When I was growing up in Alabama, we didn’t have snow days. We were more likely to have hurricane days. Today, we are expecting 3-5” of snow. That’s not enough snow to cause a snow day at work. In fact, where I work rarely ever has snow days. I think twice in the last nine years have we had a delayed start, but never the full day. Since I’ve moved further away from work, I have had to take a few “work from home” snow days because there was too much snow to get to work. Today will not be one of those days. It hasn’t snowed enough so far to make it difficult to get to work. Yesterday had more of a chance in at least making me late for work because we were expecting snow squalls and whiteout conditions around the time of my commute to work, but it never materialized where I was. There was just some light snow on the way to work. So, today, I’ll be heading to work as usual. Besides, I have things I need to do at work today, so it’s off to work I go.
After the Threesome, They Both Take You Home By Sue Hyon Bae
even though it’s so very late and they have to report to their jobs in a few hours, they both get in the car, one driving, one shotgun, you in the back like a child needing a drive to settle into sleep, even though one could drive and the other sleep, because they can’t sleep without each other, they’d rather drive you across the city rather than be apart for half an hour, the office buildings lit pointlessly beautiful for nobody except you to admire their reflections in the water, the lovers too busy talking about that colleague they don’t like, tomorrow’s dinner plans, how once they bought peaches on a road trip and ate and ate until they could taste it in each other’s pores, they get out of the car together to kiss you goodnight, you who have perfected the ghost goodbye, exiting gatherings noiselessly, leaving only a dahlia-scented perfume, your ribcage compressing to slide through doors ajar and untouched, yesterday you were a flash of white in a pigeon’s blinking eye, in the day few hours old you stand solid and full of other people’s love for each other spilling over, warm leftovers.
About the Poem
Sue Hyon Bae’s poem “After the Threesome, They Both Take You Home” is a poignant exploration of intimacy, vulnerability, and the complicated emotions that arise from unconventional romantic or sexual experiences. As you read this poem, I’d like you to read it two different ways. First read it all the way through like one long run on sentence. Then read each line separately, stopping after to each one considering the line itself as separate from the poem. By reading it in those two very different ways, I think you will come to a better understanding of the nuances of the poem and the small details that form its narrative and cadence.
The poem’s title sets the stage for a layered, nuanced narrative, framing the aftermath of a threesome in an evocative and emotionally charged way and is particularly significant. “They Both Take You Home” suggests a sense of care, perhaps even responsibility, from the other two individuals. Yet it also implies a sense of being passed along, as though the speaker lacks agency or is separate from the bond between the other two. This duality reflects the poem’s larger themes of connection and alienation. “After the Threesome, They Both Take You Home” is a deeply emotional poem that captures the vulnerability of human connection in unconventional contexts. Through its reflective tone and evocative imagery, the poem invites readers to contemplate the complexities of intimacy, longing, and the spaces between people. It is a piece that lingers in the mind, much like the emotional residue of the moment it describes.
Bae employs understated sensuality, avoiding overt descriptions of the threesome itself and instead focusing on the quieter, more emotionally charged moments after. The imagery often feels muted, almost dreamlike, as if the speaker is processing the experience from a distance. The poem lingers on small, mundane details that carry emotional weight—a touch, a glance, or the silence in the car. These details serve to ground the poem in realism while heightening its emotional resonance. The poem thrives in its ambiguity, leaving much unsaid. The relationships between the speaker and the other two participants are unclear, which mirrors the emotional confusion of the moment.
The poem juxtaposes closeness with distance. Although the threesome is an inherently intimate act, the aftermath reveals how that closeness can magnify feelings of isolation. The speaker seems caught between two people who are physically present but emotionally distant, creating a stark tension. It subtly addresses the shifting power dynamics in relationships. The two partners may appear united, perhaps in their understanding of each other, while the speaker feels like an outsider even within this intimate moment. This reflects the imbalance of connection among the trio. There’s an undercurrent of longing throughout the poem—not just for physical connection, but for emotional understanding. The speaker grapples with the bittersweet reality of fleeting intimacy and its inability to fully satisfy deeper desires. The speaker appears acutely aware of the fleeting nature of the moment, and the poem captures how such experiences, though brief, can leave an emotional resonance that lingers.
About the Poet
Sue Hyon Bae is a poet and translator raised in South Korea, Malaysia, and Texas. She is the author of the poetry collection Truce Country, published by Eyewear Publishing in 2019, and co-translator of Kim Hyesoon’s A Drink of Red Mirror (Action Books, 2019). Bae’s poetry often explores themes of identity, memory, and cultural displacement, reflecting her diverse upbringing and experiences across different countries. She continues to contribute to the literary field through her writing and translations, bridging cultural and linguistic gaps.
Bae earned her Master of Fine Arts (MFA) from Arizona State University (ASU) and is currently pursuing a PhD in Comparative Culture and Languages at ASU’s School of International Letters and Cultures. During her time at ASU, she served as the International Poetry Editor for Hayden’s Ferry Review. Her work has appeared in publications such as Four Chambers Press, Minetta Review, Apple Valley Review, and Please Hold Magazine. Additionally, her manuscript Truce Country was shortlisted for the 2017 Sexton Prize for Poetry.
Friday, Paramount+ released the first of their Star Trek movies, Section 31. In the Star Trek universe, Section 31 is a nefarious group introduced in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine when they tried to recruit Dr. Julian Bashir. Since its first introduction as an autonomous shadow organization tasked with protecting the Federation at all costs, the organization has appeared in Star Trek Into Darkness, Enterprise, and Star Trek: Discovery. The organization has always been portrayed as an evil organization that would stop at nothing to fulfill what it believes its mission to be. Some Star Trek fans hate the idea of Section 31 because they say it goes against Gene Roddenberry’s utopian ideals for Star Trek, but let’s face it, while the Star Trek universe gives us hope for a better future, the Federation has never been a perfect society. Even Gene Roddenberry understood that utopia would have its cracks in its foundation.
Since Michelle Yeoh departed Discovery there had been rumors of a Section 31 series. Then, Yeoh won an Oscar for Everything Everywhere All at Once, I assumed the series development had been cancelled. I did not believe an Academy award winning actress would headline a Star Trek series. So, I was surprised when they announced that Paramount+ would be making what they called an “event movie” about Section 31 starring Michelle Yeoh.
Every new version of Star Trek since the original series has had a love/hate relationship with Trekkies. Many Trekkies hate anything that is not the original series. Even Next Generation which has become a much beloved show was hated when it began. Deep Space Nine was basically hated through its entire seven seasons, Voyager always got a mixed reception, and Enterprise seemed to put a death knell in Star Trek spinoffs when it only lasted five season. Then, Discovery was released on CBS All Access, and the hatred truly began because it introduced an African American female as the lead character, had a gay couple, transgender and non-binary characters, and a host of other perceived faults. There are many Star Trek fans who never understood the social commentary that Roddenberry established in Star Trek back in the 1960s. It was always groundbreaking, but even Star Trek fans are not immune to the racist, the homophobic, and the ignorant, no matter how much those beliefs go against all Roddenberry’s utopian ideals for Star Trek.
So, it’s no surprise to see Section 31 get terrible reviews from some of the fans. Plus, internet trolls are everywhere including among Trekkies. They are going to be critical and hate everything and never give anything new a chance. I won’t claim that I thought Section 31 was a masterpiece. I believed that it would be a good movie because I really didn’t think at this point in her career Yeoh would be part of a project that she didn’t believe would be good. There were certain surprise elements to Section 31 that I enjoyed, but I knew from the beginning that this would be a darker version of the Star Trek universe. All in all, I was entertained by the movie. I always like seeing anything Star Trek. I even gave Prodigy a try, and it’s the only entry in the series that I could not watch. When it was on Paramount+, I watched it, but I never enjoyed it. That might have had to do more with it being a show for kids than with anything else. I certainly was not going to resubscribe to Netflix to watch it.
So while Section 31 was not my favorite of the Star Trek franchise, it wasn’t too bad. I was entertained, and that’s what really matters to me. So, if you are skeptical, I suggest you give it a try. If you have already seen it, what did you think?
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
— Galatians 3:26-28
Paul’s words to the Galatians remind us of the radical inclusivity of the Gospel. In Christ, every barrier that divides us—ethnicity, status, gender—is broken down. Through faith, we are all equal before God, equally loved, equally valued, and equally welcomed into the family of God. This profound truth extends to LGBTQ+ individuals. The same grace that clothes us in Christ’s righteousness calls us to embrace our identity as beloved children of God. No one is excluded from the promise of God’s love, and no one is outside the reach of His saving grace.
Some religious leaders argue that this passage does not directly adSome religious leaders argue that this passage does not directly address LGBTQ+ individuals because the text specifically addresses divisions based on ethnicity (Jew and Gentile), social status (slave and free), and gender (male and female), without mentioning sexuality. Some view it as a commentary on unity in Christ rather than a statement about sexual orientation. These same individuals also claim that the passage’s primary intent is often interpreted as a call to remove barriers to salvation and inclusion within the Christian community, rather than addressing specific questions of sexual ethics or identity.They want us to believe that the mention of “male and female” in the context of unity in Christ is sometimes framed as reinforcing traditional binary gender roles rather than deconstructing them. This interpretation can lead to the assumption that the passage does not pertain to issues of sexual or gender diversity. Sadly, some scholars only see the passage as emphasizing the unity of specific groups that comes through baptism, rather than a broader affirmation of diversity in sexual orientation or gender identity. However, while Paul was trying to heal division within the church, those who exclude LGBTQ+ people from the meaning of this passage only want to sow division.
The passage’s emphasis on breaking down social and cultural barriers can and should be extended beyond the specific examples Paul lists. If Christ eliminates divisions based on ethnicity, class, and gender, it logically follows that other forms of exclusion—such as those based on sexual orientation or gender identity—are also contrary to the spirit of the text. Paul was addressing specific forms of discrimination relevant to his audience, but his broader theological point is about the radical inclusivity of the gospel. LGBTQ+ inclusion can be seen as a natural extension of this principle in modern contexts. The phrase “neither male and female” may challenge rigid gender binaries. This could open the door to understanding the text as inclusive of non-binary or transgender identities, as it undermines the idea that gender distinctions define our standing before God. While Paul did not address LGBTQ+ identities directly, the underlying theology of unity and inclusion can apply to marginalized groups in every era. To limit the passage’s meaning to its immediate historical context would overlook its broader implications. The passage asserts that identity in Christ transcends human categories. This resonates with the experiences of many LGBTQ+ Christians, who see their faith as central to their identity and as a rejection of societal judgments or exclusions.
Galatians 3:26-28 is not the only place where Paul states a message of inclusion. In Ephesians 2:14-16, he wrote, “For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility… His purpose was to create in Himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace.” This passage echoes the message of unity in Galatians, affirming that Christ breaks down barriers and creates one united family. In Colossians 3:11, he told the Christian community in Colossae, “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.” This reinforces the idea that Christ is the foundation of our unity and identity.
The message of Galatians 3:26-28 is echoed throughout the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah 56:3-5 says, “Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.’ And let no eunuch complain, ‘I am only a dry tree.’ For this is what the Lord says: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant—to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever.” This passage demonstrates God’s heart for inclusion. Eunuchs, who were often marginalized and excluded in ancient times, are promised a place of honor in God’s house. It reminds us that God welcomes and affirms those whom society might cast aside. In 1 Samuel 16:7, the prophet says, “The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” God sees us for who we truly are—our hearts, our faith, and our desire to follow Him. Our worth is not determined by societal categories or labels but by His unconditional love. And in John 13:34-35, John writes, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Jesus’ command to love is the defining mark of His followers. This love is not conditional or limited—it embraces all people, regardless of their background, identity, or orientation.
Unity in Christ is a message taught through the ages. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, once said, “Though we may not think alike, may we not love alike?” This echoes the truth of Galatians 3:26-28. Diversity in thought, experience, or identity does not diminish our unity in Christ. Wesley’s words challenge us to prioritize love and understanding over division. Similarly, 20th-century civil rights leader Bayard Rustin, an openly gay Christian, demonstrated how faith and identity could coexist powerfully. He said, “We need, in every community, a group of angelic troublemakers.” This call to advocate for justice, rooted in love and courage, reminds us that living out our faith means creating a world where all are treated with dignity and equality.
While these passages may not explicitly mention LGBTQ+ individuals, their messages of radical unity and inclusion supports the view that Christ’s grace transcends human divisions, including those based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The restrictive interpretation risks ignoring the broader implications of Paul’s theology, which seeks to affirm the full dignity and equality of all who are “in Christ.” Galatians 3:26-28 is a powerful reminder that the Gospel is for everyone. It calls us to embrace our identity as children of God, break down barriers of division, and live in unity and mutual love. In Christ, all are welcome, equal, and valued. As we reflect on Galatians 3:26-28, consider the following: Are there ways you’ve excluded yourself or others from God’s grace? How can you live in a way that reflects the unity and equality found in Christ? How can you be an advocate for inclusion and justice in your community? For LGBTQ+ individuals, this passage affirms your belonging in God’s family. You are clothed in Christ, and nothing can separate you from His love.
Joe
The Closet Professor 