The Balance between Geeky and Bear

Today, I left something that no longer worked for me.  Today, I left something that, while it had good qualities, it also had enough bad qualities to overcome the good.  Today, I found a better alternative to what I'd grown used to.

Today, I left Geeky Bears.  Today, I joined Geeky Bears Redux.

First, let me explain what Geeky Bears is.  Geeky Bears is a Facebook group designed around guys who are both in the bear community and identify as some kind of geek or nerd.  We talk about everything from the newest anime series, to retro video game consoles, to sci-fi series and recent MMO's.  We share memes and images that only a true geek would understand, and it's mostly a fun time for all.

But Geeky Bears isn't just about geeks.  It's also a place where those of us who identify as bears can feel safe about being who we are, both as gay men and as bears.  We can make references to our orientation and preferences when discussing something geeky (such as which comic book characters we find attractive) without fearing being judged.  And this, too, has been a fun experience.

Now let me explain the problem with gay-oriented groups.

Whenever someone creates a group such as Geeky Bears, they have a particular goal in mind for the group.  Typically the goal is to create a group that focuses around the more common part of the group, while providing a safe zone for the latter part.  With Geeky Bears, the goal was to provide a safe atmosphere for those who identified as bears but focus primarily on celebrating being geeks.

However, as often happens in such groups, the smaller part of the group starts to become what the group is more focused on.  In gay groups specifically, we often see what I call a Selfie Swarm, where users post large amounts of selfies, mainly looking for approval from other members.  With groups that aim to provide a safe space for a minority, having some of these selfies in place to create an accepting atmosphere is acceptable.  However, there are times when people post selfies way too often, and usually the administration of a group isn't very eager to strike the selfies down.  As such, more and more people begin posting selfies, because that's what the group is becoming.  Instead of being a geeky-themed group, the group becomes a second Tumblr page.  And those who joined the group for the minority aspect of the group stay with that group.

Others simply start from scratch.  Which is exactly how the group Geeky Bears was formed.

Originally, there was a group called Gay Geeks that had many of the same goals of Geeky Bears, but aimed to provide an accepting environment for all gays, not just a sub-community.  Eventually, however, the Gay part became more important than the Geeks part, and the group devolved into selfie after selfie.  Eventually, some members of Gay Geeks decided they'd had enough of the selfie fest and decided to start their own group, dedicated to sticking to the principles with which Gay Geeks had initially been founded.  Geeky Bears was born.

But over time, Geeky Bears faced the same problems as Gay Geeks.  Slowly, selfies became the norm, drowning out any geek-related posts.  And in a community geared toward bears, the Selfie Swarm became a bigger problem, as there are more bears that face body image problems than most of the gay community.  Seeking an accepting environment, they start posting selfies.  A lot of them.  And the administrators of Geeky Bears allowed it.

Soon enough, some of us decided that the Selfie Swarm was not what we wanted, and we broke off to form our own group: Geeky Bears Redux.  The parallels of our own formation to that of Geeky Bears is not lost on me, or on many of the other members.  We know full well that we could turn into the next Gay Geeks if we're not careful.  I'm a bit worried about whether we'll be able to stick to our goals better than Geeky Bears did.

For right now, though, I feel much better with where I'm at.

Caution with Christians

Yesterday, I checked my email to find that the school I'm transferring to issued a room assignment.  I found the guy I am to be rooming with in the fall on Facebook, and found that he's a Christian.  For most people, this wouldn't be a big deal.  It is for me.  I try not to judge people before meeting them or only knowing them a little while, but this is one aspect of a person that raises red flags for me.  I've been told that I'm generalizing when I have these flags come up, and maybe I am, but when my personal safety is in play, I am cautious with Christians.

The reason why is simple: I'm openly gay.  And the belief that homosexuality is wrong is a common belief within Christianity.  As such, I have to be cautious when interacting with a Christian before I know if he or she believes that homosexuality is a sin or that marriage between two men or two women is wrong.  I have to be cautious because I don't know how the Christian is going to react.  Will he try to beat the living shit out of me?  Will he make a scene and scream things at the top of his lungs?  Will he scold me?  Will he try to convert me?  Will he say nothing but retain involuntary, non-verbal cues that indicate his disgust and/or disapproval?  Before I know his stance on homosexuality, I don't know.  But the fact that he's Christian makes him a lot more likely to believe that homosexuality is wrong.  It's certainly possible that he doesn't believe it's wrong, but again, I have to be cautious.

This caution not only stems from the fact that he has this belief system, but also from personal experience with people who have this belief system and what their behavior was.  I've previously had a housemate who was Christian, and things didn't go over very well.  I came out to him at the beginning of the school year, and he claimed he was okay with my sexuality.  Later in the year, however, he decided to tell me that he wasn't, in fact, okay with my sexuality.  And instead of taking responsibility for his belief, he chose to pin the blame for his belief on God, saying that it wasn't him that wasn't ok with my being gay, but rather it was God.  The sheer lack of personal responsibility on his part is what baffled me the most, and he is far from the first Christian to try to blame their beliefs on God.  Not only that, he tried to use the line "Love the sinner, hate the sin", which says far more about a person than what he was trying to say (see my previous post for more info).  This lack of personal responsibility and belief in one's self to be incontrovertibly right, and its wide spread prevalence in the Christian community, makes me more inclined to be cautious.

As I said earlier, I've been accused of generalizing when I am cautious.  The implication with this statement is that I'm being unfair to the Christian in question, not giving him or her a chance to demonstrate their opinion on homosexuality.  My experience, however, demonstrates that asking the Christian doesn't mean anything.  One second a person will say they're fine with who you are, the next they'll say the opposite.  Asking someone whether they are fine with your sexuality doesn't mean they'll accept you: often, when talking about Christians, this means you'll be barely tolerated.  You won't be able to discuss anything that involves your partner, no matter how benign, without the Christian reacting in a way that signals his or her disgust.  You won't be able to share many parts of your life with the Christian for that reason.  You'll have to censor yourself, and this is not what I want, especially out of someone whom I'm supposed to trust with living under the same roof as myself.

Another implication of the "you shouldn't generalize that person" mantra is the idea that what that person is being judged about is not within their power to change.  If we were discussing someone who was being judged due to their race or gender or sexual orientation, I would agree that generalizing shouldn't occur, as these things aren't under the judgee's control.  Religious beliefs, however, are.  Believing in Christianity is a choice, as is believing in any other belief system.  Even assuming, as I've heard some Christians say before, that they heard God speak to them, the Christians chose to listen to that voice.  They could have easily ignored the voice, but chose not to.  Instead, these people chose to believe in a system where people like me are demonized for being who we are.  And the idea that this demonization is either good or so insignificant as to be irrelevant is something they can, and should, be judged by.

Additionally, I've heard the argument that not all Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong because not all churches talk about homosexuality.  This means absolutely nothing.  Regardless of what a preacher says, a preacher's followers will come to their own conclusions regarding everything the bible says.  Just because a preacher never mentions homosexuality doesn't mean he or she doesn't believe it to be a sin.  The same goes for his or her followers.  Absence of evidence proving the demonization of homosexuality in a church is not evidence of absence.

I have experience living with barely tolerant Christians.  I know the dangers that come with being gay and living with Christians.  I've seen that Christianity is a choice made by the believer, and that said choice doesn't protect a believer from ridicule.  And I've seen that the church a Christian chooses to go to doesn't indicate what their beliefs are.  Do I try to be accepting of Christians?  Of course.  Do I make sure the Christian doesn't believe I'm sinful before trying to be friends with them?  Yes.  But does being cautious, when I have so much evidence and reason behind said caution, make me a bad person? No, it really doesn't.