A Gay Tragedy

this is the republishing of an article written by venarable shrawasthi Dhammika thero with his kind permission. sinhala translation of this post can be found here.


Occasionally someone, usually a young man but sometimes a young women or an older man or women, will approach me and after a few minuets of hesitation or beating around the bush, ask me what the Buddhist position on homosexuality is. When they do I tell then that intentional actions (kamma) modify consciousness and that our kamma conditions our future. Positive intentional acts have positive effects (vipaka) and negative intentional acts have a negative effect. Sexual acts motivated by the usual intentions, feelings and emotions which exist between two people who love each other, would have a positive effect and would not infringe the third Precept, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. I underline this point by saying that Buddhist ethics about sex are primarily concerned with the motives behind out sexual behavior, rather than the gender of our partner. This being so, if two people of the same gender express their love for each other physically there is no good reason why the kamma this creates should be any different from when two people of the opposite gender do the same. Having said this I then try to change the subject, not because I am embarrassed talking about homosexuality, but because I do not like the ‘single issue’ approach to Dhamma. However, a few years ago I had an encounter which made me realize that inquiries about homosexuality, whether from gays themselves or their families, should be given my whole attention. However theoretical or marginal this issue may be to me it is likely to be of considerable import to the people who ask such questions.

A young man named Julian rung me asking if he could come and talk to me about Buddhism. I said he could and on the appointed day and time he came. Julian turned out to be about 20 old, of slight build and with pleasant features. He was well groomed and neatly dressed. He started by asking me a few questions about some aspects of Buddhism but I sensed that these were not really what he was interested in. Finally the question came, “Venerable, can a gay person be a good Buddhist?” I gave my usual reply but it soon became clear that this did not please him. He kept interjecting and expressing doubts about what I said. I answered all his objections but he remained unconvinced. Arriving at a deadlock and not knowing what more I could say I asked him if he was gay. He blushed, cleared his throat and said that he was. Then he told me his story. Since his early teens he noticed that he was attracted to other boys and had a particular interest in woman’s clothes. Horrified by these feelings he kept them well under control. A year ago while doing his national service he had met another soldier who was gay and since that time they had been having a relationship, although a guilt-filled and fugitive one. Once or twice a month they would pool their recourses and book a hotel for the night. He would dress in woman’s clothes, put on makeup and they would spend the night together. For Julian at least, this would be followed by days of self-loathing and resolutions never to do it again. After he had finished telling me this he hung his head and said, “This must be wrong.” “Well,” I said, “some people would find it a bit strange. But from a Buddhist perspective I really can’t see that it is particularly harmful. Satisfying sexual urges is a perfectly natural thing to do and it is acceptable where it does not involve adultery or harming others. The conflict you create within yourself by hating what are completely harmless feelings hurts you much more than being gay ever could. There is no reason why you can’t practice the Precepts – respecting the life, the prosperity and the sexual feelings of others, their right to know the truth and keeping your mind free from intoxicants – while being gay.” He was silent but I could see that I had not been able to still his doubts. Julian visited me two more time over the next two month and our conversations were about the Dhamma in general although we also went over the same territory concerning homosexuality with very much the same results.

Then, after not having seen or heard from Julian for nearly six month I got a call from him. He told me that a famous Taiwanese monk was in town giving a series of talks and that he had managed to get a few minuets with him. He had asked the monk the same question he had asked me and the monk had told him that homosexuality was a filthy, evil thing and that homosexuals get reborn in the lowest hell where they are boiled in excrement for eons. Julian said this with in an almost triumphant tone, seemingly glad that he had proved me wrong or that he had found someone who agreed with him. I asked him what else this venerable monk had said. “Nothing,” he replied. “He was going somewhere and only had a few minuets to talk.”

How often has this happened to me? I have told an inquirer something about Buddhism which I know to be sound, sensible and in accordance with the Tipitaka, they go to another monk who tells them the exact opposite and then they come back to me asking me to explain the anomaly. Then I am stuck with the problem of either saying that the other monk doesn’t know what he is talking about (which is often the case) and appearing to be an arrogant upstart, or biting my lip, saying nothing and letting the person go away with yet another half-baked notion or superstition thinking that it is Dhamma. How often? Very often! In most cases this is just frustrating. In this case it had tragic consequences.

“Look Julian” I said, “You asked me what Buddhism would say about homosexuality and I told you based on my 20 years of studying the Buddhist scriptures and thinking about various issues in the light of the Buddha’s Dhamma. I don’t know what else I can say.” I told him that if he wanted to talk with me at any time he was welcome to do so and then we hung up.

Four days later I was browsing through the paper and a small article tucked away on the eighth page caught my eye. The heading read ‘Man’s Body Found in Park.’ I scanned the article briefly and was about to turn to something else when the name Julian sprung out at me. In an instant my attention was riveted. I read the part where this name appeared and sure enough it was about the Julian who had come to see me. I returned to the top of the article and read it all the way through. Four days earlier, perhaps only a few hours after ringing me, Julian had gone to a park in the centre of Singapore late at night, taken an overdose of sleeping tablets and been found dead the next morning. A suicide note had been found in his pocket but the article did mention what it said. I was overwhelmed by sorrow. The thought of him lying there utterly alone, hating himself and in such despair that he would kill himself almost made me cry. But soon anger was welling up through the sadness and diluting it until it had completely replaced the sadness. I pictured the Taiwanese monk blithely dispensing his ignorant and ultimately toxic opinion before rushing off to give a sermon about compassion or receive the accolade of the crowd. I became so angry that I resolved to write him a letter and tell him what he had been responsible for. Then I thought it would probably be a waste of time. He probably wouldn’t even remember talking to Julian.

It seems to me that most thoughtful people would agree that sex without love is a pretty unattractive thing. Physically, it is little more than ‘exchanging fluids’ as the AIDS awareness literature so delicately puts it. What lifts sex above the fluids exchange level is the motives and emotions behind it – affection, tenderness, the desire to give and receive, the bonds of companionship, fun even. This fits well into the Buddha’s famous statement, “I say that intention is kamma.” Is sticking a knife into someone a positive or a negative action? It depends! If the knife was held by an enraged violent person it would probably be negative. If it is held by a surgeon performing an operation to save someone’s life it would certainly be positive. From the Buddhist perspective, sexual behavior is not judged primarily by the gender of the people involved, by the dictates of a code of behavior drawn up in the Bronze Age or by whether a legal document has been signed, but by its psychological components. Homosexuals are as capable of wanting and of feeling love and affection towards their partners as heterosexuals are and where such states are present homosexual sex is as acceptable as heterosexual sex.

This is a simple and logical truth and it is in accordance with Buddhist teachings but circumstances were such that I was unable to help Julian see it. All his experience had told him that being attracted to people of the same gender is wrong. Those around him had always expressed disapproval towards homosexuality and sniggered at gays. The law (in Singapore) told him that homosexuality is so heinous that it must be punished by 10 years imprisonment, more than for manslaughter. He knew that religious teachers, Christian, Muslim and even some Buddhists, consider it so evil that it will have dreadful consequences in the life hereafter. All this denigration and ignorance prevented him from hearing the gentle, reasonable and kindly words of the Buddha. It caused him inestimable suffering and finally drove him to suicide.
I am reminded of Julian because three weeks ago I represented Buddhism in a seminar on religion and homosexuality at Catholic Junior Collage (Boy! Haven’t Catholic collages changed!). Of the 800 students in the audience I assumed that a certain number would probably be homosexual and may be struggling to understand their feelings. Knowing that what I said may well have something to do with them growing up either happy and well-adjusted or tortured and self-loathing, I did took great care to explain the Buddhist position on homosexuality.

Homosexuality, Buddhism and Srilankan Society

Before we discuss what Theravada Buddhism says about homosexually, it is important to understand that in Buddhism people are encouraged to look into inwardly when seeking guidance or a solution to a problem. In the words of Lord Buddha himself “be a lamp to yourself” which simply means do not search for wisdom outside of yourself, rather you should let your conscience be your guide and it is here that the teachings and scripts of Lord Buddha can be of assistance.

Generally speaking Lord Buddha did not say anything specifically about homosexuality because it has never being an issue, however this is not to say that there was no homosexual activity in the time of Lord Buddha. The Tripitaka (Buddhist scripts) refer to incidents of homosexuality and transexuallity. Specifically the Tripitaka highlights the case of a bhikku (monk) Wakkali who became a monk purely because he was physically attracted to how handsome Lord Buddha was. The Tripitaka also highlights a transsexual incident in which a married man with children was physically attracted to a monk, following this the man underwent metamorphosis and became a female and eventually married a man. Another section of the Tripitaka refers to an incident where a novice monk masturbated a high ordinated monk

While Buddhism itself makes no moral claim on any form of sexual behaviour, regardless of orientation, the vinaya (monastic rules) for monks, does states that monks are not allowed to enter their sex organ to bodily orifices (vagina, mouth or anus). But it makes no distinction between homosexual or heterosexual sex. Essentially monks are expected to be celibate so they cannot engage sex with anyone, including themselves. However it is important to note that the vinaya apply only to monks, there is nothing in the scripts that extend these rules to lay Buddhists.

The most important reference point lay practitioners of Buddhism have for homosexuality or sexual behaviour in Buddhism is contained within the third precept which refers to sexual misconduct. However this precept in itself is insufficient a guide as it makes no distinction in relation to sexual orientation or practice. In order to apply the principles within the third precept to homosexuality, one has to go back to the wider core Buddhist principle of “do no harm” and consider this precept in a holistic interpretation.

When considering the precept of sexual misconduct one can draw some specifics as to what is allowable and not. Issues of rape, adultery and paedophilia can be considered as incompatible with Buddhist teachings as they cause harm to others. Outside of these specificities one has to go beyond both ourselves and the scriptures in seeking a solution as to what is right or wrong in homosexuality, or as the famous Kalama Sutta puts it, “Revelation (anussana), tradition (parampara), the authority of the scriptures (pitakasampada) and one’s own point of view (ditthinijjhanakkhanti) are inadequate means of determining right and wrong.

Whether homosexuality is right or wrong is essentially a question of private morality. Having questioned the conventional basis of morality, the Buddha suggests criteria for making moral judgments. The criteria are what might be called the universalisability principle – to act towards others the way we would like them to act towards us. In the Samyutta Nikaya he uses this principle to advise against adultery. He says: “What sort of Dhamma practice leads to great good for oneself? A noble disciple should reflect like this: ‘If someone were to have sexual intercourse with my spouse I would not like it. Likewise, if I were to have sexual intercourse with another’s spouse they would not like that. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to another, and how could I burden someone with that?’ As a result of such reflection one abstains from wrong sexual desire, encourages others to abstain from it, and speaks in praise of such abstinence.”

So one must abstain from sexual practices which cause others harm. Whether you are gay or straight the most important thing in life is not to create harm and respect others lifestyles without creating them harm, this is a basic foundation of Buddhism as is the philosophy of seeking inner contentment, happiness and ease. Wherever you are and whatever you do, you must learn to accept and love yourself for what you are and feel at ease with yourself, and spread that ease across society.

Conventional modern day Sri Lankan morality is non accepting of homosexuals and homosexuality. The Dalai Lama recently stated that “if you want to be a Buddhist you cannot be a homosexual, full stop” surmises the modern day Sri Lankan approach to homosexuality. However this statement by the Dali Lama is totally without justification as there is nothing in the Buddhist scriptures to support this statement

Sri Lankan morality imposes guilt on homosexuals and Sri Lankan Law punishes it. The role of monks is to provide support to lay Buddhists in their day to day lives, yet currently monks live in fear of advising homosexuals because the may be labelled as homosexuals themselves. Sri Lanka is a Buddhist society and there is no place in the teachings of Lord Buddha for guilt and punishment. So how have we arrived today at the stage where the Dalai Lama can make such unjustified statements and Sri Lankan morality and legalisation opposes and punishes homosexuality?

The roots of this un-Buddhist approach to homosexuality can be traced back to the colonisation of Ceylon. There are stark differences between the pre colonial Ceylon and post colonial Sri Lankan attitude to homosexuality. The Ceylon attitude is illustrated in a 17^th century book by Robert Knox An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon in the East Indies where he draws attention to the then Kings homosexuality. The modern Sri Lankan attitude to homosexuality is reflected in “Funny Boy” by Shyam Selvadurei.

The un-Buddhist excommunication and punishment of openly practising homosexuals in Sri Lanka has its roots in the colonisation and modernisation of Sri Lankan Buddhism. As stated throughout this article the concept of what is right or wrong is based in morality which is directly derived from religion, or in the case in Buddhism, philosophy. The colonial powers brought with them and externally induced to Sri Lanka their own sense of morality derived from their own religion, namely Christianity. In relation to human biological reproduction practices (sex) contrasts can be drawn between the Christian religion and Buddhist philosophy. While the Christian Bible specifically categorises the spilling (spoiling) of Gods seed (sperm) as a sin, the Buddhist Scriptures contain no such reference.

As both Thailand and Sri Lanka share the same variety of Buddhism further analogies can be drawn here. Currently Thailand does not legally or morally punish homosexuality and adopts a more Buddhist approach to the matter preferring to adopt a live and let live philosophy so long as the principle of do no harm is adhered to. The main variable here the fact that Thailand was not subject to colonialism and therefore a purer and more traditional form of Buddhism has prevailed while the Sri Lankan form of Buddhism has been diluted, poisoned and rendered impure by its modernisation along the lines of western principles.

In order for Sri Lankan’s to be considered truly Buddhist they need to find inner ease and be happy with themselves and stop expecting others to live as they wish them to live. In order for Sri Lankan society to truly consider itself a Buddhist nation it needs to stop forcing its people to live as it wishes them to live.

The Buddhist theologians within Sri Lanka have a duty and an obligation to advocate for a return to the traditional and more tolerant teachings of Lord Buddha. It is not only homosexuals who will benefit from this return, the entire Island of Ceylon and all its people will benefit from the tolerance, acceptance, openness and celebration of difference that the Lord Buddha envisioned

this article is republished here with the kind permission of the original authors.

Prayers for Bobby

Some readers of the blog wanted me to post something about gay movies. So fulfilling their wishes I am posting the first movie review.

I am starting with a movie which really touched my heart and made me angry about some of Christian and Catholic Church interpretation of the Bible. This film illustrate how religion when interpreted wrong, can destroy an innocent life. The movie is made from the book Prayers for Bobby: A Mother’s coming to Terms with the Suicide of Her Gay Son by Leroy Aarons. The plot of the book is based on a real story.

After you watch the movie you might want to say a little prayer for thousands of guys and girls like bobby. I did.

you can download the torrent here. Prayers For Bobby

Secret Love

Reading gay stories online is something I do when I have free time. There was a story I like called “Finding Tim” that had a nice song in it. The song is from a 1951 musical, The King and I. it was reproduced many times over the time and was made a film as well. The song illustrates the hidden love between a wife of the Thai king and her secret lover. When I read it, that hit a lot closer to home.

We kiss in a shadow,
We hide from the moon,
Our meetings are few,
And over too soon.
We speak in a whisper,
Afraid to be heard;
When people are near,
We speak not a word.
Alone in our secret,
Together we sigh,

For one smiling day to be free

To kiss in the sunlight
And say to the sky:
"Behold and believe what you see!
Behold how my lover loves me!"

We gay couples have to live like them. We suffer the same way they did. We are afraid to be heard, together we sigh. We all wait for the day that we can kiss in the sunlight and proudly say;

"Behold and believe what you see! Behold how my lover loves me!"

Monogamy, Polygamy (Part 2) According to my Boyfriend

Within the animal kingdom, of which humans are part, with few exceptions, polygamy is the norm with monogamy being the exception. Indeed it could be argued that from a biological reproduction and evolutionary perspective. Monogamy is completely unnatural as articulated in “The Selfish Gene” a book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in 1976. It builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book “Adaptation and Natural Selection”.

However the selfish gene argument only holds true to heterosexual activity and cannot be applied to homosexual activity, for without heterosexual activity there would be no gene pool and hence, the elimination of a species and from the perspective of biological reproduction homosexual activity itself is unnatural. This “biologically unnatural” argument is often put forward by those who oppose homosexuality.

We have to consider that the concept of monogamy is a relatively modern concept and that its existence is a social construct and should be considered to be culturally, socially, geographical, time and possibly politically specific.

Monogamy was originally reserved as the preserve of north western Christian Europe and North America and was spread throughout the globe through various colonial powers via the process of socialisation, or perhaps assimilation. Further it could be argued that the shift from polygamous to monogamous relationships was a means through which the colonial powers brought about social control and instilled a new social order that was conducive to the colonial powers exercising and maintaining overall control and instilling a new order of social and sexual deviance.

By and large the current prevalence and existence of societies and cultures which still practice and condone polygamy are those that have never undergone colonisation by Christian powers, where Christianity is not the main religion or where it adhered to superficially. Examples of cultures and societies which still practice polygamy are those of the Arab and Muslim worlds and north Saharan Africa. Consider that within the Koran a man may take more than one wife, and within the Masi Mara tribes of Kenya and Tanzania a cohort may share in their husbands and wives in the short term absence of those they are married to.

Essentially it is argued that monogamy is:
• Unnatural
• A tool of colonialism to bring about a new social order
• Restricted to Christian cultures or those that have been colonised by Christian powers
• Time, culturally and geographically specific

3 years, 1095 days

Today 12th of November 2009 marks the 3rd year milestone of my relationship. It’s the longest affair I had so far. It’s the longest thing I’ve continuously done so far when I come to think of it. My father says that I can’t do anything longer than 1 month, which is not entirely wrong.

I told him that 3 years for a gay relationship is a lot. He says that 3 years for any relationship is a lot. May be he is right. 3 years means a lot. Just for fun I calculated how many days there for 3 years. Its 1095 days. Suddenly feels like it’s not a lot. It’s strange, 1095 days and 3 years are same but feel different.

Ahhh well who cares, 3 years or 1095 days…… the point is I loved only one guy all that time. That’s a big thing. Isn’t it?

Monogamy or Polygamy?

One of the major reasons that non gay population hates us is because we fags have been stereotyped as polygamous, which most of the time is correct. It is not to say that every homo is polygamous, but most of them are. That’s one of the things I like about it.

A monogamous relationship is very difficult to maintain regardless of its type; hetro or homo. Imagine your food. If you have to eat same thing every day, how will you feel? You will hate it. Regardless how tasty it is or how much you like it, if you have to eat it every day with no change you will hate it. Sex is no different than food. We consume both to fulfill a basic need.

The main food of Sri Lankans is rice. Sometimes I have had rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Most of the time I am having rice for both lunch and dinner. A meal of rice always includes couple of curries. There are much different kinds of curries to go with. Hence it never feels the same. Similarly sex can be boring without some spicy curries to go with.

The roots of monogamy are jealousy and possessiveness. No one can honestly say it has the love part in it. Love for yourself may be but never the love for your partner. Possessiveness and jealousy are very primitive emotions; they have its root back up to the Stone Age where woman considered to be a “thing” that man owns. When you come to think of it; it hasn’t changed much even after thousands of years. The dominating person in a relationship still wants to posses the partner. Possessiveness leads to jealousy which is kind of ok because sometimes it’s hot thinking of your partner being jalousie of you looking at others and so. However it also can leads to domestic violence, which is according to law, wrong if you are straight and “they deserve it” if you are gay.

More of this topic later another day. If you are monogamous, good for you. If you are not monogamous, great can I have your number?

My other half. Black or white?

There are different categories of guys. There are Caucasian, black, Indian, Asian, and Latino. My categorization is not complete and 100% accurate, however for the moment let’s assume it is. If I want to put myself in to one of those categories I will put myself in Indian category. As much as I hate to be called an Indian, I have no choice because when you say Asian mostly it means south East Asians and Chinese.

I m a Sri Lankan who is sexually more attracted to white men. Not that I say no to local guys but if I was given the choice I would choose a white guy over a local. Many Caucasian gay guys have the preference for black, Latino, Indian or Asians. The percentage of inter racial attraction is large enough for a social scientists to research on it. I am not a social scientist but this got me thinking. Is there a social or mental reason for this?

The simplest explanation is that opposite attracts. As simple as it may sounds, opposite can have many definitions. The main oppositeness in a hetro relationship, which doesn’t exist in a homo relationship is the gender. It’s the ultimate opposite. But a gay relationship gender is something they have in common. Having things in common might help to sustain a relationship, but still oppositeness is necessary for the attraction.

A thought flashed in to my mind. Are we trying to fill a gap by choosing a partner from another race? Are we trying to acquire the otherness by widening the oppositeness of our partners? Are we trying to be as close as possible to hetro couples?

I have given one possible explanation for the inter-racial attraction in the knowledge of my wide sweeping generalization. There are many guys who have other reasons for the attraction. For some people it can be as simple as just a preference like the preference of blondes or blue eyes.

Whatever the reason of Caucasians’ preference for Asian, I am happy for it. It got my man attracted to me and me to him, and end of the day that’s all it matters to me.

17 again

Remember those days? When we were care free? We could do anything and everything and we felt like we know everything but knew nothing. 8 years later today, 17 years old guys are more mature than we were at their age.

I am born gay. Since the day I could get my censored up, I had feelings for guys. Even though my wet dreams were always allied with guys, I didn’t have the gay ghost on my head those days. I was trying to understand why I fell like that. I had even decided that this is something wrong with me and found a girl friend thinking that it might help to deal with it. I was 19 when I finally dealt with it and came out to myself. That’s when I found my first boy friend.

Today by the time you are 17, you’ve gone though couple of relationships, Heartbroken several times.

What makes someone mature? Maturity often associated with the age. Older you get mature you will be. That statement is not completely wrong but it is deficient in the key fact of maturity, “experience”. Experience is what makes you a mature guy not age. However with age you get more experience.

Today teenagers face many challenges I didn’t face. Society has changed. When I was 17 there was no ADSL internet. Majority of the population didn’t know what internet is. There were no dating sites, or chat rooms. Even if there were, we were not aware of them. Finding a guy wasn’t easy like today. Even if you find one, you are scared shit to meet. Those days a meeting includes two or more people meet physically. Today you meet online, in Facebook, Hi5 or Orkut.

Mobile phones were not widespread and very expensive. Mobile call charges were unbelievably high. Today I don’t know who doesn’t have a mobile phone. Those days mobile phones were made to make phone calls. Today making a call is least of the worries of a mobile phone manufacturer.

With the dramatic change of society, culture and economy, today’s teenager is more matured. Some of them are mature than we 25 years old guys. Today I met a guy (online) who is 17 but very mature. I gave him the title of the best 17 years old I ever met. I am not sure the change in today’s teenagers is good or bad. One way they are more responsible which is a good thing but, they miss being the care free teenager and have fun.

Do I want to be 17 again….. Yes I do. But not today’s 17. I want to go to my 17 where I had most fabulous time of my life.

Do you have a place ?

I used to chat a lot with guys online. There is a very popular chat room where you can pick gay guys. It isn’t a gay chat room by any means but, it is mostly ruled by gay guys. Or rather guys looking for sex. The first question you will get after the “Hi” or most of the time even before that you will be asked your “ASL”. It stands for the Age, Sex and Location. Once you sort that out, next come the million dollar question.

Do you have a place? Why is it so important?

Sri Lanka being a former colony of England, have inherited the sodomy law from British. The Sri Lankan legal system makes it extremely difficult for us fags and dykes to live openly. The Penal Code based on 19th century British law, states that homosexual sexual activity is a crime. Up till 1995, the subject of this law was only men. However, the 1995 amendment to the Penal Code made it ‘gender-neutral' and now the Penal Code criminalizes both male and female homosexual sexual activity. So we welcomed our sisters legally and officially to the hell in 1995.

In a western country, I am sure the fact that decides if you can get a guy is either your good looks or money. Here in Sri Lanka while those facts matters a great deal, having a place will raise your chances significantly; a safe place where you can have something discreetly. What’s the point of having a six pack and an 8 inch censored if you don’t have a place where you can’t show them off.

As I am still living with parents, I guess I’ll have to choose a guy with a belly and an 5 inches censored over a guy with a six pack and an 8 inch censored, having a place being the deciding fact.

I so want to move out…………

Girls With Balls......................

Little while ago I got a call from my best friend. I picked up the phone and said “hello”.

“You know that slut?” he said. It sounded very urgent and distracted.

“Who? Which one?” I asked.

Then he went on and told me this guy which we both hate has got on to a reality show (American Idol like) and went up until 4th round.

“What?” I was surprised. “I didn’t know he got a talent do anything other than get on his knees.”

So we both started talking about him and boiled out blood on his account for a while. As soon as I end the call, it got me thinking. Why do I hate him? Why do I even care? I haven’t even talked with him. Neither my friend. He is one of the guys who had all, Looks, money, contacts and sex. And he got a big attitude problem which I thought is the reason why we hate him. However more and more I think of it, more and more I refuse to buy that.

Is it because I am jealous? May be its just that.

A hetro guy inherits more from father while homo guys get it good from mother. Fashion for fashion, shopping and creativity are some of the examples to prove my theory. It seems like jealousy is another thing I got from my mom’s side. In Sri Lanka, jealousy considered to be a female characteristic. So am I becoming a girl?

I am not a girlish type of gay guy even though girls and I have many things in common; Guys, shopping and handbags being few of them. I can be bit girlish mostly the why I talk when I am in a safe environment. Nevertheless that is most being funny and as a joke. However the similarity of a gay guy and a girl got me thinking..........

Are we guys becoming “girls with balls?”……..

I better find a way out of this or else my man will see no difference between me and his girlfriend when he was "Straight".

The quest for the Mr. Right.....

Most of guys have this dream of a Mr. Right which is perfect for him. He is handsome. Intelligent, rich and blaa blaa blaa. In many dating profiles I have seen guys say that they are looking for Mr. Right or playing around until he comes along. But the question is, what is the probability of us finding him? How many have found him?

Many guys who are in a relationship will say that they found him although it might not entirely true. Some don't have any other choice than saying they found Mr. Right or they might risk the relationship. However there are some guys who can honestly say they have found Mr. Right including myself.

Here’s the question... is Mr. Right is completely right?

Can a guy be perfect? Can he be the perfect match for me ? 100 %?

If there is anyone who can answer this question with a "Yes" please contact me. Because I haven't found anyone like that so far. I can’t guarantee that my Mr. Right is perfect, but I am not perfect with a long shot either. No one is.

Guys like me who honestly claim that they found Mr. Right have not really found the Mr. Right. It’s rather they have adjust or gave up something or may be lowered the standards to accommodate the one they think is Mr. Right.

Given that thought, the chance of finding the Mr. Right highly determined of our ability of adjusting to mismatches and unexpected. The more we can adjust more easy to find Mr. Right. However this is a bi-directional link. I can’t be the only one who is sacrificing. He should be able to do the same although it shouldn’t start fight. It’s not like "I-gave-up-one-now-you-give-up-one" theory. How, when, who, how much to adjust and scarifies will depend on the time, place and situation.

The fact I being an Asian and my man European has created many differences between us. Culturally we are complete opposite to each other. While he doesn't hold his emotion even in public, we Asians try to hide it in public to save our good face from the society. Culture, religion, or politics, there is nothing we agree on completely. Often the discussions on them will get quite heated. But being the smart and intelligent man he is, indirectly he is teaching me lot of things I don't know together with the heated discussions. As much as I don’t want to accept it, he always wins.
I am a person who never accepts defeat even if I realize I am wrong. One thing I can’t bare is being defeated. With my man I always accept defeat, sooner or later. That’s one of the things I have given up to make my man the Mr. Right. I have given up being the one always right. It might not be a big deal to some people or some might take it as a joke but for me, its hell of a thing to give up.
Think about that while being in the quest of the Mr. Right.