and spend years in therapy and become staunchly pro-life. Not all women can handle having an abortion. I think it's the same idea.

    Posted by: antisaint | Jun 9, 2012 1:04:00 PM


  10. @Cole: "As an atheist, respecting people's faiths in [sic] the only way I expect my lack thereof to be respected."

    This is a common logical fallacy committed by progressive-minded individuals, which incorrectly assumes that others will (or should) do unto you as you do unto them. It's a strange perversion of the Golden Rule.

    Allow me to explain: I live by the Golden Rule to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" because that is what I sincerely believe is the right thing to do, not because I believe doing so will result in others behaving similarly. It doesn't mean I live my life not expecting people to do bad things to me, just because I avoid doing so to others. The problem here is that not all positions are equally valid. The religious wingnuts will NEVER see how your respect of their beliefs should equate to their respect of your atheism. Through your actions and words, you do not present a model for their behavior towards you, because your position is by definition a disordered and sinful one.

    Does that mean we stop respecting their right to religious freedom? No, of course not. But it is an act of false equivalence to give their viewpoint equal weight. These are people who make scientifically incorrect assertions about the world we live in. I see no logical reason why that must be given due consideration--indeed, it cannot under any evidence-based form of thinking or Socratic discourse.

    Posted by: atomic | Jun 9, 2012 1:08:34 PM


  11. They probably are the best of friends and perhaps she DOES make a good partner for him To each his or her own...

    It's an alternative lifestyle he's living, that's for sure.

    My problem is the fact that given that he is a mormon, I suspect that he has issues with other alternatives...namely, that a gay people want to be with and mate with other gay people in all ways possible.

    and I do know some gay men who have lived like this with their wives for years and years

    Posted by: Chitown kev | Jun 9, 2012 1:11:50 PM


  12. Scott:

    Hey! Thanks for reading. Yes, I read that bit, but I didn't include it in the blog post for two reasons.

    1) The post was getting too long, which will tend to cut down on the number of people who finish it, read the linked article, and dive into discussion in the comments; and

    2) I thought he'd already issued a fine disclaimer with: "I don’t actually think a family with non-biological members is counterfeit in any way." The section you quoted is directed towards gay Mormons, and obviously Mr. Weed thinks that being Mormon is way better than being gay. Which is nonsense, of course, but if he truly believes it I think he's morally obligated to say so, and to stump for his position with all the class and politesse at his disposal. That he's done so isn't, I think, very remarkable.

    Cole:

    Thanks for reading. I think I understand your position, but I respectfully disagree. I think you're correct that disrespecting persons is a terrible idea -- but the systematic disrespecting of bad ideas is how the species slowly, torturously identifies good ones. Mormonism, like faith healing, reparative therapy, Nazism, geo-centrism, etc., is a silly idea worth being called out as such. If it's not silly -- if it is, in fact, the correct idea -- it will be able to withstand the criticism, and eventually win everyone over to its side.

    Hope you're all having a great weekend ...

    - BKT

    Posted by: Brandon K. Thorp | Jun 9, 2012 1:15:51 PM


  13. Note that his "primary" sex is with a woman. So he's an adulterer with men? .. Or a church-approved polygamist with dudes (Mormon)? Not that I care - it's just how he's going to be used (or is being used) to hammer other gay people into thinking that his relationship ought to be the norm. I tire of religion, so damn dumb.

    Posted by: Tom | Jun 9, 2012 1:38:16 PM


  14. ATOMIC - Picayune. Pedantic. Boring and obvious. However ideal no realistic person seriously "expects" others to follow their example. And we don't need yours, or your condescending instruction.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Jun 9, 2012 1:44:13 PM


  15. I know he claims that his sex life is great and I'm sure he and the wife share lovely candle-lit nights of profound intimacy. But given that he discounts passion, attraction, lust and infatuation as not being important components of sex I have to wonder about the "robust" part. I'm sure all the bubble baths and back rubs are nice but sometimes you just want someone to do you on the kitchen table because they have to have you NOW. He's managed to disengage the physical component of the physical act and make it completely a emotional/spiritual/mental exercise. If that's enough for him (and his wife) fine, but I will respectfully maintain that they are only living half a life.

    Posted by: e.c. | Jun 9, 2012 1:46:32 PM


  16. This shouldn't be presented as one of the most "fascinating" things; it should be presented as one of the scariest things. This is just an evolution in the Mormon propaganda machine's assault on LGBT personhood. They're sort of acknowledging the implacability of gay attraction, yet trying to say it doesn't logically connect with a satisfying sex life. For all we know the whole thing could be COMPLETELY made up. He might not actually have same-sex desire...the so-called lesbian therapist may not actually exist. It could be total propaganda. Let's not forget "lying for the Lord" is a tenet of this cult.

    Religions need people have to "skeletons in the closet"; it keeps them subservient and keeps the strong-arm marketing immersed in a receptive audience. (yes, I'm being playfully metaphorical) If gay families are no longer seen as "counterfeit", the Mormons who stay in the church to feed their self-hatred will no longer do so. I see this as another prong in what I'm calling the "summer of hate" - the big-last ditch effort to foment homophobia in the electorate and hopefully contribute to the defeat of Barack Obama. The naivity of some people here is astonishing; you evidently never get out of your warm cocoons of Dupont, West Hollywood, Manhattan, etc. 90% of the people who read this mormon slimebag's website will think "you see, they can change after all".

    Posted by: St. Theresa of Avila | Jun 9, 2012 1:53:11 PM


  17. He's talking bollocks!

    Posted by: Jack | Jun 9, 2012 1:54:51 PM


  18. well said, ATOMIC!

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jun 9, 2012 1:57:54 PM


  19. It's not like that situation is that odd; I know two couples that are monogamously married where the wife knew that the husband was gay right up front. Both guys married women that they loved, and the wanted kids and the social life that a traditional marriage would provide. I sure as hell would never do that (my partner of 20 years and I are both make and perfectly gay), but I guess I can't harsh on their arrangement. I've seen many gay arrangements that are far more unusual (and complicated), and the gay community seems to be willing to support open marriages, swinging, polyarmory, and all kinds of other romantic entanglements. In fact, the only thing I have a problem with with the couple in the article is that they are Mormon...

    Posted by: Tarc | Jun 9, 2012 2:02:37 PM


  20. @ATOMIC, @LittleKiwi...exactly. Some liberals like that anodyne little expression "I respect your beliefs". No, you don't respect their beliefs or you's HAVE those beliefs. You might respect their RIGHT to believe the world is 5000 years old, that the Arc held all the animals, etc. etc.

    BTW the Mormon huckster isn't telling anybody intelligent what they already didn't know. Straight men can have prison sex, this guy can have Mormon sex. Does that make either one "right"? To the poster who said the equipment just wont get started with a woman, try being with the woman and imagining that you can never, ever have sex with a man and if you do you will suffer internal torment in Hell. Let that fester in your brain for you several years, turning you into a borderline sociopath. Now, your equipment might be able to get started!

    Posted by: St. Theresa of Avila | Jun 9, 2012 2:04:09 PM


  21. Am I understanding this correctly? He's f-cking her up the ass - but a couple of times is slid in to make the kids? And what about the children? Has anyone thought about how they're going to explain this to them? Snooze.

    Posted by: Saul Green | Jun 9, 2012 2:06:10 PM


  22. 20 years ago, freshly out and newly moved on Capital Hill, I joined a gay married men's(support for wives included) group and a gay father's group. It shook my world at first to learn there are as many permutations of human relationships as there are people in the wide world. I was especially struck by the number of open, honest marriages gay men had with wives who were on board, but as couples had no intention of ending their marriages over sexuality. It was a milestone for me to learn how complex, creative and fiercely loving our human race can be. It's only coercion of hiding, promotion of bullying, fomenting false shame, tolerating ridicule, promulgation of ignorance and misinformation, the establishment of religious condemnation on the part of the state, liars and their lies, that diminish and twist the potential we have to be our best possible selves.

    Posted by: gresham58dc | Jun 9, 2012 2:07:00 PM


  23. Followning on these comments, I would like to point out that it seems from his blog that Josh has never had sex with a man even though he identifies as gay. So he has nothing to compare his great het sex life with. He is really missing the possibility of a connection so significant, on emotional + physical levels, he cannot comprehend it. He doesn't know what it is to have a physical union with someone that you love and are also atracted to. I know the feeling as I didn't make that connecttion until I turned 40. So he has no standing to make his comments, he is ignornant.

    And I would not care, he can be happy in his own little world, but for the fact that I agree with the many commenters here that this reeks of ex-gay work in sheep's clothing.

    Posted by: Ted | Jun 9, 2012 2:08:32 PM


  24. MORMONITY!!!!!!! can everyone kind of see how this twisted group thinks it has the right to be the ringleaders of blocking Gay marriage? Their religion is their whole life..... And the are afraid that Gay moreholes would want to marry in the temple

    Posted by: Bob | Jun 9, 2012 2:10:17 PM


  25. MORMONITY!!!!!!! can everyone kind of see how this twisted group thinks it has the right to be the ringleaders of blocking Gay marriage? Their religion is their whole life..... And the are afraid that Gay moreholes would want to marry in the temple

    Posted by: Bob | Jun 9, 2012 2:10:21 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 4 5 6 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Man Beats Young Step-Son For Dropping Baseball: VIDEO (UPDATED)« «