Being Gay and Mormon

[mutleydog]

After reading the thread concerning certain threads being deleted I thought I would re-start one concerning homosexuality and the church and again ask the question 'should a person be forced to change their sexual orientation?'.

I found a very interesting article concerning gay mormons and thought it a good thread opener.....

http://www.advocate.com/currentstory1_w.asp?id=00758&page=1

[aether]

Oh this topic again.. yikes it can get ugly. Right now I'm kind of weary of discussing this, so I'll just post something that was told to me that sums up what most people think:

A guy(who I don't like much): "The whole 'gay' thing isn't really open for question because God himself said that you can't be gay."

There, ho ho ho. Fight that if you can. (*snarl*)

I'm sorry, I'm bitter.

[dogzilla]

I'm kind of with Misha on this one. This seems pointless and futile to argue again because we have two sides who will never ever see eye to eye. Side 1 thinks that "gay" is a choice or contagious or something and Side 2 thinks "gay" is genetic, much like being left-handed.

So we can go around and around all you want, but you're just spinning your wheels if you think anything of substance will be resolved from opening this debate again.

Semantics Lesson from your Trusty Editor-type:

Just remember kids, sexual preference denotes whether you prefer to use a feather or the whole darn chicken. Sexual orientation denotes whether you are LGBT or straight or poly or whatever...

Have at it.

Oh, and I for one, don't think anyone should be forced to do anything, in general.

[why me]

But the article did make me think. I suppose the lesson learned from all this is not to alienate your son or daughter because of sexual orientation. As a parent this can become very a important issue. It seems to me that the article showed (indirectly) just what kind of mistakes a parent can make in understanding and showing love to the child. LDS families need to become more inclusive and not exclusive in dealing with issues of difference and tolerance. Most of the problems that gay people had in the article had to do with acceptance and certainly a mother, father and other family members can learn acceptance and not rejection. Also church local leaders should be trained in how to deal with this issue from a human perspective and not base all judgement from a spiritual intent.
But lets face it...it is not easy being gay when it comes to religion. Most churches that have the fastest growth are those churches which are strict about the gay lifestyle. In fact, one draw for the catholic church in africa is its anti-gay marriage stance. This is true for the born again faiths as well. And it is not easy being muslim and gay either. And so this is not just a mormon issue.
It is an unfortunate situation for gay men and women, in general. But hopefully I can show a lot of love and understanding of lifestyle if my own girls were gay. And afterall, love does begin at home... :) and this is the lesson of the article at least for me.

[silverfox]

After reading the thread concerning certain threads being deleted I thought I would re-start one concerning homosexuality and the church and again ask the question 'should a person be forced to change their sexual orientation?'.

I found a very interesting article concerning gay mormons and thought it a good thread opener.....

http://www.advocate.com/currentstory1_w.asp?id=00758&page=1


THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!! :)

For starting a new thread!!!!! Hopefully those who have expressed interest in continuing the topic will participate.

[free thinker]

Why are we so afraid of those who are gay? Is it because we fear that perhaps deep in our own libido's lurks some gay desire?

See, I think if you are truly comfortable with your own sexuality, you will not be concerned with the sexuality of others.


A far as the church goes. This is a very, very, powerful organization. Not much different from the Catholic church. When an organization becomes this powerful it's first casualties are individuals. That is just the way it is.
The church has just become too powerful to be considerate of an individual. It has to roll forth, and cover the earth. If it rolls over a few gay people, well that's just the way it goes. :(


Free Thinker

[silverfox]

Great article. A lot of the focus is on how the church claims to not sway their members on how to vote but lots of info is provided to prove otherwies.

From the article.....

Even where its voters are far outnumbered, the church may still exercise the power of the purse. During the 2000 fight over Proposition 22, the ballot measure to outlaw same-sex marriage in California, church leaders urged members to donate money and volunteer. A letter from one church leader, Douglas L. Callister, outlined the LDS strategy: Participation was voluntary, he wrote, but “this is a moral issue, rather than political.” Solicitation of funds, he added, should begin with more affluent members, and “many of these members will be asked to provide telephone and other grassroots efforts near election time.”

Timothy Cavanaugh, development director for Equality California, served as finance director in the unsuccessful campaign to defeat Proposition 22. He recalls, “On Sundays, in church bulletins and publications, it was a high priority to get Mormons to work to ensure that the ballot initiative passed. It was preached from the pulpit. And there were huge amounts of money.”

The considerable LDS effort on Proposition 22 prompted gay state legislator Mark Leno of San Francisco to call for an investigation into the church’s tax-exempt status with the IRS.

I have always been somewhat liberal so I have always had major issues regarding the mix of church and politics.

I remember years ago as a new member specifically being taught to vote Republican. Things may have changed but the church knows how to persuade them members. They are PROs at it.

[dancinfree]

Why are we so afraid of those who are gay? Is it because we fear that perhaps deep in our own libido's lurks some gay desire?

See I think if you are truly comfortable with your own sexuality you will not be concerned with the sexuality of others.


A far as the church goes. This is a very, very, powerful organization. Not much different from the Catholic church. When an organization becomes this powerful it's first casualties are individuals. That is just the way it is.
The church has just become too powerful to be considerate of an individual. It has to roll forth and cover the earth. If it rolls over a few gay people, well that's just the way it goes. :(


Free Thinker

Bravo Free Thinker! I have also found that for myself..now that I'm at peace with my spirituality and my sexuality, I don't feel a need to go demand everyone else feel like I do or be like me...control, control, control. I can express my experiences and the joy I've found but it's not my place to demand that they do the same. :duh

The church has always been a voice for the group and not the individual in these matters. Just think of the WofW. They stay on the side of avoidance at all costs because "most" people couldn't handle the freedom...stay safe...stay away...FEAR, FEAR, FEAR. If we accept homosexuality...we might all turn Gay and then what about those sweet saturday warriors waiting...we would all be doomed... ;) This is what happens as more control is demanded...too bad!

thanks for the posts everyone!!

[flotsam]

This reminds me of something I heard a few years ago. The stake president was speaking. He's a handsome and charismatic man. You can't help but like him. Anyway, he was giving a talk in church and reminded everyone about the gay marriage initiative in Alaska and how it was defeated. Apparently some of the church houses in Alaska had been vandalized during that time. He congratulated everyone on defeating the initiative and bearing up under the persecution. It was all worth it, he said, because now God was blessing the Alaskan saints.

The military was supposed to open a few more bases, or ramp up operations or something so that more people would be coming into the area. He was convinced that many of those people would be Mormons, full of faith and power - and guns :D. So see, we defeated those family-destorying gays and now we get more people transfered to our cold little camp. Yay for us.

I thought it was a really odd train of logic.

Interestingly, with the gubbermint's recent cutbacks, an Air Force base nearby is actually being closed down. I'm sure our Stake President won't bring that little tidbit up as a blessing for maintaining the status quo.

We tell the stories we want to hear.

[dogzilla]

Why are we so afraid of those who are gay? Is it because we fear that perhaps deep in our own libido's lurks some gay desire?

See I think if you are truly comfortable with your own sexuality you will not be concerned with the sexuality of others.

Free Thinker

Got a mouse in your pocket?

-- Dogzilla, who is truly comfortable with her own sexuality and does not give a flip if you like men, women, or sheep. Whatever gets you there... :D

[free thinker]

Got a mouse in your pocket?


I was using we rhetorically not figuratively. Not implying that I spoke for anyone in this forum!!

I will be more aware of how I use the word we in the future!! Bad Free Thinker!! :slap:

Free Thinker

[free thinker]

Interestingly, with the gubbermint's recent cutbacks, an Air Force base nearby is actually being closed down. I'm sure our Stake President won't bring that little tidbit up as a blessing for maintaining the status quo.


Actually the lord didn't follow through on the blessing because the saints in the area were not worthy or faithful enough. Check the home teaching stats!!


Free Thinker

[flotsam]

I've actually had a complex relationship with homosexuality throughout my life. I'm unabashedly hetero - you might even call me flaming. :D But when I was in high school I was very involved in the drama club - spelled by the hicks and jocks: d-r-a-m-a-f-a-g. And it didn't help much that I liked to wear Cure t-shirts, which frequently featured the makeup-bedecked Robert Smith. So I was sailing under the gay flag, even though I didn't pledge allegience to it.

However, something drew me to play gay characters. I remember doing one scene with the Mormonest boy in the school - and we played gay lovers on the way to breakup. Now that I think about it, it seems really odd that that happened. I wonder what happened to that guy? The last time I saw him was probably close to 7 years ago, he was reading a Japanese book of mormon.

Anyway, then I played a character who was accused of being gay and was trying to prove his heterosexuality. Tea and Sympathy. Interestingly, I played the scene with another guy and started to see him as the possibility of a sexual being. It was somewhat disconcerting, but it also fascinated me.

I've always been interested in entering the lives of people unlike me. One of my favorite roles was a fellow in a Eugene O'Neil play - Mourning Becomes Elektra - who had conspired with his sister to kill their mother. There was definitely some sexual undercurrents in that scene between brother and sister. And I noticed them, again with some fascination. (huh, I wonder if we'll see the rise of a movement to support kindredsexual rights: brothers and sisters insisting on their right to marry each other?)

Then during my undergraduate years I was writing for the student newspaper and wrote this editorial that came out sounding pretty anti-gay, even though I didn't intend it that way. I think my basic thesis was: homosexuality is against the law, the law must be obeyed, therefore homosexuals should not practice until that law is revoked. Pretty sophomoric, but I probably was a sophomore.

The article had strange repercussions. Some people really liked it. Others didn't. In particular a teacher who was lesbian. She wrote a letter back critiquing my argument. The editor was really happy, "Finally," he said, "We're getting letters from Ph.D.s!" I also got a disappointed letter from one of my favorite professors.

A few days later I met up with the lesbian teacher in the hallway. We talked about something, I don't remember what, with these ingratiating smiles plastered across our faces. But I realized, that she held the high ground there. She didn't attack me for what I had written and distributed, even though, in a way, I had attacked her.

As time went by I tried to make amends, without mentioning the actual incident. I tried to support her programs. I think I even did an article on her once. But I still feel that little rain cloud following me around, that I let principles, and the desire to seem clever, get between me and actual people.

That might be one of the reasons why I'm so careful when I write about Mormons for publication, and when I'm talking about them with noMo friends. I'm always tempted to come up with that snappy metaphor or phrase to show how silly they are. To distance myself from them. Because I don't want to be thrown into the Mormon catagory - at least, not until Mormons are mainly known for their abundant curiousity, nonjudgmental natures, and willingness to dwell in paradox. But when I try to be clever and dismissive, the little rain cloud comes around and I remember what happened the last time I let principles interfere with my ability to actually see people, the way I could see the characters that I played in high school.

So writing is difficult. I have to throw out all kinds of snappy, clever things. But I'm always willing to own my writing when it goes into the world. I realize that as I avoid the easy theses and pat answers, I find my way into complexity, and that the ascent into complexity is actually the thesis of the piece. Which is good because then, as I grow, I won't have to look back and say, "What an idiot, I used to uphold THAT position?" Instead I'll be able to say, "Huh, look at what I was thinking and feeling back then."

[flotsam]

I don't want to disturb the unity of the post I just put up, but I remembered something else.

You might remember me writing about one of my favorite mission companions, the guy who dreamed of the woman with tusks coming out of her cheeks and clamping onto his face.

Anyway. We had a really interesting relationship. When I first arrived, he was pretty trunky and cynical about life. He told me once, "I don't understand why i just don't take the food I'm going to eat and dump it straight into the toilet for all the good I do. I eat, walk around the city doing nothing valuable, and then poop it out. Why not eliminate the middle man?"

I was sad to see him this way becuase he and I had been in the same district in the MTC. He had been the odd guy. Just out of the army, so he shined his shoes obsessively and did those sit ups where you hang by your legs from the top bunk. He also wore a clip-on tie. Major sin.

Our first month together was hard. We got along just fine, but life did seem pretty banal. We were both pretty old, and neither of us had held any signfiicant leadership position. We kind of felt like we had been put out to pasture. We got very little accomplished and saw little reason to put more work into anything.

But, one day we read this sermon by some guy or other who put together this little formula revolving around obedience and promised that we would baptize like crazy if we follow it. So we wrote to the mission president and told him we were going to try it if he'd keep us together a little longer. Transfer came and we were still together so we jumped in.

I don't remember the details. But whatever we did was a good shot in the arm. Even though we didn't get the results we were looking for, we felt more disciplined and willing to take on new projects.

So we got this new Zone Leader. The kind that really drives me nuts. You know, he comes into the mission and within two months he's a district leader, by six he's a zone leader. And he talks like he's an Amway distributor. Contant leadership man. He had these weekly meetings where he fired everybody up with his new program. The "teach 100 first discussions a week program." See, everyone you talked to, you tried to give a first discussion, even if you did it in two minutes.

The zone went wild, hitting and exceeding the mark. Which sent the mission on its own wildness. But my comp and I were unconvinced. We didnt participate. We said, screw the program, we're just going to be helpful to people for the rest of the month (after which, my companion was going home). We did so. Completely not looking for discussions or potential converts. Just getting to know the people in our boundaries and trying to be helpful. It was great. Pretty much the most productive part of my mission. I treated people like people. Something I did only on occasion during the previous two years.

The rest of the zone hated us, naturally. We were bringing their stats down. We were the crotchety old farts in the corner who had no vision.

But then, strangley. Potential converts just sorta popped up. And by the end of the month, we had three baptisms. THe rest of the zone had a grand total of zero.

I can't pretend that I didn't feel a little - how shall I put this delicately - IN YOUR FACE AMWAY ZONE LEADER! :slap:

Hmmm. I may be contradicting the sage wisdom of my previous post there. So let me say that I'm sure my zone leader was a complex man with raging inner demons of Dystoyevskian proportions.

Anyway, to make a long story longer. My companion and I grew really close over this whole thing. We'd kind of pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps. We had obviously been sent to that area to die like the old dogs we were. But we'd made good.

So here's the interesting part (sorry to make you wait so long). This particular companion was the only companion I EVER wrestled with. I'm just not the wrestling type. I think I exude that type or aura because none of my previous companions had tried to wrestle me, even though many of them probably enjoyed wrestling. But I think this physical contact was a sort of manifestation of the closeness we felt spiritually and emotionally. It sort of had to get out somehow. And it was a joyful experience. To add sexual implications to this whole description, we even wrestled on our beds.

So, I've never wanted to really get intimate with a guy. But I think I can see how it would work. If you're close, if you share a lot, if you go through difficult things together, it probably naturally spills over into the physical part of life.

It sounds kind of like love.

[elder_nomo]

quoting from the article.....

"What has become clear to Cloward and tens of thousands of other GLBT Mormons is the harsh fact that although they may have left the church, the church won’t stop meddling in their lives. While the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention have grabbed the most headlines with calls to “save traditional marriage,” the Mormon Church has quietly become one of the most powerful forces opposing any changes that offer gays and lesbians equality under the law. Not only does it lean heavily on its members to deny their homosexuality and to vote for candidates and ballot measures opposing equality, it’s thought to be spending millions of dollars to support antigay initiatives and politicians."

This is why I speak out against the church - because the church is actively trying to make my life worse. If that earns me the label "anti-mormon", so be it. The church is "anti-me".

[elder_nomo]

It sounds kind of like love.

Flotsam, I want to thank you for these last two very thoughtful and thought-provoking posts in this thread. I think you are a courageous hetero who gets what it's all about. It is about love.

I just realized my "anti" attitude in my previous post might sound like a rebuttal to your careful, less confrontational approach. Not my point at all. In fact I appreciated your posts immensely. Thank you!

[aether]

But I think this physical contact was a sort of manifestation of the closeness we felt spiritually and emotionally. It sort of had to get out somehow. And it was a joyful experience.

I think it's interesting you mentioned this. I myself am a wannabe martial artist, and I've found fighting (or wrestling, in your case) to be a very intimate thing. I'm not sure why that is. I'm not sure I would label it sexual... I'm thinking "balance-ful" maybe, like what Ed talks about. When I practice with my sensei or my test partner, or if I spar with someone, there's a feeling of closeness to that person that I get that I can't get anywhere else. It doesn't matter if they're male or female, I'm usually attracted to them (not just a physical attraction though.. more like.. spiritual? I don't know).

From these karate classes and from other experiences I've determined that people in general are not homosexual or heterosexual.. they're just sexual. I myself crave love and physical intimacy, and if I weren't madly in love with my boyfriend I could just as easily find another girl to share my heart with.

My biological anthropology teacher gave us a lecture about sexuality one time. She said that some people in some university somewhere had done research on a group of people out in an island that no one had ever heard of. Anyway these island people had a culture in which, for the first half of people's lives, they would have emotional and physical relationships with those of the same gender. And then in the second half of their lives they settled down with those of opposite gender to have children and raise a family. What the researches saw were that there were about 6% who didn't fit in. 3% of people either refused to have same-sex relationships, and 3% of people refused to have opposite-sex relationships. The researchers determined that that's how the human race is in general. Only 3% are strictly homosexual and 3% are strictly heterosexual, and the rest of us are at some level in between.

I don't have any sources for this research, and I don't know how valid it is, but if it's true I think it says a lot about ourselves as human beings.

[bigeddy]

Flotsam, your experience is so real to anyone who, despite the fear of labels (homo, fag, etc) can tune into what he/she is really feeling. Closeness is closeness. One type of closeness leads to another and the connectedness from one human to another is what it is all about. If it becomes sexual--in an appropriate way and time--(i.e. it doesn't do harm) then so what? Physical intimacy like the wrestling is part of intimacy and a very important part. Two guys who are hetero will enjoy the physical contact and will not label it as necessarily sexual unless they have been taught to give it that meaning. They just know they enjoy it.

Similarly, Misha, you are free to enjoy the sparring and the connectedness that comes with it on several levels. If it becomes sexual, cool, if it harms none. I believe that women have a greater degree of flexibility in sexual expression. In my experience women seem to move about on the continuum of sexual attraction more than men. So, it would make sense that regardless of who you are fighting you may feel a sort of connectedness that is sexual. Try this; just enjoy the connectedness without trying to figure out whether it is sexual or not and just enjoy. Then if it becomes sexual in its essence you learn that it is not about how you have been taught to interpret intimacy.

Ed

[peter_mary]

What the researches saw were that there were about 6% who didn't fit in. 3% of people either refused to have same-sex relationships, and 3% of people refused to have opposite-sex relationships. The researchers determined that that's how the human race is in general. Only 3% are strictly homosexual and 3% are strictly heterosexual, and the rest of us are at some level in between.

My personal sense has always been that, true to form, western religion has done homosexuality the same harm that they've done so many other things when they made it a "black and white issue." "You are EITHER straight, OR you are gay. There is no middle ground." What Misha is saying, and I really appreciate it, is that sexuality falls on a BROAD continuum, and that the vast majority fall along that continuum in a bell-shaped curve, with only a few of us relegated WAY out there on the strictly gay/strictly straight ends of the spectrum.

We are sexual creatures. More importantly, we are social creatures, and ONE of the ways in which we connect with other folks is sexually. Physical contact increases the intimacy level significantly, and naked physical contact is probably the pinacle of that physical intimacy. But sexual intimacy is only ONE aspect of the intimacy that we enjoy with each other. Turns out, I happen to find the most emotional/social intimacy with women, but I do enjoy a few very intimate relationships with a few men who are unafraid of being close to another man.

Anyway, one of the most useful constructs for me personally as I wrestle with the varieties of human sexuality is this recognition of the continuum...thanks for bringing it up, Misha!

Peter_Mary

[why me]

I think it's interesting you mentioned this. I myself am a wannabe martial artist, and I've found fighting (or wrestling, in your case) to be a very intimate thing. I'm not sure why that is. I'm not sure I would label it sexual... I'm thinking "balance-ful" maybe, like what Ed talks about. When I practice with my sensei or my test partner, or if I spar with someone, there's a feeling of closeness to that person that I get that I can't get anywhere else. It doesn't matter if they're male or female, I'm usually attracted to them (not just a physical attraction though.. more like.. spiritual? I don't know).

From these karate classes and from other experiences I've determined that people in general are not homosexual or heterosexual.. they're just sexual. I myself crave love and physical intimacy, and if I weren't madly in love with my boyfriend I could just as easily find another girl to share my heart with.

My biological anthropology teacher gave us a lecture about sexuality one time. She said that some people in some university somewhere had done research on a group of people out in an island that no one had ever heard of. Anyway these island people had a culture in which, for the first half of people's lives, they would have emotional and physical relationships with those of the same gender. And then in the second half of their lives they settled down with those of opposite gender to have children and raise a family. What the researches saw were that there were about 6% who didn't fit in. 3% of people either refused to have same-sex relationships, and 3% of people refused to have opposite-sex relationships. The researchers determined that that's how the human race is in general. Only 3% are strictly homosexual and 3% are strictly heterosexual, and the rest of us are at some level in between.

I don't have any sources for this research, and I don't know how valid it is, but if it's true I think it says a lot about ourselves as human beings.

This sounds like a postmodern interpretation of sexuality. I cannot buy into the percent thing but it sounds good and tolerant and gives a feeling that each and every one of us has mixed sexual orientations. But people are sexual and most have made a sexual oriented preference. And if this is the case, most people are either hetero and gay and gays are in the minority. This is why gays do claim minority status in society and are struggling for equal rights under the rule of law.

[dogzilla]

This is all so civil and open-minded... Where's the Dissenter?

[why me]

This is all so civil and open-minded... Where's the Dissenter?

Dissenters are in hiding. Is it allowed to dissent when discussing homosexuality without being called homophobic? :) But yes, we should have an open and honest debate about the issue in the newpaper. Maybe we are waiting for you to open the discussion.... :D

[elder_nomo]

Dissenters are in hiding. Is it allowed to dissent when discussing homosexuality without being called homophobic? :) But yes, we should have an open and honest debate about the issue in the newpaper. Maybe we are waiting for you to open the discussion.... :D
Is it allowed to dissent when discussing the mormon church without being called "anti-mormon"? ;)

[free thinker]

So, I've never wanted to really get intimate with a guy. But I think I can see how it would work. If you're close, if you share a lot, if you go through difficult things together, it probably naturally spills over into the physical part of life.

It sounds kind of like love.

Flotsam thanks for these posts. I have some new age music on in the background as I read your posts and write this, and it has created a nice moment. :)

I am hetero also ,but I can say without hesitation that I served with a companion that I truly loved. We worked hard together over a nine month period. The day he was transfered I had some time alone in the apartment, and I wept as I realized how much I was going to miss him. Funny also, because intitialy we had butted heads pretty hard.

He was on of the most guileless men I have ever met. No pretension whatsoever, and he knew how to love. He was not articulate, but when he taught you could feel the sincerity.

Men can easily have a great deal of love for one another. In fact, the bonds, I think, can sometimes be stronger than those with the women in a mans life.

Thanks for the beautifully written and heartfelt posts above.

Free Thinker

[aether]

This sounds like a postmodern interpretation of sexuality.

Just curious.. why is it postmodern to look at things in shades of grey instead of in black and white? Is that what postmodernism is? I don't know anything about it really.

[Born Free]

This sounds like a postmodern interpretation of sexuality. I cannot buy into the percent thing but it sounds good and tolerant and gives a feeling that each and every one of us has mixed sexual orientations. But people are sexual and most have made a sexual oriented preference. And if this is the case, most people are either hetero and gay and gays are in the minority. This is why gays do claim minority status in society and are struggling for equal rights under the rule of law.
why me,

I understood aether to say that sexuality was a bell curve, and not a U curve.

A bell curve would have a minority of exclusive gays and one end, excluse straights at the other end, and the volume in the middle of the curve as bisexual-able given the right context.

I understand from what you said above, that you leave no place for bisexuality; that people are either straight or gay - polarised, black or white.

I have a strong sexual preference - I prefer sex to mowing the lawn, taking out the garbage, picking up dog poop, eating boring food, drinking bad coffee, and poor wine. I definately prefer sex to going to Mormon church meetings and reading Mo literature.

BTW, how did you arrive at hanging the label "post-modern' on aether's post? It was an impressive label, but informed me not one bit on where you were coming from. Do I gather from this that you regard any statistical research as meaningless, or what are you saying?

A statement like "But people are sexual and most have made a sexual oriented preference." says nothing I can sink my teeth into. You dished the research aether recalled, but then pluck a "most people " statement out of thin air. What is your research base?

Personally I have known people who prefer men, women, hairbrushes, calves (as in 'moo'), porno, and even rubber footwear. But then, my research base is a bit narrow.

Daryl

[cactus jack]

AFAIC if they want to be gay, be gay. I don't care. If God doesn't like it, it's not my buisness to tell them. What they do in the privacy of their home or room is not my concern. Personally, I'm not gay. And if you saw some of the things I do.... <a-hem!> :eek: