He knew what he was doing.

The man who dates people came forward. He watched it take over the evening. Smooth enough that anyone watching would assume this was just who he was.

There was a warmth in his voice when he asked questions (mostly real, but also produced.) He usually tracks what the other person is thinking. That night, he stayed with what was actually being said.

He wanted to make it stop.

It didn’t.

That’s the frustration I want to address. Or rather a specific shame that emerges, making the problem more difficult.

I can best describe it like this: you understand the pattern, and you still do it. And at some level, that feels like failure.

That self-imposed accusation is based on a flawed model.

But let’s look at a healthier one.

The Evidence Your Brain Collected

There’s a version of this problem, and then there’s a gay-specific version. Conflating them leads to advice that doesn’t translate to gay men.

Let’s briefly distinguish them.

Broadly, knowing why you do something is not the same as changing it. Insight happens within the verbal analytical mind. Old patterns are stored as learned body responses, threat responses, and automatic habits. So even when you understand the pattern, your body may still act as if nothing has changed.

That’s true. It just doesn’t capture how intensely this gets trained in gay men.

Growing up gay in places that often weren’t safe, we built tools. Most of them worked through watching, reading, and calculating. We learned to scan the room before it had a chance to tell us who we could be in it.

The instinct worked...really well. That’s what most people misunderstand.

Why do we do this?

Over time we realize that being alert to threat keeps us safe. So, when something goes wrong in adult life, and the familiar withdrawal starts to take place, the brain resorts to what it trusts most.

The brain’s job is to keep you safe. It doesn’t discard what worked.

This is where the insight problem becomes more entrenched for gay men. You’re reaching for the best-performing tool you have to solve the pattern through better understanding. Your brain has decades of evidence for it. So of course you keep trying to think your way out of something your body learned to do automatically.

Why Doesn’t the Pattern Know What You Know?

One of my subscribers raised this in the comments on “Why Gay Men Can’t Stop Scanning the Room.” He asked if the amygdala fires before conscious awareness. My answer was that it does, but the timing is what matters.

Patterns built under threat run before you think. The body moves first. The explanation comes after.

Think about when last you flinched at an expected, loud sound. We don’t react like that because we consciously decide that is what we’d do that moment. The body reacts. Then the mind catches up and tries to explain it. It feels like muscle memory, just not in your body. In how you respond.

On that date, the man had his analysis arrive downstream of the pattern. He could narrate what had already happened with precision. The narration was accurate. It just didn’t change anything.

Looking back, it seems like we should have known better. Our auto-response is genuinely useful. The nervous system remembers what we experienced early on and responds accordingly. It hasn’t attended your therapy sessions, read the research, or taken in what you’ve learned about yourself.

The nervous system understands the situation through what you’ve lived, not what you’ve concluded. No amount of analyzing will change this. In fact, being constantly alert to threat makes our mental defenses stronger.

What the Body Updates On

A few weeks ago, I wrote “The Gay Man’s Reflex That Knowledge Can’t Stop”. The thesis in that article was that our reflexes continue to react based on what it knows about us. Over time, it collects evidence that staying alert is necessary.

What I want to add is the mechanism. So what happens when new evidence starts to show up?

The pattern runs on a prediction of what will happen. Again, understanding that the amygdala's main purpose is to keep you safe, it runs automatically.

When you stay in the situation and say something real, and the room holds it, the body gets new data. The prediction came back wrong. That mistake matters. It does not register because you understood it better. It registers because something different actually happened.

The man from the opening came back a few weeks later. This was the third date with the same man.

Around eight-thirty, he felt the version of himself that dates people come forward. The questions became more thoughtful. The warmth was something he produced. He recognized the sequence.

Around nine o’clock, he did something unplanned. He put his fork down. He said something unmanaged about being nervous. About liking this person more than expected and not knowing what to do with that. The exact disclosure the performance was designed to prevent.

The other man looked at him and said, “Yeah. Me too.”

The evening changed. It got slower, less orchestrated. The conversation went somewhere new once the performance dropped.

He couldn’t pinpoint when it happened.

Around ten o’clock, he noticed something release in his chest. Not clinical. More like pressure easing. His body had braced for an outcome that didn’t arrive. The room hadn’t ended. The other man hadn’t shifted away from him. The prediction had come back wrong.

The next date felt different. That wrongness got filed somewhere. Still nervous. The performance still came forward. But it came forward into a body with one piece of evidence the analysis had never supplied: that staying past the threshold was survivable. That the room could hold it.

The body doesn’t update on your conclusions. It updates on what happens.

A Subscriber’s Question

Another subscriber left a comment with a flatness I recognized. He didn’t know if any of it could actually change.

That’s not resignation as personality. It’s an honest assessment from someone who has done significant intellectual work and watched the patterns continue. It’s the question this piece is trying to answer.

Yes, it can shift. The way you’ve been trying to produce the shift doesn’t work. Analysis gives the conscious mind accurate information while the body waits for something else: to find out what happens when the prediction runs and reality doesn’t mirror it.

This requires circumstances where staying is possible. A therapy relationship where something different can happen between two people, not just be explained. An internal relationship where you stop treating the pattern as proof that you’ve failed. Conditions where the performance comes forward and the room holds what happens after it drops.

You can’t manufacture those moments through cognitive effort. That part is genuinely outside what analysis can produce. What is in your control is how you understand the gap between insight and change. The gap does not prove permanent limitation. The gap is where most of this work lives: after understanding is complete, in the slower and less legible territory of what the body learns from experience.

Analysis brought you to the door.

What opens it isn’t more thinking. It’s what happens when you stay.

Yes, it’s uncomfortable. It’s also the most precise thing I can offer about what this requires.

Which part landed somewhere specific? Reply and tell me. I read everything.

If you know someone doing the right intellectual work and wondering why nothing shifts, send this to them. It’s an architecture problem, not a discipline one.

Share

Work With Me

If this piece named something you’ve been carrying quietly, you don’t have to keep circling it alone. I offer online therapy for gay men in the UK and Europe. Or The Formation Programme — six structured sessions of pattern recognition work, available worldwide.

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

He’s asleep. You’re not.

Your body hasn’t moved. You’re lying still, breathing at the right pace for someone who should be unconscious by now. But you have been awake for the better part of an hour, running a forensic audit of the evening.

The thing he said at dinner and whether it contained a shift you should have caught. The split-second pause before he laughed at your joke… was that hesitation or just breath?

You’re replaying his face when you said you loved him, looking for microexpressions your conscious mind might have missed. Whether the way he touched your shoulder goodnight was the usual pressure or a degree less committed.

You are three anxiety cycles ahead of where you actually are, constructing threat scenarios from neutral data, lying next to someone who by every available measure is fine.

Some might label it as insomnia, but what’s truly transpiring is surveillance.

And the most destabilizing part: you’re doing it because he matters.

Subscribe now

The Part That Doesn’t Make Immediate Sense

The logic of hypervigilance, taken at face value, suggests it should quiet around people who don’t threaten you. Detection systems calibrated for threat should ease when the threat isn’t present. That’s the implicit promise of finding someone good: that safe means something.

But here is what actually happens, and why it makes a specific kind of sense.

When the stakes are low, you can be relatively present. Losing him wouldn’t cost much. The monitoring can ease because there’s nothing significant enough to protect. You can enjoy the evening with half your attention elsewhere, because it doesn’t matter enough to threaten.

When the stakes are real, when this particular person matters, when you’ve let him in far enough to understand concretely what losing him would feel like, the alarm interprets that as: there is now something worth protecting. And something worth protecting is something worth losing.

So the scanning sharpens.

Not because he’s threatening you. Because you’ve decided he matters. The body treats “this matters” and “this is dangerous” as the same category of signal. Because for a long time, during the years when the calibration was being set, they were.

This is the paradox. And it’s uncomfortable enough that most people stop there, with the logical explanation in hand, and call it resolved.

The more interesting question is what happens next. What does a threat-detection system do when it can’t find the threat?

When the Scan Turns Inward

It doesn’t rest. That’s the answer. It redirects.

When the external threat isn’t available, the hypervigilant mind doesn’t interpret that as safety. It interprets it as: “threat not yet located.”

The silence isn’t reassuring. It’s suspicious. You keep looking.

Only now, with no external target, the scan turns inward. It starts looking at you. For the thing that’s going to make this end. For the version of you that’s going to be correctly assessed eventually and found insufficient.

You stop monitoring him for signs of withdrawal and start monitoring yourself for evidence that you’re the reason he eventually will.

You find your own flaws before he does. You locate the thing that’s going to make this unravel, and you spend the relationship sitting with a low hum of foreknowledge. Not that he’s leaving. That you’re the kind of person who produces leaving.

What you’re protecting, specifically, is the version of you that exists before the correction comes. The one you learned to manage preemptively, pulling back before anyone had to tell you to.

That same skill runs inside intimacy on a delay so short it’s imperceptible. You’re in the middle of something real and already preparing for the moment he realizes what you actually are.

The irony is precise: in trying to preserve the relationship, you make yourself unavailable to it.

A man I worked with described it this way:

“I realized I had never actually been on holiday with him. I was physically there every time. But I was always working.”

Every beach. Every anniversary. He’d been present enough that no one could name what was missing.

His partner could feel it without having language for it.

That’s the specific loneliness on the other side of this: being with someone who is genuinely there and not quite arrived. The warmth is real, the commitment is real, and something still feels held slightly out of reach.

Because it is. The part that would have to stop preparing for loss long enough to actually receive what’s being offered.

This is why the alarm amplifies specifically inside safe relationships. The safety should be disconfirming evidence. It isn’t read that way.

A system trained on danger doesn’t know how to process consistent evidence of its absence. It keeps looking. And since you’re the one variable it hasn’t fully assessed, it starts assessing you.

The Mechanism That Feeds Itself

Here is what makes this particularly brutal: the hypervigilance doesn’t just detect problems. It creates the conditions that confirm its necessity.

When you’re monitoring constantly, reading every interaction for signs of withdrawal, your partner feels it. Not as surveillance, usually. As absence. You’re there but not quite arrived. Warm but slightly defended. Present in body, withheld in some other way they can’t quite name.

And they respond to what they feel. They might pull back slightly. Not consciously, just the natural response to sensing someone isn’t fully available.

Maybe they stop initiating as much. Maybe they’re a bit more careful with their words. They’re adjusting to the distance they’re sensing, trying to give you space, trying not to crowd whatever it is you seem to be protecting.

You notice that shift. Of course you do. You’ve been scanning for it. And your body reads it as: see, I was right to be watching. The threat I was monitoring for is starting to materialize.

What you don’t see clearly is that the distance you’re detecting is the distance you created. The withdrawal you’re tracking is a response to your monitoring, not evidence that the monitoring was justified. You’re reading the echo of your own vigilance and calling it incoming threat.

This is how hypervigilance becomes self-fulfilling. Not through dramatic sabotage; you’re not doing anything obviously destructive. Through the creation of exactly enough distance to confirm that distance is coming. You generate the threat at precisely the scale needed to justify staying alert for it.

The relationship is stable. You’re making it feel precarious. And then using the precariousness you’re creating as evidence that your alarm system is functioning correctly.

If this is your first time here: I write one essay a week about the patterns gay men live but don’t discuss. There’s no self-help framing. Just recognition.

Subscribe for free to get the next one. Upgrade to show your support.

Subscribe now

What the Alarm Becomes

This is the thing hypervigilance does that nobody writes about clearly enough: it doesn’t stay as protection. When it has no external threat to justify itself, it starts generating the threat it was built to detect.

You produce the very thing you’re scanning for. Not through behavior (you’re not sabotaging the relationship in any obvious way.) Through perception.

You create the internal experience of a relationship under threat. You feel the precariousness. You anticipate the ending. And you live in a relationship that by all external measures is stable as if you’re already in the early stages of losing it.

The alarm was supposed to keep you from being blindsided. What it does instead is keep you permanently in the position of someone who is about to be.

The room is safe. You’re the one making it feel otherwise.

And the most honest thing I can offer: knowing that doesn’t make it stop.

What it does is give you something true to sit with the next time you’re awake at 2 am, auditing an evening that didn’t need auditing, lying next to someone who’s sleeping peacefully in a room where no one is coming for you.

The threat you’re scanning for is old. The version of you it was protecting was a kid who needed protecting.

But here’s the part that’s harder to sit with: the kid isn’t the one keeping the alarm running anymore.

You are. Right now. The adult version, the one who knows the room is safe, who chose this person specifically because they’re good. You’re the one who keeps activating a system that was built for a different era, in a different room, for a different kind of danger.

The kid needed the alarm. He was right to develop it. It kept him operational when being correctly seen was genuinely risky.

You’re the one who won’t let him stop running it.

Not because you don’t know better. Because some part of you has decided that staying prepared for pain is safer than risking being caught off guard by it. That living in a relationship as if you’re already losing it is somehow less devastating than being surprised by loss.

It isn’t. It’s just loss spread across the entire duration instead of concentrated at the end. You’re homeopathically dosing yourself with the thing you’re most afraid of, in quantities small enough to be survivable but consistent enough to be constant.

The room is safe. You’re the one making it feel otherwise. And you’re doing it on purpose, even if the purpose is buried so deep you’ve forgotten it’s a choice you keep making.

That’s what you’re actually sitting with at 2am. Not a broken alarm system. A functional one you haven’t given yourself permission to turn off.

Which part of this landed somewhere specific? Reply and tell me. I read everything.

And if you know someone who’s present but not quite arrived, send this to them. They probably don’t have language for it yet.

Share

Leave a comment

Gino Cosme is a gay therapist writing for gay men who are done performing and want to understand themselves more honestly.

If something in this essay landed, that’s usually worth paying attention to. I provide online therapy for gay men across the UK and Europe.

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

He wasn’t angry, exactly. But something in his voice arrived fast and flat, the way a door closes before you’ve finished walking through it.

“I can’t help what I’m attracted to.”

I hadn’t suggested he could.

We’d been talking for twenty minutes about why he kept ending up alone. About the dates that went nowhere. About the particular, quiet exhaustion of someone who is actively dating and still managing to stay effectively isolated.

And then he mentioned, almost in passing, that he only ever pursued men who were white.

I asked about that. One question. Gently, the way you’d note that someone always orders the same thing.

What came back was a wall.

The biology argument arrived first, then the autonomy argument, then the “I just know what I like” argument, each one handed over before I’d had a chance to respond to the last.

His jaw was set. The conversation had taken on a shape I recognized, and it had nothing to do with dating.

It had to do with protection.

This happens in a specific sequence, and the sequence is the thing worth studying.

A friend mentions the pattern. Or a date asks an idle question. Or a therapist notes it without judgment. And before the observation has finished landing, the justifications are already arriving.

Biology. Personal experience. The right to one’s own desire. Three arguments handed over in rapid succession to answer a question that wasn’t an accusation.

That’s the tell. Not the preference. The speed.

Consider what doesn’t happen when someone observes that you tend toward taller men, or that you seem drawn to a particular look. You engage with some combination of amusement and mild curiosity.

You might poke at it yourself, “I don’t know, maybe it goes back to,” or you shrug and say you’ve never thought about it. The preference can be touched and it costs you nothing to touch it.

Now notice what happens when someone observes a preference you hold differently. For some men it’s racial. For others it’s around gender presentation or body type.

The observation is the same in structure, a gentle noting of a pattern. But the response isn’t curiosity. It’s a pre-emptive defense against a criticism nobody made.

That specific gap between what was said and what gets defended against is where all of this lives.

When a Preference Becomes a Structure

Before going further, one thing needs to be said clearly: you don’t need to agree with me about where attraction comes from for this to be worth reading.

The origin question, whether preferences are biological, cultural, or some combination nobody has cleanly mapped, is genuinely unresolved. This piece isn’t trying to resolve it.

The observable thing, the thing you can test against your own experience without accepting any particular theory, is the quality of your relationship to the preference.

Does it give when you touch it? Or does touching it produce a sense of threat?

When a preference becomes defended in the way I’m describing, it has usually crossed into structural function. It’s doing work beyond selection. The work varies by person, but the pattern across years of sessions is consistent enough to describe.

The man who filters out femininity tends to make a particular argument when the pattern is named. It goes something like:

“I’m out, I’ve been out for years. I’ve done the work. Saying I have internalized homophobia because of who I find attractive doesn’t make sense.”

That’s the shape of it. Coming out offered as evidence that examination is complete. As if recognizing desire and understanding what desire is doing are the same work, finished simultaneously. He’s done something real, and costly, and he’s conflated it with something else he hasn’t started.

The man who connects his racial exclusions to a settled hierarchy of desirability uses different language. His defense usually invokes experience.

“I’ve tried. I went on dates. It just doesn’t work for me.”

The past tense is carrying a lot. The preference has been tested and confirmed. The story is closed.

What’s rarely in that account is any curiosity about what “doesn’t work” actually meant. Whether what didn’t work was attraction, or something more ambient. Something about what he was supposed to want that was already decided before the dates happened.

Neither man is lying. Both believe what they’re saying.

The defense feels true from the inside, which is exactly what you’d expect when a preference has been doing structural work long enough to feel like personality.

The Diagnostic

A preference that can be examined with ordinary curiosity is just a preference.

A preference that cannot be examined without producing defensive language, pre-emptive objections to criticisms nobody made, or a faint sense that something important is under threat, that one has been promoted to something more than selection.

Somewhere it got load-bearing. And the intensity of the defense tells you roughly how much weight it’s holding.

The question worth sitting with isn’t whether the preference is right. The question is what it would cost you if it shifted.

If you woke up tomorrow and the pattern was different, if your taste had simply moved, would that feel like new information about yourself? Or would it feel like losing something?

As I’ve written about in Your Shame Thinks It’s Keeping You Safe, shame’s primary function is protective. It designates load-bearing status to whatever is holding together a story about self-worth, then defends that structure against examination because examination feels indistinguishable from collapse.

A preference shame has designated as structural won’t yield to curiosity. It yields to biology, to rights-based argument, to the stated authority of your own lived experience, all of which are ways of ending the conversation before it gets close to whatever the preference is actually doing.

What You’re Actually Defending

The man who filters out feminine men is usually defending a specific distance. Not from femme men in the abstract. From a version of himself he put away at a particular cost, in a particular period, because holding it openly was too expensive at the time.

He doesn’t need to know this consciously. He just knows that seeing certain qualities in another man produces an aversion that has always felt completely natural, the way old survival instructions feel natural because they’ve been running long enough to feel like instinct.

The specific tell here isn’t the preference. It’s the insistence that having come out means he couldn’t possibly have retained anything worth examining. As if the closet was the only place formation happened.

The man whose dating history excludes entire racial populations is often defending proximity to a hierarchy of desirability he absorbed before he had language for what hierarchies were.

His defense tends to be empirical, pointing to experience as evidence. What the empirical account quietly skips is the question of whether the experience was running on a preference that was already decided, and whether decided things tend to confirm themselves.

The man who needs a partner who can pass, who experiences any visible queerness in a date as a dealbreaker, is often carrying an old calculation about safety. Being seen with someone who reads as gay in the wrong room still costs something for him.

The preference is not about attraction. It is about threat management applied to who he chooses to be seen with.

In each case, the preference points at something. As I mapped in The Man You Built Because Nobody Showed You One, the man assembled under pressure tends to build preferences into the architecture without recording that he’s doing it. They become load-bearing quietly.

And then one day someone asks a gentle question and the whole structure responds.

That response is information.

Back to the Room

He sat with the wall up for a moment. I didn’t push. There’s nothing to gain from pushing.

“I just know what I like,” he said eventually.

He does. He knows exactly what he likes. That was never what the question was about.

What I noticed, sitting across from him, was something in the quality of the knowing. How completely settled it was. How little space existed inside it.

Most things we know about ourselves come with some give. Some room for the thing to be slightly different than we remembered, slightly more complicated than we’d told ourselves.

He held this one like a fist.

Not angry. Just closed.

And something in me wondered, the way I do in these moments, what he thought would happen if he opened it.

Until next week,
Gino xx

P.S. If this named something you’ve been avoiding looking at directly, send it to the person you talk to about this kind of thing. Or the person you don’t.

Share

Leave a comment

If something in this essay landed, that’s usually worth paying attention to. I provide online therapy for gay men across the UK and Europe, and coaching for clients in the US and Canada.

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

The Zoom call had gone forty minutes over. My colleague, warm and genuinely curious, asked how I was feeling about the move to Lisbon.

I heard myself answer before I’d decided to.

“Yeah, really good about it. Excited. It’ll be great.”

I was mid-sentence when I caught it.

The performance had already loaded, already started playing.

The words were true in the way that true-ish things are true; somewhere in the general vicinity of my actual experience.

But there was a layer underneath I hadn’t checked before speaking. Something about exhaustion. The specific grief of leaving a city I hadn’t expected to love. The feeling, which I hadn’t named to myself, of not being entirely sure what I was moving toward.

None of that made it out. My mouth got there first.

I finished the sentence. We moved on.

I’ve been a therapist for 10+ years. Years of my own therapy before that, and during it, and still.

I understand the mechanics of this pattern with a precision that occasionally embarrasses me. I can describe the encoding process, the survival logic, the way a reflex that formed under one set of conditions persists long after those conditions have changed.

I still do it. The catch comes, usually, about two seconds too late.

There’s something almost funny about this. And then something that isn’t funny at all.

Here’s what I mean when I say the encoding runs deep for gay men specifically, and why it has nothing to do with people-pleasing in the generic sense.

When a straight kid learns to smooth things over socially, the cost of getting it wrong is usually social. Awkwardness. A weird vibe. Someone thinking less of them temporarily.

The stakes are real but they’re recoverable. The calibration is about reading rooms and managing impressions.

Gay kids were often calibrating against a different kind of threat entirely.

Getting the response wrong, being too slow, showing too much of the wrong thing, letting the real answer reach the surface before you’d edited it: those weren’t social risks.

In many families, classrooms, and adolescent years, the wrong answer meant something much closer to erasure.

Your parents deciding the version of you they’d understood was no longer available to them. A friendship group reshaping itself around an absence. The slow withdrawal of ordinary warmth that teaches you the most efficient lesson possible: that honesty about this particular interior costs more than you can afford.

So you stop paying it.

The acceptable version goes up fast because fast was the only safe speed. You learn to have it ready before anyone asks. Before you’ve even been asked, you’ve already run the room, already mapped the risk, already decided what can be admitted and what needs managing.

And you do this so many times, across so many years, across so many rooms that were and weren’t safe, that eventually the doing disappears. The reflex doesn’t feel like a choice anymore. It reads like perception. This is not your way through the conversation, but instead reading it correctly, responding well, and being good at this.

That’s the gap that professional understanding can’t close on its own.

I know what happened and why. The reflex formed under conditions where it was a genuinely reasonable adaptation. I know this the way I know my own date of birth.

The reflex does not care what I know. It loads at the same speed regardless.

Catching it mid-sentence has a specific texture.

It arrives as a split-screen. You’re saying the words and simultaneously watching yourself say them, and the two versions don’t line up.

There’s a slight wrongness to it, the way a photograph of a familiar room looks almost right but something in the light is off. The angles aren’t matching.

The watching doesn’t slow the sentence down. That’s the part nobody tells you.

You’d think awareness would introduce some pause, some small window. Sometimes it does. More often the sentence finishes on its own because the sentence was already in motion before awareness arrived.

You’re watching from downstream.

You catch it, and the thing you caught has already happened.

What changes over time, gradually, non-linearly, with significant backsliding, is the position of the catch. It moves upstream. Still not ahead of the reflex.

I don’t think that’s a realistic goal, and anyone telling you otherwise is selling a model of change that human psychology doesn’t really support.

But the catch can arrive earlier in the sequence. Not before the performance loads, but before the performance finishes. Sometimes in the gap between loading and speaking.

That gap is two seconds wide, if you’re lucky, and it is the only place in the sequence where something different can happen.

Two seconds is not much. It’s also the difference between having a choice and having none.

What does two seconds actually feel like?

Slightly vertiginous. The mouth is already moving and you’re aware of it moving and you’re also aware that you could let the sentence go where it was going, or you could say something else, and the something else is sitting there available but not comfortable.

Saying the more complicated thing means accepting that the conversation might go somewhere you can’t manage as cleanly. The reflex was offering you a version you’d already stress-tested. Dropping it, even for a sentence, means stepping into unmanaged territory.

That’s the discomfort the reflex was designed to help you avoid. You feel it even when the risk is an emotionally intelligent colleague on a Zoom call asking a benign question about your upcoming move.

The old encoding doesn’t distinguish between that conversation and the conversations it actually learned from. It just runs.

The part I’ve found most useful to understand, and I mean useful in the way that understanding something at 3 am is useful even when it doesn’t fix anything, is what happens to the prediction when you do choose differently.

The reflex was operating on a forecast.

Honesty about the complicated thing costs you something. The room can’t hold the real answer. Someone decides you’re “too much”, or difficult, or suddenly less manageable.

These predictions were accurate once. They were learned under conditions where they were accurate, which is why they encoded so durably.

When you say the complicated thing and the room holds it, the forecast is wrong.

My colleague said, “That makes complete sense,” and laughed and asked a follow-up. The conversation shifted into something slightly more real. Nothing collapsed. The warmth didn’t evaporate. The Zoom call ended the same way it would have ended with me saying, “Really good, excited, it’ll be great.”

Except it didn’t feel the same. I noticed that.

The specific quality of being accurately reflected in a conversation, even briefly, is different from the quality of having successfully managed one. Harder to describe. Something slightly unfamiliar, which I think is actually the point.

The reflex had predicted: don’t risk it. The evidence came back: the risk was survivable. In fact the risk produced something the performance couldn’t.

That evidence accumulates.

It takes a genuinely long time to matter, and I want to be precise about that because most accounts of change compress the timeline in ways that feel aspirational but function as pressure.

The prediction that honesty costs you something was confirmed many times across many years.

One conversation where the room holds it doesn’t overwrite the prior learning. Fifteen conversations might start to soften it. A hundred might genuinely begin to shift what the reflex predicts before it loads.

You’re doing remedial work on a calculation that had years to prove itself. The math is slow.

There’s a version of this piece I could have written that ends with something like: “The pattern loosens when you start gathering evidence.” Which is true but functions as consolation, and consolation is not what I’m going for here.

What I’m going for is this: the reflex keeps loading.

It loaded again about forty minutes after the Zoom call ended, in a different conversation, about something less significant. I caught it later that time. The performance had already finished before the awareness arrived.

That’s the condition of this work.

The catch doesn’t become reliable. The gap doesn’t become comfortable. The old encoding doesn’t retire graciously when you’ve accumulated enough counter-evidence.

It just, sometimes, gets caught earlier. And in those moments where it gets caught early enough to matter, something different becomes briefly available.

Half a second earlier. A two-second window. An honest answer that the room survives.

You gather those. You keep gathering them. The reflex keeps running.

Until next week,
Gino x

P.S. Reply and tell me what the catch feels like for you. Not the insight. The actual two-second texture of it. I read every one.

I work with gay men in therapy across the UK and Europe, and in coaching for clients in the US and Canada. If something in this essay landed, that’s usually worth paying attention to.

If you want to understand where this encodes in the first place, the piece on the self-constructed gay man goes into what happens when you build without a blueprint, and survival was the only available architecture.

And Your Shame Thinks It’s Keeping You Safe traces the forecasting logic that makes the prediction feel rational long after the original conditions have gone.

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

They were at a dinner party. Eight people around a table, good wine, the kind of evening that earns the description “lovely” in the morning. His boyfriend reached across and touched the back of his hand. Casual. Warm. The gesture lasted maybe three seconds.

He told me about it two weeks later.

“I missed it,” he said. “He reached for me and I was somewhere else before I could feel it. Running some kind of check. Is this okay, does this look okay, who’s watching, is he doing this because he means it or because it’s what you do in front of people.”

He paused.

“By the time I came back, he’d already taken his hand away.”

He had never been to a conversion therapy program. He was raised in a household where his sexuality was spoken about exactly once and then never again.

His parents were not cruel. They were the kind of people who communicated disapproval through sustained silence and the strategic absence of curiosity.

That was enough.

The Program Most Men Never Attended

When conversion therapy surfaces in public conversation, it is framed as a specific practice. Residential programs. Licensed “counselors” with religious affiliations. Structured behavioral conditioning.

That framing is accurate as far as it goes.

What it misses is that conversion therapy is the formal, documented version of something that has operated without a name in families, parishes, and schools for generations.

The programs didn’t invent the logic. They systematized it.

The logic is this: same-sex desire is a problem that requires active management. Feel it, and know that what you feel is something to be corrected. Your job is not to experience the desire but to surveil it.

A gay man who sat through weekly sessions with a practitioner trained in reparative therapy received this logic directly.

A gay man who grew up in a household where his attraction was treated as something shameful received the same logic sideways.

Through the conversations that didn’t happen. The way a parent’s face changed when the subject got close. And the understanding, absorbed before he could have articulated it, that desire of this kind required monitoring before it could be permitted, if it could be permitted at all.

The formal programs are worth banning, investigating, and litigating. And the audit they install is not unique to their graduates.

What the Audit Actually Damages

Here is the thing that took me a long time to understand clearly, both in my own life and in the work.

Conversion therapy does damage sexuality. But often the most lasting injury is not in desire itself. It is in what happens when desire is returned.

The audit does not interrupt wanting. Wanting is active. You are the subject. You are doing something, reaching toward someone, and being the initiator of a desire puts you in a position of relative control. You can want and still feel, in some provisional way, safe. Plenty of gay men who went through formal programs went on to want people freely and fully.

What the audit damages is receiving.

Receiving is the other direction entirely. Someone has decided something about you. A man has looked at you and found you worth desiring, worth reaching for, worth staying. And if you were taught, comprehensively, that the thing in you that makes you want them is a defect, their wanting you back becomes genuinely disorienting.

Why would someone reach toward the defective thing?

One of two explanations presents itself to a man running this audit. Either they don’t know what they’re reaching toward; they haven’t seen it clearly yet. Or they know and they’re lying.

The first explanation turns every expression of desire from a partner into something that will eventually be corrected when they see more clearly. The second makes tenderness a transaction with a cost he hasn’t located yet.

Neither explanation allows the touch to land.

This is why gay men who came through conversion therapy programs, and gay men who came through the informal version of the same logic, often describe a specific pattern in their closest relationships.

Chasing while the person is uncertain. Withdrawing the moment the person becomes sure. Feeling most comfortable in the pursuit and most threatened by the arrival.

The pursuit is active. You’re in control. The arrival means someone decided, without you driving it, that you are worth staying for.

And the audit says: wait. Check this. Something here is probably wrong.

When the Wound Feels Like Wisdom

The reason this particular injury is so persistent is not the depth of the original wounding. It is that the audit has successfully disguised itself as something healthy.

Gay men in therapy, years past any program, long out of the households or congregations that installed the original logic, often describe their check as being careful. As knowing themselves. Some even as having learned from experience not to take closeness at face value.

That is not wrong, exactly.

Gay men do have experience that warrants carefulness. Many of them did grow up in environments where closeness came with conditions. While this skepticism may look excessive, it is not irrational. It has a history.

But the audit is doing something more than incorporating that history. It is running that history as current prediction, on people who are not the original source of the injury, in contexts where the original logic no longer applies.

The partner at the dinner party is not the father who went silent. The boyfriend who reaches across the table has not communicated that desire here requires surveillance.

The body has not updated the file.

And because the check feels like wisdom rather than wound, it doesn’t present as something to be questioned.

Careful feels like earned discernment.

The man who misses the touch because he’s running a check does not experience himself as being harmed. He experiences himself as being realistic. As someone who has learned things that naive people haven’t.

I mapped this in more detail in Your Shame Thinks It's Keeping You Safe, where the same rebranding happens, protection presenting itself as perception.

The audit is, in this way, very good at its job. It installs not as a foreign object but as a feature. It becomes part of how a man understands his own judgment.

This is what the legislative debate about conversion therapy, important as that debate is, does not quite capture. The harm is not only in what was done to gay men in those rooms. The harm is in what those rooms, and the households and churches that operated on the same logic, left installed.

A process that runs faster than thought, has renamed itself as self-knowledge, that keeps producing the same outcome regardless of whether the man holding it still believes a single word of the ideology that built it.

What Actually Changes It

The audit runs faster than counter-argument. You cannot think your way past it in real time. By the time a man consciously recognizes that the check is happening, the moment the touch was reaching for has already passed.

What updates the audit is counter-evidence, accumulated slowly, in the body.

Desire being received without consequence. Reaching and finding that being reached for does not end in withdrawal, or judgment, or the thing being used later to locate the flaw. Experiencing, enough times that the prediction starts recalibrating, that closeness here does not follow the pattern the audit was built on.

This is slow work. It requires a relational container where the stakes of being known are genuinely low. That is partly what good therapy provides: not insight into the mechanism; the insight often comes quickly and helps very little. But repeated, consistent experiences of being seen without the seeing being deployed as evidence of deficiency.

The check still runs. But it starts coming back with different results.

He reached for his boyfriend’s hand at the next dinner party. He told me this, then stopped to figure out how to describe what had happened.

“I was there for it,” he said. “The whole three seconds. I didn’t go anywhere.”

He seemed faintly surprised by this. Like he’d expected to miss it again.

Reply or comment and tell me where this landed. I’m genuinely curious which section hit differently for you.

Gino x

I work with gay men in therapy across the UK and Europe, and in coaching for clients in the US and Canada. If something in this essay landed, that’s usually worth paying attention to.

If you know a gay man who has never heard the words conversion therapy but who still checks himself before he can be touched, send this to him. He may not have a name for it yet.

Share

If this landed somewhere specific, reply and tell me where. Or send it to someone still translating himself before he speaks.

Leave a comment

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

Why do I post gay content on Substack?

Because I’m gay. That’s it.

I’m a gay man who writes, so I write about being a gay man. I don’t have a better answer than that. I didn’t choose a niche, draft a content strategy, or decide gay men were an underserved demographic worth targeting.

I am one. So I write from inside that, the way a parent writes about parenthood, or the way a person who survived something writes about surviving it.

That’s the answer. It took about four seconds.

So why does the question keep forming?

There’s a dinner party version of this I’ve experienced a few times. Someone asks what I write about. I say I’m a therapist and I write essays on gay men’s emotional lives. And there’s a particular pause. A small reorganization of the face. Then, usually: “Oh, so like, specifically for a gay audience.”

Nobody does that when I say I write about anxiety, or loneliness, or how people struggle in relationships. Those are just topics. Human topics. Topics with a general admission ticket.

“Gay men’s emotional lives” apparently comes with a different ticket. One that requires you to know whether you’re in the target demographic before you decide if it’s for you.

The topic didn’t change. A subset of people recategorized it the moment they learned it had a queer subject.

That’s the mechanism, and it’s worth slowing down for.

Categorization is doing more work than it appears to be doing.

When something gets labeled “gay content,” it stops being a life and becomes a product category. And product categories operate differently from lives.

You can decide if they’re your thing, appreciate that they exist for others, and move on. The label makes that possible. It creates a shelf, and the shelf is what lets people keep their distance while feeling broad-minded about it.

Nobody questions the craft beer shelf. It sits there without explaining itself, next to everything else that arrived without a label. That’s the whole deal: some things get to simply exist, and some things get filed.

The men writing about money and marriage and the quiet ambitions of middle age: they are simply writing. About their lives. About human experience.

I am, apparently, writing about gay content.

The asymmetry is so familiar that it barely registers anymore. Which is the point, and also the problem.

I want to be precise about what it does to a person to be categorized continuously across a lifetime.

The first thing it does is teach you to pre-translate.

You learn to frame your experience before you offer it. You add the context your straight counterpart has never once had to provide. You walk into rooms already knowing you’ll be read as a category first and a person second, so you start managing that gap before anyone asks you to.

Call it pre-clearance. You run a quick internal customs check: how much of this room can hold your actual experience? You adjust accordingly, before anyone asks you to.

The gay man does this across so many rooms, so many years, that it stops registering as a process. It just becomes how you move through the world. What looks like social ease from the outside is often pre-clearance that has been practiced into fluency.

Some men become extremely good at it. Good enough that the work becomes invisible, which is its own trap.

You disappear the labor so completely that even the people close to you don’t know it’s happening. This connects to what I wrote in The Self-Constructed Gay Man. The adaptations that kept you safe stop feeling like adaptations and start feeling like character.

The second thing categorization does is make your existence feel deliberate in a way that other people’s existence doesn’t.

I am always making a choice to be visible. The straight writer is simply living. That asymmetry compounds.

It means any gay man who lives openly, who doesn’t soften or translate or preemptively shrink, is doing something that reads as intentional where everyone else’s equivalent behavior reads as neutral.

We are always doing something on purpose. They are simply existing.

That difference, accumulated across years, does something specific to how you hold yourself in the world. You become legible in a way other people are not. There’s no version of just walking in.

This is why some men go quiet.

The calculation is straightforward once you’ve run it enough times.

Visibility carries a toll. Some rooms charge more than others. After a while, the calibration becomes automatic, a background process that runs without you consciously running it.

The men who shrink in certain rooms didn’t decide to be small. They learned the math young and the math held for long enough that it stopped feeling like a calculation and started feeling like wisdom.

The problem is that the math tends to keep running past its own usefulness. Men keep editing themselves in rooms that stopped requiring the edit years ago, adjusting to conditions that have changed while the adjustment itself hasn’t.

I wrote about one version of this in Growing Up Invisible, the way the absence of visible gay life in childhood doesn’t just leave a gap, it fills the gap with a lesson.

The lesson being: your kind of life is not what life looks like.

That lesson doesn’t expire automatically. Someone has to keep contradicting it.

I posted a Note this week about being asked, again, why I post gay content. And I think what made that Note land was something more specific than the message.

It was the confidence of the premise.

The Note existed without a pre-apology. Without the half-step back before speaking that queer people learn to make in certain rooms, the implicit acknowledgment that you know you're taking up space that wasn't necessarily offered.

Certain people found that disorienting. And that disorientation is worth sitting with, because it tells you something.

If your comfort depends on queer visibility arriving in a labeled container, on it knowing its shelf and staying there, then queer visibility that simply exists, without the container, without the prior acknowledgment that it understands what it is and where it belongs, is going to feel off.

Too confident. Somehow presumptuous.

That’s the thing the question was really asking, without asking it.

I recall a comment from a man who said I was the first gay person he’d followed on Substack. That seeing my life made his own feel more possible.

I sat with that for a while. There was something in it that didn’t feel like a compliment, exactly. More like a weight.

Because what he was saying, underneath the warmth of it, was that he’d reached adulthood with a gap in the record where an example should have been. And I had filled it, not because I was exceptional, but because I showed up without a pre-apology, and he hadn’t seen that before.

That’s a strange thing to be for someone. You become evidence before you become a person to them. You’re carrying something you didn’t volunteer to carry, and the fact that carrying it matters, that it actually changes what someone believes is available to him, tells you exactly how thin the record still is.

I have heard versions of this for over a decade. In sessions, and in the kind of message someone sends when they’ve finally decided to stop being careful about what they admit.

Men in their thirties and forties who grew up in towns with no evidence that the life they wanted was a life anyone actually lived. Men who built themselves from scratch, without a model to work from, who spent years not knowing if what they were building was possible.

That’s what an openly lived queer life is, when it isn’t packaged as content. A data point someone is using right now to decide if they get to exist out loud.

So: why do I post gay content on Substack?

Because I’m gay and I write, and somewhere a man is recalibrating what he thought was possible, and the more unqualified examples he has, the more his own life comes into range.

And because having to explain that, in 2026, still tells you exactly where we are.

Until next week,
Gino x

If something in this essay landed, that’s usually worth paying attention to. I provide online therapy for gay men across the UK and Europe, and coaching for clients in the US and Canada.

Leave a comment

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

The invitation came through a mutual friend. A rooftop party in a part of the city where the air itself feels more expensive. Four hundred euros for a ticket. A queer charity event, technically. The gay men there had the specific ease of men who have either never calculated whether they could afford the bar tab, or who calculated it once, years ago, and have since built an identity around not having to.

I stood near the edge with a drink I hadn’t paid for, watching.

Something more confused than contempt, which surprised me. Because some of these men had been where I had been. Some had grown up hiding. Some had survived families that would have preferred them gone. And now they were standing in Loro Piana and talking about their second properties in Comporta with the same fluency that I once learned to talk about football. Fluency acquired for survival. Just pointed in a different direction.

That’s what I couldn’t stop turning over. The fluency hadn’t changed. Only the currency.

Subscribe now

When Safety Has a Price Tag

Here is the thing that goes mostly unsaid about some gay men and money.

Wealth, for many straight men, means more or less what it’s supposed to mean. Status. Security. Evidence of a certain kind of competence. It reads as an accumulation of success. For many gay men, money means all of that, and underneath it, something with an older pulse.

It means you made it out.

Poverty and queerness produce overlapping fears. The fear of being visible in the wrong way at the wrong time. The fear of needing something from people who do not wish you well. The fear of having your survival depend on the goodwill of a world that has already demonstrated its limits.

Gay men who grew up working class or economically precarious carry that double exposure without needing to be reminded of it, and money, when it finally arrives, lands as armour in a way it simply does not for people who were always expected to have it. I’ve written about the specific shape that takes in Shame and Safety. Money is one of the ways it resolves, or tries to.

The wallet becomes load-bearing.

This is why materialism in gay male culture has a different texture than materialism elsewhere. From the outside, it reads as vanity. The apartment in the right neighbourhood. The wardrobe assembled with a devotion that most people reserve for something religious. The gym body maintained with the discipline of someone running from something, which some of them are.

From the inside, it often feels like finally being allowed to exist without justifying it.

The apartment says: I have a right to be here. The clothes say: you cannot dismiss me. The body says: I survived, and I have the evidence. These are legible statements of self-protection dressed as aesthetic preference. They make complete psychological sense.

The problem is that armour worn long enough starts to function as identity. And identity built around protection against the old threat leaves very little room for what comes after the threat recedes.

What the Sugar Daddy Is Actually Offering

I want to work with this at its most concentrated expression, because the “sugar daddy” dynamic is where the psychology of money-as-armour becomes most visible, and most misread.

The cliché is contemptuous. Older wealthy man, younger attractive man, an arrangement where desire and money perform the fiction of not seeing each other. The cliché is also lazy, because it describes the surface while missing the mechanism.

When I have sat with younger men navigating these arrangements, the thing I notice is this: they are rarely talking about desire. They are talking about access. The wealthy older man is the private members’ club that wouldn’t have you. He is the dinner table where people discuss their summers in the way that assumes everyone has summers. He is, sometimes, the first person in a long time whose attention felt like it came without conditions.

I’ve sat with men who couldn’t afford therapy at full rate, who were simultaneously spending weekends in apartments that cost more monthly than some people earn in a year. When I asked what they got from it, the answers were almost never about sex. They were about being inside a life that looked safe. The assumption of safety. The furniture of safety. Waking up somewhere that the fear hadn’t reached yet.

The conversation about these arrangements defaults to exploitation, which is a real dynamic and worth naming. It’s also incomplete. Because the younger man is often doing something that makes complete psychological sense given what money came to represent in a life where its absence felt like exposure. He is not performing attraction. He is performing proximity to the thing he was told, implicitly and for years, that he couldn’t have. The wanting is real. What the wanting is actually pointed at is the question worth sitting with.

And on the other side: the older man who finally has the resources to be chosen. Who spent years being the one who wanted and was tolerated. For whom the dynamic is its own armour, the armour of being desirable enough to be pursued, which is a feeling that was in short supply for a very long time.

Two men using the same transaction to resolve two versions of the same fear.

That dynamic doesn’t stay contained to individual arrangements. Scale that up and you get gay communities that quietly replaced “you belong because you survived” with “you belong because you can demonstrate the right kind of survival.” Same armor logic. Just applied to a room instead of a person.

The men sorted out by that shift are experiencing something the language of queer community doesn’t have good words for: grief at being priced out of a space built specifically for people in their position, by people who no longer recognise the resemblance. I’ve written about that pattern in The Connection Paradox.

What’s worth naming here is that the sorting isn’t malicious. It’s automatic. Armor tends to reproduce the conditions that made it necessary.

The Thing the Money Was Always Trying to Buy

The men with money deserve more complexity than a villain reading.

Many of them clawed toward financial security the way they once clawed toward the city. With everything. Because the alternative was going back somewhere that had made its position on them very clear. The money is often still running the program it started in childhood: keep the wrong people out, keep the old fear at arm’s length, buy the version of safety that nobody provided for free.

That program made complete sense. It also doesn’t recognise when the emergency is over.

Here is the mechanism worth understanding. The protection system was calibrated during years of actual threat. It learned, with real precision, how to read a room for danger, how to perform the right version of yourself, how to accumulate enough of the right markers that no one could question whether you deserved to be there.

That system kept you safe.

It also kept running after the threat changed shape. And at some point, the armor stops being something you wear and starts being something you are. You can no longer locate the line between protecting yourself and being yourself, because the protecting has been continuous for so long that there is no self left that predates it.

This is what the accumulation is actually sustaining. The second apartment and the archive wardrobe and the body that is always one training block from complete: all of it confirming it is still intact.

The fear has a floor that wealth cannot reach, so the wealth keeps going, not because more is needed but because stopping would require knowing what you are underneath it. And that question, after this long, feels more dangerous than the original threat.

The intimacy problem follows directly. I’ve written about this in The Intimacy Threshold. Belonging, at its most basic, requires being recognisable. To someone else, and to yourself. What you’ve built makes you unrecognisable in exactly the ways that matter.

Someone gets close and they encounter the performance, the wardrobe, the achieved version, and something in you is waiting for them to find the problem with it. Waiting for the calculation you’ve always assumed other people are running. So you keep a distance that feels like dignity.

The belonging that would require being seen without it stays hypothetical. And the money, which was always a proxy for safety, turns out to have purchased the one thing that makes the original safety impossible to receive.

The tragedy is that the money worked. It bought real safety, in many cases. A life without the specific terrors of before.

The protection system that kept you alive can’t distinguish between the emergency that was and the peace that is. So it keeps running. And you keep accumulating proof of safety in a life where the thing you’re still afraid of stopped being real years ago.

The armor made complete sense when you built it. Understanding that it's still running is the first step toward choosing something different. That's what I work with in therapy for gay men across the UK and Europe, and in coaching for men in the US and Canada

If you recognised yourself in this, you're not alone in it. And recognising it is the first move toward something different.

Until next week,
Gino x

Where did this land for you? Reply with the line that sat somewhere in your chest, or the version of this you’ve lived that I didn’t name. That’s what I actually want to know.

Leave a comment

I work with gay men in online gay therapy in the UK and Europe and in coaching for clients in the US and Canada. If something in this essay landed, that’s usually worth paying attention to. You can find out more about working together at www.psycosme.com.

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

He laughed when his therapist asked what he wanted for himself.

A practiced laugh. The kind that buys time while the brain searches for an acceptable answer.

“I want to stop being so reactive,” he said. Which was technically true. Also not what he asked.

This wasn’t a man in crisis. He had a career, a relationship, an apartment with considered furniture and a plant he hadn’t killed. He had assembled all of it with quiet precision across his thirties, with no original model to work from. He was, by most external measures, doing fine.

He was also gay, which matters to everything that follows.

But something in that question, what do you want for yourself, snagged on something internal he couldn’t locate. Like reaching for a shelf that isn’t where you remember it.

Subscribe now

When the Future Is a Blank Wall

Most men grow toward something. Not consciously. Through exposure. They watch their fathers sustain long marriages, boring and durable. They observe uncles who crumbled, then rebuilt, then crumbled differently. They absorb, over twenty years of watching, some rough shape of what adult manhood might feel like from the inside.

Gay men often grew toward nothing.

There was no template for ordinary gay adulthood. Not settled. Not grounded. Not showing desire that led somewhere sustainable rather than somewhere cautionary.

The futures made visible to us were cautionary, or invisible, or tragic, or so exceptional they felt like performance rather than life.

Over a decade of sessions has taught me that many of my clients experienced not just an absence of representation, but an absence of destination. They didn’t know what they were aiming at. So they aimed at survival, which is not nothing, but is not the same as having somewhere to go.

One man described it this way: he spent his teenage years watching straight male friendships the way a documentary filmmaker watches a foreign culture. Carefully. Taking notes. Not bitterly. He needed to understand the material he was working with, because the material of his own adulthood hadn’t been supplied.

He was studying something most men absorbed by fourteen.

The building started early. And it started alone.

What Gets Built Instead

When there’s no blueprint, you develop compensations. They make sense. They also carry a price tag that takes years to read.

Hyper-independence comes first. If you can’t look outward for guidance, you become the guide. You learn to stop asking, because asking feels like exposing a gap, and gaps were expensive when you were learning to survive the family dinner, to pass in the classroom, to exist in a body with wants you weren’t supposed to have.

You get good at figuring it out. You get too good at it. After a while, figuring it out alone stops feeling like a workaround and starts feeling like character.

Then there’s the self-monitoring. The continuous practice of watching yourself from outside your own body, keeping the performance coherent, catching the edit before anyone else does. It becomes so automatic that the effort disappears.

Which is the whole point, and also the problem. The version of this that shows up in gay male sociality, the contract that makes effort invisible and agreeableness compulsory, is what I’ve been calling the Nice Gay contract.

And somewhere in the middle of all that, the early emotional intelligence. Gay men often read other people’s states with a precision that surprises others. There’s no mystery to it. You develop it when your safety depends on reading the room correctly before the room decides what to do with you.

All three of these things, hyper-independence, self-monitoring, and emotional intelligence pointed outward, were built for threat environments. They work beautifully under pressure.

What they don’t have is a mode for rest. They were never designed for intimacy. You can walk into any room and know within sixty seconds who is safe, what the unspoken contract is, where the tension lives. You can hold yourself together under conditions that would flatten other people.

What you often can’t do is let someone care for you without something tightening behind your sternum. I wrote about where that threshold lives, and what it costs, in The Intimacy Threshold.

What the Building Costs

Here is a moment most self-constructed men will recognize.

You’re at a dinner party. The kind with good wine and people who like you.

Someone asks how you’re doing, genuinely, the way old friends do. And you answer well. Warmly. With enough specificity to feel real. While simultaneously, underneath that, a second process runs: registering the questioner’s expression, adjusting the warmth’s volume, checking whether what you just said was too much or not enough, logging the feedback, recalibrating.

You do all of this without deciding to. It’s faster than decision. By the time you’ve said goodnight and found your coat, you’re tired in a way the wine doesn’t account for.

That’s not social anxiety. That’s two programs running simultaneously in a body that was never given a single-process option.

The external one: composed, readable, appropriate, functional. The internal one: auditing in real time whether this version, this presentation of yourself, is holding. Whether you’ve built enough today to justify the space you’re in. They run together so smoothly that most people around you don’t see them. What they see is a man who seems remarkably at ease with himself.

And there’s something else, arriving later, usually sideways. Grief. Not dramatic grief. The quiet kind that shows up at forty-one on a Tuesday when someone asks a simple question and you find no answer underneath the performance, and the absence of an answer is its own kind of answer.

Grief for the years given over to construction rather than living. For the self-knowledge you never got to develop in the ordinary, low-stakes, slightly embarrassing way that most people do. You learned yourself in crisis conditions. Which means certain parts of you have never been tested at room temperature. You don’t know how they behave without the threat holding them in shape.

The Proof-of-Existence Program

Here is the part that doesn’t come up in conversations about gay resilience, because resilience narratives need a cleaner arc.

Most self-constructed men are running what I’ve started thinking of as a proof-of-existence program. It runs continuously, in the background, largely invisible even to the person running it. Its function is to produce, at all times, sufficient evidence that you deserve to be here. That the space you occupy, the relationship you’re in, the career you’ve built, the personality you assembled from raw materials in your teens, that all of it holds up under scrutiny.

The evidence looks different for different men. For some it’s accomplishment. For some it’s being useful, indispensable, the one everyone calls. For some it’s having the right opinions at the right volume or reading the room well enough that nobody ever looks uncomfortable when they’re with you. The form varies. The function is the same. You are continuously proving a case that most people assume has already been proven.

This is what gets mistaken for confidence. And it does look like confidence. The perceptiveness, the capacity to reinvent, the ease with dislocation, the ability to hold things together when other people are coming apart: all real. All developed in conditions that demanded them. All genuinely yours now.

And all, if you look closely enough, still partly in service of the program.

Men who read rooms accurately learned because misreading was costly. Men who can reinvent without falling apart learned because falling apart wasn’t an option. The intelligence is genuine. So is the emergency logic underneath it. Both things are true simultaneously, which is the specific discomfort of being a self-constructed man in a life that is no longer, technically, an emergency.

Which program are you still running: the accomplishment one, the usefulness one, or the 'read the room perfectly' one?
Comment and tell me.

Leave a comment

There Is No One Underneath

This is the thing therapy sometimes gets wrong about men like this.

The assumption, rarely stated but embedded in the project, is that there’s an authentic self beneath the adaptive layers. That if you work carefully enough, you’ll eventually uncover the person you would have been without the threat. That the real work is archaeological.

For men who built themselves early and thoroughly, that’s a fiction.

There is no untouched layer waiting. The man who learned to read rooms, who became his own witness, who built a portable and reinventable identity out of necessity… that man is not covering anyone. He is someone. The building is not a barrier to the self. For many gay men, the building is the self.

Which changes the question entirely.

The task of adulthood, late adulthood for most of us, is not to stop being constructed. It’s to become the architect rather than the emergency responder. To build, for the first time, toward something you actually want rather than something you urgently needed.

Those are different projects. The first is driven by threat: survive, become legible, make yourself coherent enough to get through. The second requires something the first rarely allowed: a clear enough idea of what you want that you can build toward it on purpose, in relative quiet, without a crisis forcing your hand.

Most self-constructed gay men have done the first project with extraordinary skill. Some of them are now, at thirty-eight or forty-five or fifty-three, beginning to understand that the second one exists. That it’s not about renovation or repair. It’s about, possibly for the first time, being the one who decides what the next room is for.

One man told me recently that he’d realized he was still performing competence for an audience that had left the room years ago. He said it carefully, like he was admitting something he’d been holding for a while.

“What would you do differently,” I asked, “if you knew the audience was gone?”

He thought about it for a long time.

“I think I’d let some things be unfinished,” he said.

That’s the work. Not excavating some authentic self underneath. Not deciding what to keep or discard. Just building, for once, without the emergency making the decisions for you.

Even if what you build is incomplete.

Until next week,
Gino 💙

P.S. If something in this caught you, I want to know which part. Comment and tell me the line that snagged.

I work with gay men in gay men’s psychotherapy in the UK and Europe and in coaching for clients in the US and Canada. If something in this essay landed, that’s usually worth paying attention to. You can find out more about working together at www.psycosme.com.

Leave a comment

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

Gay desire was unavailable before it was anything else. You wanted men for years before you could have them, before it was safe, before there was any realistic prospect of it being returned. That fact has consequences you probably haven’t connected.

Notice what happens in your body when he doesn’t text back.

Not the anxious thoughts (you already know those). The physical thing underneath.

The low-grade hum of wanting that sharpens rather than fades when he goes quiet. The way your attention snaps to your phone not in spite of the silence but because of it. The way he becomes more present in your mind precisely as he becomes less available.

Now notice what you do with that silence.

You start filling it.

You reconstruct the conversation you’d have if he called. You revisit the last time he was warm and run it slightly differently, longer, better. You build a version of him in the gap, and that version is more available than he has ever actually been. More coherent. More yours.

When he finally texts back, the relief is enormous. Out of proportion. Your whole system exhales.

But somewhere in the hours before that text, you were not only anxious.

You were engaged.

Not just waiting.

Participating.

The Argument Nobody Makes Clearly Enough

Most writing on this pattern tells you: you’re choosing unavailable men because unavailability is familiar. Your wiring learned to equate longing with love, so you keep running the same program.

That’s accurate. It stops one step short.

The more precise claim is this: for many gay men, the eroticization of withdrawal isn’t a side effect of the father wound. It is the original shape of gay desire itself, and withdrawal reactivates it.

Here’s why that distinction matters and why it explains the specific outcome, the eroticization of the withheld, rather than, say, compulsive pursuit of hyper-masculine men, avoidance, or promiscuity.

Those patterns exist too. But eroticization of the withheld is specifically produced by this: gay desire, for the men I’m describing, was structurally unavailable for years before it was anything else.

You wanted men before you could act on it, before it was safe, before there was any realistic prospect of it being returned. The desire didn’t just coexist with impossibility. It was forged inside it. Sustained longing in the absence of any realistic prospect of satisfaction was the original phenomenological shape of being gay for you.

So when you finally come out and are permitted to want men openly, the desire pattern you bring with you isn’t want, pursue, obtain, satisfy.

It’s want, persist, elaborate in the absence of, continue wanting despite the gap.

That’s the shape the desire learned. And the man who withholds isn’t incidentally resembling that shape.

He is that shape. In adult form, with better clothes, in a bar you like.

What Gets Fused, and When

Alongside that, a second thing was happening in adolescence.

You needed approval from men. From your father, from peers, from coaches… every male figure whose recognition felt like confirmation that you were real and acceptable.

You worked for this systematically. You watched faces for signals. You performed competence, coolness, whatever the local currency was. You got fluent in reading men’s moods before they could name them themselves.

And here’s where the two things meet.

Both drives, the suppressed desire and the approval-seeking, were calibrated to the same signal.

The face of a man who wasn’t quite giving you what you needed. The man you wanted who didn’t know, or couldn’t know. The father who was warm in patches and elsewhere in the ways that mattered. Both trained you to read absence as information, to find meaning in gaps, to treat withholding as evidence of depth.

When those drives finally get to move openly in adult relationships, they move together. An emotionally available man activates one of them. He offers intimacy.

An emotionally unavailable man activates both. He is the man you desire and the man whose approval you’re still trying to secure. He gives you the original texture of gay desire and the original texture of paternal pursuit at the same time.

That is a double activation. It does not feel like anxiety with a romantic backdrop. It feels, in the body, like intensity. Like proof that something real is happening.

And that is exactly what makes it so hard to see clearly from inside it.

What Eroticization Looks Like From Inside It

I want to be specific here, because vague is how this stays comfortable.

You are in the gap between his texts. You are not just waiting. You are building.

The version of him you construct in the silence is more available than he has ever been in practice.

He is more articulate about what he feels. More present. He chooses you more clearly than the real man has managed. The imagined conversation is better than the real ones. The imagined intimacy has a quality the actual intimacy keeps just missing.

When he comes back, he has to compete with that version.

He usually loses slightly. Not because he’s inadequate. Because the elaborated version was powered by his absence, and absence is an extraordinarily productive creative condition for a nervous system trained since adolescence to make meaning out of unavailability.

This is the thing.

You are not simply tolerating the withdrawal and waiting for the warmth. At some level beneath rational processing, the withdrawal is generative. The silence is where the desire does its most vivid work. The unavailable man is at his most compelling not when he is present but when he is absent and you are constructing him.

I worked with a man I’ll call Eli who recognized this with a precision that took years to arrive at. He had been describing the pull toward someone he’d been seeing on and off for eight months, one week in, one week out, the familiar oscillation.

“I think I like him more when he’s not here,” he said. He meant it as a confession of something shameful. It was actually a diagnosis.

He wasn’t failing to move on. He had built a relationship with his own elaboration of the man, and that relationship was, structurally, more satisfying than the one the actual man could provide. Because the actual man was limited and inconsistent. The constructed man was neither.

The question Eli hadn’t asked himself: how much of what he felt was for the person, and how much was for what he had made of the person’s absence?

(The specific moment where this mechanism trips an alarm inside a relationship that’s already forming is what I explored in The Intimacy Threshold. The constructed-man problem shows up there too, just with more furniture around it.)

The Position I’ll Actually Take

If what I’m describing is accurate, if the desire was encoded in unavailability before you had any choice about it, and if withdrawal now reactivates the original shape of that desire, then insight has a more limited function here than most therapeutic writing admits.

You cannot think your way into finding different men attractive. You cannot understand the eroticization into dissolution. Understanding it may, in the short term, make it worse, because now the elaboration has clinical language attached to it, and clinical language is its own kind of richness.

What breaks this pattern is not comprehension. It is accumulated experience of a different phenomenological shape. Enough time inside a relationship with consistent presence that your system slowly, reluctantly, begins to update what desire feels like when it is not organized around a gap.

That is slow.

There is no equivalent of the sharpened wanting, the anxious productivity, the vivid construction work. Consistent love, in the early stages of encountering it after years of training on its absence, is phenomenologically flat. It does not generate the same interior life. You will not be constructing elaborate versions of the man in his absence because he is not absent in the same way.

Some gay men experience this as boredom. What it actually is: desire learning a new shape.

That learning takes longer than any essay.

One more thing worth naming, because this piece owes it to you.

Some of you are already working the reframe. “He’s not unavailable, he’s just going through a difficult period.” “This is different.” The reframe machine runs fast in people who have practiced it since adolescence, which is most of you.

Notice whether you are describing the man as he actually is, or as you have constructed him.

Those are not always the same person.

(For what lives underneath all this, once the pattern becomes visible and the grief of it arrives, Why Gay Men Stay Lonely goes somewhere adjacent.)

What This Doesn’t Say

It does not say your father is the villain. Many of the fathers I hear about were not cruel. The wound doesn’t require a bad man at the origin.

It requires a gap between what a child needed and what was available, sustained long enough to become the definition of how love with men works.

It does not say you should stop being attracted to complicated people. The problem is not that you like depth. The problem is that you may have learned to read emotional distance as evidence of depth, when distance is sometimes just distance with good aesthetics.

The man who loves you steadily can also be the most interesting person in the room.

You might not recognize that immediately. Because interesting and withholding got filed in the same folder somewhere around the age of fourteen, and the filing system is very fast and very old.

There is no clean landing here. That is the point.

You are not done with this pattern because you have finished reading an essay about it.

What you might be closer to is this: the next time the wanting sharpens in the silence, you have a choice about whether to build. You can notice the construction happening. You can ask what you are making, and for whom, and whether the man who finally texts back has ever been as good as the one you made him in his absence.

He probably hasn’t.

That’s worth sitting with on a Tuesday, when your phone lights up after four days and your whole system exhales before you’ve even read the words.

Until next week,
Gino x

P.S. I’m curious about one thing. Has someone in your life ever told you that you fall for complicated men? Reply and tell me what they got right, or what they missed. You don’t have to agree with them.

That’s the work. Not understanding the pattern better, but accumulating enough lived experience of a different one. It’s what I do in therapy with gay men across the UK and Europe, and in coaching for clients in the US and Canada.

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

You didn’t hear about the divorce from him.

You heard about it at a party, six weeks after it happened, from someone who assumed you already knew. And you stood there with a drink in your hand doing the math.

The diagnosis, three years ago, where he was the first person you called. Before your partner, before your family. The time he sat outside the hospital waiting room for four hours because you asked him to and he just did. The fights you’d had, the things you’d said out loud to him that you haven’t said to anyone else since.

Six weeks. A party. Someone else’s mouth.

You drove home doing that specific kind of arithmetic where you keep getting the same answer but keep checking the sum because the answer doesn’t make sense.

You thought you were load-bearing. You were not.

The friendship is over. You’re not sure he knows it’s over.

That bewilderment, the gap between what you thought the friendship was and what it turned out to be under actual pressure, is where this piece begins.

Subscribe now

What the Exile Response Actually Is

The grief that follows a gay friendship ending often feels wrong in scale. Too large. Too persistent. Too disorienting for something culture keeps calling “just a friendship.”

Here’s what I think is actually happening.

For a significant number of gay men, close friendship isn’t an addition to an already intact support network. It is the network. The thing that filled the space where family of origin was conditional, or absent, or only available for the approved version of you.

The person who was there for the coming out, the bad relationship, the grief your family didn’t understand, and your colleagues couldn’t know about. The one who held the real version of you before you were certain it was safe to have one.

That is a different category of relationship than “close friend” implies.

When that person exits, the nervous system doesn’t file it under social loss. It files it under exile. And exile is not a dramatic word. It’s the accurate one.

It describes what your system already catalogued, once or more than once, before this friendship existed. The conditional welcome from family. The years of editing yourself in rooms that would have punished the unedited version. The particular exhaustion of being let in partially but never fully.

The new loss arrives and the old ones move through it. Your system doesn’t sort cleanly between the sixteen-year-old who learned he wasn’t safe to be known, and the thirty-five-year-old whose best friend didn’t call during the divorce.

This is why the grief is disproportionate to how culture classifies it. It isn’t disproportionate. It’s proportionate to the actual accumulated weight of what that friendship was compensating for.

You’re not overreacting. You’re responding to the real size of what was lost.

Load-Bearing vs. Utility: How to Tell the Difference

Most of us don’t know which kind of friendship we had until something tests it.

Load-bearing friendships have a specific quality. They hold you in the hard version, not just the pleasant one. The friend knew about the thing with your family. The thing you don’t tell people at parties. He didn’t require you to perform fine before you got through the door.

You’ll also recognize them by their absence.

If someone disappears and you feel the gap in your daily scaffolding, not just your social calendar, that was load-bearing. If the loss makes you feel unwitnessed, not just less entertained, load-bearing.

Utility friendships are real. Warm. They genuinely mean something. But they’re built for enjoyment, not emergency.

The actual diagnostic: did this person know something about you that required courage to say out loud? Did they stay when what you said was hard to hear? Did the friendship ask something of both of you, or just provide something?

Those are different foundations.

The confusion most of us carry is that familiarity reads as intimacy. Three years of shared dinners feels like three years of being known. It isn’t, always.

You can know someone’s social geography, their opinions, their ordering habits, their flatmate drama, and still not know their interior. You can be genuinely important to each other and still be each other’s entertainment rather than each other’s structure.

And here’s the part that’s hardest to sit with: the load-bearing can run in one direction.

You can be structural for someone who is supplemental for you, and neither of you knows it until the weight goes on. The asymmetry isn’t malicious. It’s just what happens when two people bring different deficits to a friendship and neither one names it.

Where do you feel this right now? There’s probably a friendship coming to mind. That’s the one.

What Gay Social Culture Produces, Specifically

The pattern isn’t individual. I’ve watched it repeat across enough sessions to know it’s structural.

Gay social scenes, especially city-based ones, are organized around visibility.

The friend who is present, functional, and available for the version of gay life that looks like it’s working gets included. The one who is struggling, who brings the real version of himself, who has needs that require something from the people around him, gets quietly deprioritized.

Not through cruelty. Through a conditioning so old most of us can’t feel it operating.

Queer teenagers who survived hostile environments often did it by learning, with precision, which version of themselves was safe to show and where.

That training doesn’t retire when the environment changes. It moves into adult social life and shapes the friendships you form, the friendships you attract, and the level of depth you unconsciously signal you’re available for.

The friend who doesn’t call usually comes from somewhere that trained him to perform fine under pressure.

Catholic family. Late coming out. A decade of managed presentation before he found gay social life, which then rewarded the same management under different aesthetics.

Calling you, the person who knows the real version of him, would require dropping the performance in the moment he most needs it to hold. So he calls the people who only know the surface. And the surface holds fine.

Gay social culture didn’t create that reflex. But it maintained the conditions where it never had to change.

The Part About Our Own Complicity

It’s a Sunday in November, raining.

You’re at brunch with four people you’ve known for two years. The table is loud. Someone is telling a story about a nightmare date and everyone is laughing and the laughter is real, and you are present for all of it, and also completely alone inside it.

You know these people’s preferences, their opinions, and their ongoing conflicts with their flatmates. You don’t know what any of them are actually afraid of. You’ve never asked. They’ve never offered.

The brunch has been recurring for two years without a single real thing being said.

That’s not their failure. That’s a collective agreement you’re all maintaining.

You manage the depth of your friendships to a level that feels safe, which is usually several floors below actual intimacy.

You keep the conversation at the level of opinion and anecdote because opinion and anecdote don’t require you to be seen, which means they can’t reject what they haven’t encountered.

The substitution of familiarity for depth isn’t an accident. It’s a choice made repeatedly, because depth requires risk, and most of us learned early that risk with other people went badly.

The utility friendship isn’t a lesser version of a real friendship. It’s a rational response to an environment that punished need.

The repair conversation problem is downstream of this.

You don’t avoid it only because vulnerability is uncomfortable. You avoid it because starting one means admitting the friendship mattered enough to be worth the exposure of asking for it back.

Which means admitting you’re someone with friendships that matter that much. Which requires a level of self-disclosure most of us spend decades practicing not to do.

So the friendship thins. You watch it happen. You don’t interrupt it.

And then it’s over, and you’re alone with it. Which is not different from how you were when the friendship was alive.

The Two Conversations

Both require saying something out loud. For most of us, that is the entire obstacle.

If you want to try to repair:

Pick one specific thing. Not a catalogue, not a case file.

“I’ve noticed we’ve been less in touch and I don’t want to let it go without saying something. Something shifted and I don’t fully understand it. Can we talk? Not to build a case. Because I’d rather name it than lose it.”

No historical record. No proof of who reached out more. One question: is this worth one honest conversation?

If the answer is no, or nothing, that’s information too. Painful. But cleaner than the alternative.

If you need to release:

“I’ve been sitting with this for a while. I think we’ve grown in directions that don’t connect the way they used to. I’m not angry. I don’t have a speech. I just think I owe us both more honesty than I’ve been showing up with.”

No magnanimity theatre. No “I hope we can always...” You probably can’t, and both of you know it.

Clean endings are an act of respect.

The slow fade keeps something unresolved, taking up space, returning no warmth. It also keeps you in a story with no ending, which is its own specific damage.

What You Can’t Unknow After

The grief doesn’t last forever. But what it leaves behind is useful, if you let it be.

You now know the difference. Between the weight a load-bearing friendship carries and the weight a utility friendship can manage. You’ve felt both. And you can’t unfeel them.

That knowledge changes what you can accidentally accept going forward. Not because you’ve acquired a new framework. Because something in your body knows the difference now between being held and being entertained, and it won’t mistake one for the other the same way it used to.

That knowledge is the beginning of something. Building friendships that can actually hold the real version of you, not just the functional one, is slower and harder than most people expect. It’s also exactly the kind of work I do with gay men in therapy across the UK and Europe, and in coaching for clients in the US and Canada.

The brunch table will still happen. The utility friendships will still exist, and some of them will be genuinely good. But you’ll know what they are. And you’ll know what they’re not.

That’s not resolution.

It’s something more honest than the confusion you walked in with.

Thank you for reading,
Gino

P.S. Who in your life right now holds the actual weight of you? Not as a standard to measure others against. As information about where you are.

If you enjoyed this post, please tap the Like button below. ❤️ It really does help!

Free subscribers keep the conversation alive. Paid subscribers fund the work. Whatever you do, thanks for doing it.

Subscribe now

Forward it to one friend who’d actually read it, not just “support” it.

Share

I work with gay men in relational therapy for gay men in the UK and Europe and in coaching for clients in the US and Canada. If something in this essay landed, that's usually worth paying attention to. You can find out more about working together at www.psycosme.com.

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

Carlos was 67 when he started taking the salsa classes. Not for exercise or socialization, the way the community center brochure framed it. He went because he’d seen a man there the week before. Salt and pepper beard, laugh lines deep enough to hide secrets in.

At home that night, his husband teased him about it.

“You’re taking dance lessons at 67?”

“Yep.”

“And you’re going back?”

“Yep.”

The conversation died there.

But here’s what Carlos told me sometime later: he wasn’t embarrassed. Not about the desire, not about pursuing it, not about being seen doing something new at an age when most people were accepting decline as inevitable.

The pursuing felt familiar. Hunger felt familiar.

What was new was the absence of that old clench in his chest, the one that used to show up whenever he wanted something.

I keep seeing this pattern.

Gay men in their 50s, 60s, even 70s who suddenly seem to unlock something while everyone else is winding down.

Subscribe now

Muscles You Didn’t Know You’d Built

Michael was 58 when his husband of 22 years left him. Not for someone younger. Just left. Wanted something different, couldn’t articulate what, moved to Berlin and started making pottery. (Berlin. Of course it was Berlin.)

Michael’s friends expected collapse. They watched him the way you watch someone standing at the edge of a cliff.

Instead, he joined a gay men’s book club. Started going to the gym again, but this time without the punishing self-hatred that had fueled his 30s. Traveled to Barcelona alone, had a two-week affair with a hotel concierge, came home, and signed up for Spanish lessons.

Within eight months, he’d started seeing someone new, another man in his 60s who’d been through his own losses.

When I asked what that period felt like, he said:

“Like I’d been here before.”

Not that he wasn’t sad. He was gutted. But the foundational terror that accompanies a life falling apart?

Absent.

Because at 16, he’d already lost everything once when his parents kicked him out. At 29, he’d rebuilt his life after moving cities to escape an abusive partner. At 41, he’d watched his best friend die of complications from HIV.

The muscles you develop from repeated survival don’t atrophy. They just wait.

There’s research on this.

Gerontologists studying resilience in aging populations keep finding this odd pattern:

Better than the models predict. Not because being gay is inherently easier, but because of what researchers call “crisis competence.”

Translation: we’ve already done the hard thing. Multiple times.

We survived coming out in a world that wanted us dead.

Many of us survived the AIDS crisis, watched friends die, and kept living anyway.

We’ve navigated hostile families, discriminatory workplaces, and bathrooms where we didn’t know if we’d make it out unharmed.

We learned early that reinvention isn’t optional. It’s survival.

So when aging arrives with its inevitable losses and changes and the reality that nothing stays the same? We’ve been practicing for this our entire lives.

You can’t teach crisis competence in a workshop. You can’t get it from a book. You either develop it by surviving things that shouldn’t be survivable, or you don’t.

We didn’t ask for it. We built it because we had to.

But it’s ours now.

What Reinvention Leaves Behind

Here’s the thing about surviving impossible situations repeatedly: the body remembers how. Not as trauma (though that’s there too), but as capacity.

The psychological flexibility you needed at 17 to hold “I’m loved” and “I’m in danger” in the same breath? That same ability at 60 lets you hold “I’m aging” and “I’m still becoming” without shattering.

The instinct you developed at 22 for reading rooms, knowing who’s safe before they’ve said a word? At 65, that translates to knowing which friendships feed you and which are just familiar.

The practice you got at 30 rebuilding your entire identity after coming out, after moving cities, after losing the version of yourself you thought you’d be? At 70, you already know how to let go of who you were and become someone new.

I’ve watched older gay men discover kink for the first time at 60. Fall in love with someone completely wrong for them by every logical metric and not care. Move across countries on a whim. Start painting. Learn instruments.

Not because they’re having a crisis, but because the question “what do I actually want?” finally has space to breathe.

David was 71 when he told me he’d started having the best sex of his life. Not because bodies worked better at 71 (they don’t), but because he’d stopped performing.

No more mental checklist of what he was supposed to want, how he was supposed to act, which role he was meant to play.

At some point, the fear of being seen as too old, too fat, too whatever evaporated like water on hot pavement.

“Nobody’s looking anyway,” he said. “And I mean that in the best possible way.”

When you’ve spent decades being reduced to a category or forced into hiding, invisibility can feel like relief.

You’re free to want what you want. Be what you are.

The performance nobody fully bought anyway no longer matters.

There’s this man I see, 68, who started writing poetry for the first time last year. Not because he retired and needed a hobby. Because he finally had words for things he’d been carrying since childhood.

He brought some to session once. I won’t share them here, but they were raw and specific and sometimes clumsy in that way first attempts at honesty always are.

“I spent so long just trying to survive,” he said. “Now I want to see what else I can do.”

That question, what else I can do, is one I work with directly. I work with gay men at every life stage in therapy for gay men across the UK and Europe, and in coaching for clients in the US and Canada.

But here’s what I keep noticing: the older gay men who are thriving aren’t doing it despite their history. They’re doing it because of what that history built.

Not the trauma itself (screw redemptive suffering narratives), but the specific ways impossible situations rewired how they move through the world.

The ability to sit with uncertainty without needing resolution. To hold contradictions that would break other people. To rebuild identity after it’s been shattered and recognize yourself in the mirror anyway. To start over because staying still meant dying. To want things and pursue them even when the world says you shouldn’t.

This is what shows up in later life.

Not as theory. As lived capacity that doesn’t need permission.

Someone in a session called them the Golden Men. Older gay men who survived everything the world threw at them and came out the other side not broken, tempered.

Like gold that’s been through fire.

Not because suffering is noble.

But because when you’re forced to burn away everything that isn’t essential, what remains is distilled. Concentrated. Unshakeable in ways that don’t need to announce themselves.

I see it in the way older gay men I work with hold space for younger ones.

No lectures. No resentment that things are easier now.

Just a quiet, bone-deep knowledge that surviving is its own form of wisdom. That starting over at any age is possible because they’ve done it before. That desire doesn’t have an expiration date unless you decide it does.

Still Becoming

Carlos is still taking those salsa lessons. The man with the salt and pepper beard? They’ve been dating for four months now.

His husband is happy for him (open relationship, negotiated, working).

He sends me updates sometimes. Little snippets of a life that refuses to wind down just because it’s supposed to.

Last week, he told me they’re planning a trip to Buenos Aires. To see where the dance comes from. To learn more. To keep becoming.

He’s 68 now.

The crisis competence he built at 16, at 23, at 34, at 47 (every impossible reinvention he survived) didn’t disappear when the immediate crisis passed. It settled into his bones. Became part of how he moves through the world.

And now, when aging arrives with its inevitable question of “who are you becoming next?”, he already knows the answer isn’t “smaller.”

Most people spend their lives avoiding reinvention. Building walls around a single version of themselves and defending it until death.

We never got that option.

So when 60, 70, 80 shows up asking “are you done yet?”, we already know how to answer.

Not with resignation. Not with clinging.

With curiosity about what we might still discover.

Aging isn’t decline when you’ve spent your entire life practicing reinvention.

It’s just the latest version of a question you’ve been answering since adolescence: who do you want to be now?

Thank you for reading,
Gino

P.S. Where in your body do you feel the difference between “winding down” and “still becoming”?

I work with gay men in gay affirmative therapy in the UK and Europe and in coaching for clients in the US and Canada. If something in this essay landed, that's usually worth paying attention to. You can find out more about working together at www.psycosme.com.

Free subscribers keep the conversation alive. Paid subscribers fund the work. Either way, subscribing (or sharing) helps more than you think.

Subscribe now

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

Your boyfriend is reading on the couch. You’ve been watching him for ten minutes, waiting for him to get bored and check his phone. He doesn’t. Just keeps reading.

Something in your chest tightens.

This should feel good. Isn’t this what you asked for after the last guy who kept you on read for three days, then showed up at 2am expecting sex? After the one before that who said “let’s take it slow” then disappeared the week you met his friends? After a decade of men who treated consistency like a character flaw?

But something about his contentment feels like an accusation. Like he’s doing that peaceful-relationship thing that gay men on social media joke about but nobody actually has. Like he doesn’t know he’s supposed to be more interesting than this.

You open Grindr. Not to hook up. Just to scroll. To see who’s online. To remember what wanting something feels like when it isn’t already yours.

He looks up. “You okay?”

And there it is. The question that pins you to the wall. Because no, you’re not okay. But you can’t explain that his stability makes you want to create chaos just to prove you still know how to navigate it.

The Specific Texture of Growing Up Gay

You learned to perform before you learned to be.

Not perform like drag. Perform like survival. The straight-enough laugh at locker room jokes. The careful neutrality when boys talked about girls. The specific skill of reading a room’s temperature before you walked in, cataloging exits, measuring how much of yourself you could show before someone noticed you were different.

By the time I was fourteen, I could tell you which teachers would defend me and which would look away. Which hallways to avoid during passing period. Which classmates’ laughter meant “funny” versus “target.” Not because I was unusually perceptive. Because gay kids either develop threat-detection or they don’t survive adolescence intact.

Then you come out. Finally. And you expect the vigilance to stop. Instead it relocates. From hiding who you are to managing how you’re perceived in gay spaces. From avoiding bullies to navigating a community that somehow has stricter requirements than the straight world you escaped.

You thought coming out meant you could finally relax. What you got was a new set of metrics to fail: not masculine enough, not fit enough, not young enough, not successful enough, not interesting enough. The straight world rejected you for one thing. Gay men reject you for everything else.

So you learn a different kind of performance. Intensity becomes your resume. Drama proves you’re alive. Chaos demonstrates you’re not one of those boring gays who settled into domestic mediocrity.

And it works. For a while. Until someone arrives who doesn’t need you to perform anything.

The Apps Taught Us What Love Feels Like

Here’s what Grindr does to your nervous system that nobody admits: it trains you that connection should arrive in bursts of notification-induced dopamine, then disappear just as fast.

You learn that desire lives in the gap between “hey” and waiting for a response. That chemistry means someone’s profile still loads when you check at 2am. That passion is measured by how anxiously you refresh your messages.

Early relationships (the intense ones we call “real”) followed the same pattern. He’d text constantly for three days then ghost for a week. You’d have mind-blowing sex then he’d say he “needs space.” The uncertainty made your hands shake and your chest tight and your brain scream THIS MUST BE IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT HURTS.

That was love. Obviously. The straight people with their boring coffee dates and planned weekends didn’t understand. Gay love was supposed to be intense, dramatic, worth writing about. We didn’t survive all that childhood bullshit just to end up in relationships our conservative relatives would find acceptable.

So we chose men who kept us guessing. Who were hot enough that their inconsistency felt worth tolerating. Who disappeared just often enough that their reappearance felt like being chosen. Again and again we got to experience the specific high of mattering to someone who barely knew we existed yesterday.

The apps made this infinite. No need to stay with one chaotic relationship when you could have a hundred people creating low-level anxiety simultaneously. Block one, another appears. Get bored with stability, scroll for novelty. Feel rejected, post a thirst trap, collect validation from strangers who’ll forget you existed by morning.

Your nervous system learned: this is what aliveness feels like. This churning, this uncertainty, this constant low-grade threat of abandonment.

Then someone shows up who answers texts within the hour. Who says they’ll call Tuesday and actually calls Tuesday. Who doesn’t need you to manage their moods or decode their mixed signals or wonder if you’re enough.

And you feel nothing.

Well. Not nothing. You feel bored. Which your brain, trained on twenty years of app-enabled chaos, interprets as “this can’t be real love.”

When Safety Becomes the Enemy

Your vigilance doesn’t just disappear because you found someone safe. It finds new work.

Suddenly you’re noticing things that never bothered you before. The way he dresses is too suburban. His job is too conventional. He drinks beer instead of cocktails. He goes to bed at 10pm instead of staying out until 2am. He wants to spend Saturday organizing the closet instead of going to the Pride event.

You hear yourself saying things like “I just don’t want to be one of those boring gay couples” while picking fights about his refusal to post couple photos on Instagram.

Or you go the other direction. Start suggesting open relationships not because you want to sleep with other people but because monogamy feels too much like assimilation. Too straight. Too suburban. Too much like you’ve been domesticated.

The chaos doesn’t come from him. It comes from you. From the part of yourself that was forged in hostile environments and doesn’t know how to operate without a threat to navigate.

Gay men who grew up performing survival don’t just struggle with safety. We struggle with the fact that safety reveals who we are when we’re not performing. And sometimes we don’t recognize that person. Sometimes we don’t like them.

So we manufacture the danger we know how to navigate. Pick fights. Create tests. Engineer situations where he might leave, because at least abandonment is familiar. At least being left feels like confirmation of something we’ve always known.

At least chaos asks something of you.

What Boring Love Actually Looks Like (And Why It Matters)

The straight world gets boring love as default. Their parents model it. Their movies celebrate it. Their churches bless it. They get to be mediocre together and call it commitment.

We don’t. We had to fight for the right to love at all. Our elders died in a plague while the government looked away. Our relationships still get debated in courtrooms and legislatures. Our families ask when we’re going to “settle down” then refuse to acknowledge our partners exist.

So when we finally get to love someone, there’s this unspoken pressure to make it mean something. To be fabulous enough to justify the fight. Interesting enough to prove we’re not trying to be straight. Dramatic enough that it feels worth all the shit we survived to get here.

Boring love feels like betraying everyone who fought so we could have this.

The revolution wasn’t fought so we could have spectacular love. It was fought so we could have Tuesday morning grocery runs without it being a statement. So we could be uninteresting together and call it home.

Which makes boring love harder, not easier. Because it means all that fighting wasn’t for drama. It was for this. For someone reading on your couch while you spiral about whether contentment means you’ve failed to be interesting enough.

Subscribe now

How Your Body Learns Safety (When Your Mind Still Doesn’t Believe It)

This part isn’t about willpower or positive thinking. Your body has to learn it’s safe to rest. That learning happens through thousands of unglamorous moments where catastrophe doesn’t arrive.

He says he’ll call at seven. He calls at seven. Not 7:43 with a vague excuse. Not tomorrow with “sorry, got busy.” Just seven.

Your body waits for the betrayal. Prepares the hurt. Maps the exit route.

It doesn’t come.

You say something vulnerable, not confessional, just honest, and he doesn’t leave. Doesn’t weaponize it later. Doesn’t make it about him. Your body braces for punishment that never arrives.

This is how nervous systems update. Not through insight or conversation. Through pattern disruption. Through evidence that safety might actually exist.

The Grief Nobody Talks About

There’s loss here that nobody prepares you for.

The version of yourself who could navigate chaos, who felt most competent when everything was falling apart, who knew exactly how to manage someone else’s emotional crisis because you’d been doing it since childhood. That person was remarkable. The skills required to survive hostile environments while maintaining any sense of self? That’s not weakness. That’s architecture.

But here’s what they don’t tell you about healing: you don’t get to keep your superpowers.

The hypervigilance that kept you safe becomes the thing that sabotages safety. The emotional intelligence you developed to predict your father’s moods or decode locker room threats has nowhere to go when your boyfriend just… says what he means. The performance skills that got you through adolescence feel useless when someone wants you, not your curated version.

I had a conversation with a client who’d been in a stable relationship for six months. First healthy one of his life. He was crying but couldn’t explain why.

Finally:

“I don’t know who I am when I’m not fixing someone. When he doesn’t need me to manage his anxiety or decode his silences or prove I’m worth keeping. I just… exist. And I have no idea how to do that.”

We sat with that for a while.

“Everyone says I should be happy,” he said. “That I finally found someone good. But I feel like I’m disappearing. Like all the things that made me me (the vigilance, the emotional radar, the ability to navigate chaos), they’re all useless now. Who am I if I’m not performing?”

That’s the specific grief of late-blooming safety. Straight people usually get boring love in their twenties, when they’re still figuring out who they are anyway. Gay men often get it in their thirties or forties, after decades of building an identity around surviving chaos.

By the time you find someone stable, you’ve become someone who doesn’t know how to be boring. Your whole sense of self is wrapped up in being interesting enough, entertaining enough, managing enough to be worth keeping. Calm domesticity feels like death because it means everything you learned to be is suddenly irrelevant.

And nobody tells you this. Everyone just congratulates you on “finally finding a good one” while you’re privately grieving the loss of your crisis-competent self.

That grief is real and it deserves proper space, not just a partner who means well. It’s the kind of thing I work through with gay men directly, in therapy across the UK and Europe and in coaching for clients in the US and Canada.

How to Tell the Difference

Because here’s the question I hear most: Is my relationship actually boring, or am I just sabotaging something good?

Not every stable relationship is right for you. Sometimes boredom isn’t nervous system recalibration. Sometimes it’s genuine incompatibility wearing the disguise of health.

Here’s how to tell:

• It’s your nervous system learning safety if: The boredom comes with panic. You feel restless but can’t articulate why. You manufacture problems that don’t exist. You’re scared of how calm everything feels. You keep waiting for catastrophe that never arrives. The sex is good but you worry it should feel more “electric.”

• It’s genuine incompatibility if: The boredom comes with resignation. You feel numb, not panicked. You’re not manufacturing problems; you’re avoiding addressing real ones. The calm feels empty rather than scary. You’re not waiting for catastrophe; you’re just waiting for it to be over. The sex feels obligatory rather than just… calm.

Your nervous system learning safety feels like learning to walk after a broken bone healed crooked. Uncomfortable but necessary. You’re fighting your own instincts, not the relationship itself.

Genuine incompatibility feels like forcing yourself to be hungry. You might be able to eat, but nothing tastes good. And at some point you have to admit you’re not actually starving, you’re just trying to want something you don’t want.

The difference: One makes you anxious. The other makes you numb.

Anxiety means your body is recalibrating. Numbness means your body knows the truth before your mind admits it.

The Guy Reading on the Couch

He’s still there. Turned another page. Hasn’t checked his phone once.

Your thumb hovers over Grindr. The app you opened not because you want anyone else but because his contentment makes you want to prove you’re still the kind of person who could get someone else. That you’re choosing this. Not settling for it.

“You okay?” he asks again.

Here’s the thing about boring love. It doesn’t require you to answer. Doesn’t make your restlessness mean the relationship is ending. Just asks once, genuinely, then goes back to reading regardless.

“I don’t know,” you say. Maybe for the first time in your life admitting uncertainty without apologizing for it.

He nods. Doesn’t fix it. Doesn’t make it about him. Just nods.

You close Grindr. Not in some grand romantic gesture. Just because scrolling isn’t actually what you want. You wanted to feel something. Turns out feeling anxious about feeling nothing counts.

The book he’s reading has a maroon cover. The couch smells like that specific laundry detergent he always buys. Your chest still feels tight but differently now. Not the tightness of panic. The tightness of unused muscle remembering how to relax.

You might never stop manufacturing crisis to feel alive. Maybe that’s just what two decades of Grindr and vigilance do to a nervous system.

But today you’re still on the couch. He’s still reading. And you haven’t opened the app again.

That’s not a victory. It’s just a Tuesday. But for many men, Tuesday doesn’t come easy.

From the couch,
Gino

P.S.: Where do you feel safety in your body right now? Your chest? Your shoulders? Nowhere? What would it cost you to let boring love be enough?

I work with gay men in attachment-focused therapy for gay men in the UK and Europe, and in coaching for clients in the US and Canada. If something in this essay landed, that's usually worth paying attention to. You can find out more about working together at www.psycosme.com.

If you enjoyed this post, please tap the Like button below ❤️ Thank you!

All examples in this piece are composites drawn from patterns observed across therapeutic work with gay men. Details have been altered to protect confidentiality. No single story represents an individual person.

This newsletter is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not replace therapy, diagnose, treat, or prevent any condition.

Three weeks in, my friend texts at 2 AM: “Started episode one at 11. Finished the season. What the f&%k just happened to me?”

I know exactly what happened to him.

The same thing that’s been happening to hundreds of thousands of gay men since late November, the same thing that made this show Crave’s biggest original debut on record, and the same thing that has people rewatching episodes they watched two days ago.

Not because the show is perfect.

Not because it breaks new ground.

But because it does something much of mainstream queer media rarely does.

Read more

The text sat in his drafts for forty minutes.

“Want to grab coffee sometime?”

He deleted it. Rewrote it. Deleted again.

Not because he was scared of rejection. Because he was scared of acceptance.

Scared that saying yes to coffee would require this guy to find him interesting. Smart. Funny. Worth an hour without the promise of anything else. And somewhere deep in his chest, where the fear lives, he didn’t believe those qualities existed separate from sexual availability.

Friendship requires someone to value you for reasons that aren’t your body. And if you’ve spent thirty years learning that your worth is measured in attraction, that your personality only matters if it leads somewhere, that your insights are foreplay and your humor is just lubrication for the real thing, then asking someone to want your company platonically feels like asking them to care about the B-material.

The stuff that’s nice. But not the reason anyone stays.

Read more

I asked a friend what he actually wanted.

Not what he should want or what would be reasonable to want. What he actually wanted.

He opened his mouth and had nothing. Not because the answer was too vulnerable or too complicated to explain. Because he couldn’t locate it.

The question landed in a space that used to have contents but now just had echoes of other people’s frameworks for understanding him.

He’d become so practiced at translating his interior into something others could metabolize that he’d lost the frequency he was translating from.

That’s not the same as being closeted. He was out. Visible. Had the vocabulary, the community, and the supposed infrastructure for authenticity.

The problem wasn’t that he was hiding. It’s that he’d become fluent in a version of himself that existed primarily for other people’s comprehension, and somewhere in all that fluency, the original had gone quiet.

The Mechanism Nobody Names

We talk about emotional loneliness in queer life as a problem of being misunderstood. That’s not quite it.

Read more

New Year’s Eve assumes you have somewhere to go back to.

A family dinner table where you don’t translate yourself. A group chat planning the night weeks in advance. A relationship that made it through the year without becoming evidence of something you’re still trying to prove.

For a lot of gay men, tonight isn’t celebration. It’s performance with a countdown.

You’re watching straight friends post about “coming home” for the holidays, about multi-generational countdowns, about traditions that assume your life followed the script. And you’re doing math. Calculating whether the lie is worth the inclusion. Whether showing up alone again confirms what they’ve been thinking. Whether bringing him means spending the night managing everyone else’s comfort.

This is the New Year’s Eve nobody writes about.

Not the glittery one. Not the quiet self-care one. The one where the calendar turning over just reminds you how much distance you’ve built between who you …

Read more

Your dad asks if you’re seeing anyone. Standard question. You’ve answered it thirty times this year, most of them honestly.

But something happens in your childhood kitchen. Your throat tightens. You edit in real-time. The guy you’ve been dating for four months becomes “someone.” The weekend you spent at his family’s place gets cropped to “been busy.” Your voice drops half an octave without permission.

Everyone (occasionally myself) is writing about nervous system regulation. About how your body remembers old threats. About polyvagal responses and how to stay grounded when family triggers you.

But that’s not the problem.

The problem is you keep returning to rooms where the version of you that’s welcome is the one who edits himself into something easier to love. And somewhere underneath the therapy language about boundaries and nervous systems, you’re still hoping this year might be different.

Read more

The man at the pub kept glancing over. Not cruising. Calculating.

When he finally approached, his opening line wasn’t what I expected:

“You know what’s wrong with you people?” His voice had that timbre, not quite anger, more like an accusation searching for evidence. “You make everything about sex.”

I didn’t respond. Wasn’t meant to, really. He needed me to be a screen, not a person.

What struck me wasn’t the hostility. I’ve logged enough hours navigating straight spaces to recognize garden-variety bigotry.

What lodged itself somewhere between my ribs was how desperate he seemed. How the intensity of his disgust felt less like certainty and more like maintenance work. Like someone checking the locks on a door they installed years ago, terrified of what might happen if they stopped.

The volume isn’t proportional to conviction. It’s proportional to internal pressure.

Read more

His jaw does this thing. Tightens mid-sentence, like a door slamming on whatever he was about to say. We were talking about the guy he’s been seeing for three months. Good guy, apparently. Stable job, likes hiking, texts back. All the green flags everyone says to look for.

“So what happened?” I ask.

“Nothing happened. That’s the problem.” He shifts in his chair. “Last week he said he loved me and I…picked a fight about how he loads the dishwasher.”

I wait.

“I know what you’re thinking. Classic sabotage. But it wasn’t—” He stops. Starts again. “When he said he loved me, all I could think was: he’s going to keep seeing me. Including the parts that aren’t impressive. The days I don’t do anything worth mentioning. When I’m just…regular.”

He looks at me like he’s confessing something shameful.

“I panicked.”

Crisis Intimacy vs. Maintenance Intimacy

Here’s the pattern I keep seeing: Gay men can do crisis intimacy brilliantly. Coming-out stories, shared trauma, 2 am conversations about existence, political solidarity, and chosen family drama.

That kind of depth actually feels safe because you’re performing something. You’re spectacular. You’re earning your place.

But maintenance intimacy? The intimacy of Tuesday morning? Whose turn is it to buy toilet paper? Should we get your mom a birthday card? Can you pick up milk on the way home?

That’s where it breaks.

Because maintenance intimacy requires being ordinary. Being seen when you’re not impressive. Not performing anything. Just existing in your regular human mess.

And gay men learned that ordinary visibility could get you killed.

Being the funny gay friend was sometimes protective. Being accomplished earned conditional safety. But being regular? Being the gay kid who just wanted to exist without commentary? That’s what got you hurt.

So when his boyfriend said “I love you,” his body didn’t hear romance. It heard threat.

Someone was going to witness him unshowered. Picking up socks. Having nothing interesting to say. Being human in ways that don’t justify taking up space.

The dishwasher fight wasn’t about love or commitment.

It was about manufacturing an exit before his ordinariness became evidence he wasn’t worth keeping.

The Three Things Gay Men Weren’t Allowed to Learn

Read more

This newsletter is for gay men and allies seeking genuine connection over performance. Weekly, you’ll get a thoughtful letter and a 1-minute voiceover. Happy you’re here :)

Read more