Well, maybe "creepy" is a tad harsh, but I just find that people (esp gay men) who willfully deny themselves sex have... issues. I feel the same way about anyone who enters the priesthood, and am always amused when people are "shocked" by stories of priests abusing kids, raping women etc. The priesthood by its very nature attracts guys with a certain, shall we say, psychological profile and that ought to be obvious but most folks are oblivious to it.
Again, I cannot address the specific motivations of why McGreevey has embraced celibacy, or
why he chose to announce it publicly. My comments are general in nature.
The practice of brahmacharya has a history that goes back literally for thousands of years, and
is well-recognized as one of many spiritual techniques. The basic idea is that by not discharging
energy through lower chakras, it can be directed up into higher chakras and aid in the attainment
of enlightened states of awareness (i.e., samadhi). In Western terms, vows of celibacy, as with
vows of poverty and the practice of fasting, are intended to direct one's attention away from
worldly concerns and towards the spiritual realms. Again, there is a long history connecting these
techniques with religious communities.
Apart from spiritual pursuits, there are many other valid reasons for abstaining from sex. There
are people who are separated from their partners for extended periods of time due to military
service, work requirements, school, etc. There are people who remain true to their marriage vows
when their partner is unwilling to engage in sex or unable due to illness. There are people who
chose not to pursue sexual activity because the lack of resources to do so or the availability of
suitable partners. Some may forgo sex to focus on other areas in their lives. As mentioned in
another post, within the normal range of human sexual desire are people who simply have a low
sex drive. This is all just off the top of my head, and certainly there are many more situations that
I haven't thought of.
What I find abnormal is the notion that anyone who through choice or circumstance abstains from
sex is regarded as suspicious. It strikes me as a particularly narrow and uninformed viewpoint.
Perhaps I should not be surprised, as American culture seems to have degenerated into the
glorification of a shallow existence of gratifying every base desire instantly without any regard to
consequence or recognizing that such efforts rarely, if ever, contribute to our long-term happiness
and well-being.
As for the slur on the priesthood, I find it to be as substantiated and as accurate as the fact that,
by their very nature, gay men have certain psychological profiles and are very likely to be
pedophiles... isn't that "obvious" and why are we "oblivious" to it?
