Español · English · Português · Français · Deutsch · Italiano · 中文

In clinical work with gay men, a distinction often emerges that is worth naming. There is a first coming out —the social one— which consists of declaring oneself before others: family, friends, the world. It is an act of public naming, frequently costly, above all when it happens in hostile or homophobic settings. But there is a second coming out, less visible and rarely announced, which tends to prove more profound: the coming out toward one’s own subject.

The first moves outward. The second, inward. And its task is not to report an orientation, but to revise the identity that was built around it.

An identity built to survive

When someone grows up reading the room to anticipate rejection —gauging how much to show, when to keep silent, how not to make others uncomfortable— they develop a subjectivity that is effective for surviving, but not necessarily faithful to themselves. That vigilance, intelligent and adaptive in its origin, tends to become naturalized: the external «what will they say» is internalized until it no longer sounds like a voice from outside. The second coming out begins, precisely, when the person starts to distinguish between what they are and what they learned to be in order to be tolerated.

It is worth underscoring, because it is an ethical point: this is not about repairing anything in the orientation. There is no pathology in being gay. What is worked through is the sediment of inherited scripts —familial, cultural, religious— that were mounted upon that orientation and that today constrain a life.

The symptom as a door, the bond as the ground

Rarely is this the reason for seeking help. One arrives through stress, through crises of anguish, through a diffuse sense of overload. And in the work a recurring underlying theme gradually emerges: the difficulty of sustaining lasting bonds. A deep connection is longed for, yet the experience repeats itself in fleeting encounters followed by a feeling of emptiness. The other leaves.

The clinical reading is not directed, then, at the question why do they leave, but at another: what place does the subject occupy for the scene to repeat itself. Emptiness, read in this way, is not the mere absence of a partner, but the mark of a more structural lack, and of a longing for a bond that insists. Repetition is not bad luck: it is a text that can be read.

The romantic script as an obstacle

Often an inherited ideal intervenes as well: the tale of rescue —the other who arrives to complete us, the promise of a happiness that would come, so to speak, preinstalled in the couple. That model, taken without examination, always locates satisfaction in a beyond that never arrives, and relieves the subject of responsibility for their own desire. Part of the work consists in dismantling that ideal, not to renounce love, but to be able to build it from a place more truly one’s own.

A process, not a formula

None of this happens quickly or in a straight line, and it would be dishonest to present it otherwise. It is not a transformation nor an express method. It is a process of working-through, done with time and without judgment, in which the scripts are recognized, their origin is understood, and —little by little— it is decided what to keep and what to let go. The person is not «broken», though at times they live it that way; they are at a moment that asks to be regarded with seriousness.

The second coming out, in sum, is the passage from an identity organized to be accepted to a subjectivity that can, at last, sustain itself. And from that place —not before— the bond with another becomes possible in a different way.

Carlos Hernán Arango Botero — Psychologist