On The Gay Thing . . ., (New thread on a subject that came up in a different topic) Options

[painter]

This topic arose as a result of my having chided Quest a bit for having employed "gayness" to describe "the individuals involved in the globalization, military aspect of 911" in this thread: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18236 As an out gay man I took some offense to it but it wasn't that big a deal. Still, it opened up the subject, one I've considered bringing to this forum for some time but never felt it was appropriate. After tnemelckram's reply in that thread (which I will quote in full below before replying to it), I decided this might be a good opportunity to open up this discussion. I'm putting it in "chill" because, for me, it is the kind of discussion you might have with some friends you've known for a long time while seated around a table at a bar. Everyone is welcome to listen or toss their 2¢ in but not everyone may be comfortable with it.

First, though, tnemelckram's post:

On the gay thing . . .

I think I understand what Quest was trying to do but he got carried away. Painter rightly pointed that out. Quest did the right thing in response to Painter's concerns.

The military guys who fostered public fear and otherwise encouraged or enabled our botched response to 911 (among them, some likely perps) tend to be macho, conservative types steeped in an authoritarian credo. Quest's label attacks the way they perceive their manhood, which they highly value, so it carries some sting. Given that what they did ran counter to their serious responsibilities to us, I don't think that any attack on them is too strong. So it seems Quest wanted to take a good swipe at them in this fashion. He is keeping "drama queen" for these clowns, which I think is accurate, more than enough by itself to make his point, and otherwise appropriate. Look at how they tried to drum up militarism and an exalted place for themselves and the so called "Commander In Chief" in the public eye after 911, while over-reacting to criticism to the point of calling their critics "traitors". Drama Queens indeed! And up till now the term only seemed to apply to Brent Favre! Quest's point is well made without adding "gay". Quest personally doesn't seem to give the word an inherently negative meaning like that for "N----r". He used it because the military guys would think it is negative, especially when applied to them.

GBLT people are in the midst of a struggle for equal social acceptance and legal rights. Black people might be near the end of their similar struggle. Unlike "N----r", "gay" has many uses with positive connotations, but it can also be used in a derogatory way. In both cases, words that are inherently negative or used negatively undermine the drive for social acceptance, so there is good reason for the sensitivity.

But I found that one issue needed perspective. I have several gay friends and socialize with others fairly often. Most of them (including the friends) have made The Big Suggestion in one form or another. I say I'm flattered but unfortunately hetero. Their response eventually boils down to how can you be sure until you try? My answer is that if they are certain of their sexual orientation and confident and comfortable with it, then I am equally sure that I only like the girls. Every sexual thought I ever had and have involves one woman and/or another; also, while men are the same as me, women are different, and I prefer different.

Now comes the big insight - even though they're gay, they're still guys! Of course they are inclined make a try at you! They can't help it, just like I can't help trying to do the same with women! So we're still basically the same. With this understanding, there is nothing offensive about it - I often used the "how can you find out unless you try" line (or argument) on women during mating dances - it's nice that somebody likes you. The episode almost always ends well with some good male-oriented jokes because after all your both still guys.

Good insight, tnemelckram. Even though I'm gay, indeed, I still am a guy and although I'll be 62 years old soon, my libido isn't much different than it was at 22. That's not a brag, its just the honest truth.

I grew up gay in the rural Midwest in the 1950s/60s at a time when "gay" meant happy. I don't remember when I first heard "gay" used to reference homosexuality but it probably wasn't until my first year of college in Chicago, 1966/67. This was also when I began to meet and hang out with other gay men. However, to be clear, that was not when I became sexually active -- that had begun from a very early age. I'd known I was sexually attracted to other guys from probably around age six but, being that young, my understanding of what that meant was still very unclear.

I grew up on a farm just outside a very small rural town so it wasn't like I was completely isolated. As soon as we could ride our bikes, many of us boys in approximately the same age group, started palling around with one another. In fact, the pond on my dad's farm was only a short walk down the railroad tracks from the town and it was the local 'swimming hole' for all us kids during the summer (and ice skating rink in the winter). None of us ever bothered with swimming suits as we weren't shy and it was completely private. My sexual experiences with other boys were very tame early on but the point is they happened and I don't think any of us thought too much about it. There was an element of 'guilt' and 'shame' in the sense that we knew our 'playing around' wasn't to be talked about, especially w/ the 'rents.

I think the point at which it began to 'sink in' that I was fundamentally different from the other guys happened around age 11 or 12. I remember it quite vividly. A group of three or four of us were sitting on the front porch of the country store (probably drinking soda or eating pop-cicles). One of the boys had somehow procured a "girly magazine" with naked ladies in it and although we were all joking and kidding around while furtively looking at it, I was aware that 1) they were getting aroused by looking at the pictures, 2) I was not and 3) the fact that I was not needed to be kept a secret. I knew this because, even though "gay" wasn't a term I was familiar with, "queer" and "faggot" (among others) were words known to me. I understood that having this label hung on you would lead to a lot of trouble. In my still developing pre-teen brain all this didn't make a lot of sense but at that moment I began to understand something that I hadn't before. I was "different". While other guys might be willing to have some fun with another guy, what they really wanted to do was with girls.

As I grew into a teenager this increasing awareness created in me a kind of isolation that, to be honest, I've never fully overcome. This is one of the reasons I'm interested in discussing this topic, especially in a forum that (by all appearances at least) is populated by heterosexuals. (Bill, AKA Oceans Flow, AKA Griz, who passed away earlier this year, was the only other member of this forum who was openly gay.)

For me, growing up "gay" in that environment at that time meant learning to be very very careful. I felt there was something seriously wrong with me and I had no idea that my feelings were shared by a significant minority of the population -- that, indeed, there was a whole sub-culture or "gay" people. Where I had been a relatively out-going, gregarious and happy-go-lucky kid, as a teenager I became withdrawn, sullen, and developed a 'loner' persona. This wasn't too difficult as I was smart, perceptive and had a vivid imagination. But by the time I was 14 or 15 I had become increasingly depressed and, to be honest, somewhat suicidal. The outlook for the future from my POV was pretty grim. I knew I wasn't interested in girls and I also knew I was going to be expected to start dating and all the rest of it, including wife and kids. That TOTALLY freaked me out. I also had no one I could talk to about what was going on inside me, not that I'm sure I would have known how to, even if there had been.

To make matters worse, beyond my sexual attraction to some of the guys around me, I was also developing emotional ones. I had a very bad crush on one of my classmates who I'd known all my life. I fell in love with him one early evening while going for a walk with him in the woods. It literally struck me like a bolt of lightening. This was during a Boy Scout outing and we were off away from the other boys just walking along talking about I don't know what and he stopped, looked around and said (speaking of the woods, fields, sky), "Isn't this beautiful? When I grow up, I want to own some land like this." I had never before in my life heard another boy talk about beauty, never before heard another boy just spontaneously express something so wonderful and intimate. As beautiful as the world around us was, to me HE was the most beautiful thing in it. Although I could openly agree with his sentiment, what I could NOT do was tell him how hearing it made me feel about him. We were already friends but what I wanted at that moment was something much more -- a completely different kind of relationship -- and, yes, one that included sexual intimacy. It was also clear to me that that was not going to happen.

Not long after this my parents began spending their winters in Florida (they were in their 40s when I was born), taking me with them, enrolling me in a high school over a thousand miles away from where I'd grown up. This was a good thing for me on a lot of levels. For one thing, it gave me a further excuse to remain a "loner," and got me out of the rather limited world I'd been growing up in. This high school was HUGE by comparison with the small country school I had attended. In the spring/summer my parents and I returned to the farm -- thus my social life was split -- and in a lot of ways this worked well for me. I did have a girl friend in high school as this was expected and, truth be told, I did like her a lot -- as a friend. We even made out on several occasions in high school and I discovered that the plumbing works regardless of the gender. Later on in our Freshman year in college (she went to a private school north of Chicago) in her dorm room, we would happily shed our virginity with one another. That I was also meeting and having sex with other guys wasn't something I'd felt brave enough to tell her yet but I'd already indicated, and she'd fairly well accepted, that I was attracted to other guys. After all, this was the late 1960s when experimentation in all kinds of directions were not uncommon and social attitudes were beginning to change.

For me, though, things were never simple or easy. Although I knew I was gay, I wasn't really comfortable with it. I enjoyed the sex, no doubt about that, but there was also this burgeoning "cultural identity" thing I had to deal with that just didn't sit well with me. I had no problem identifying as a "hippie" -- rock and roll, pot, LSD, political awareness -- at age 19 I was quite immersed in all that. But the "gay" scene (although there was some overlap) was different. To be honest, I didn't like most gay men I met. To me they often seemed catty, bitchy, cliquish and, fundamentally, insecure. Not all, of course, but a lot. Consequently (and this was a real headache) I most often found myself attracted to other straight guys! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) In fact, the early 1970s found me living with a bisexual guy (we'd been class mates in college) and his woman friend who he eventually married. Three-ways? Yep -- and not only that -- but I won't go into detail. Suffice it to say although I was having some fun I was far from comfortable with myself.

I moved to California in 1973 and within a rather short period of time met and fell in love with an extraordinarily good looking woman three years younger than myself. This is the part of my story that often confuses my friends, both gay and straight. You did what?? Yes, and we ended up living together for 10 years and are still the best of friends. The Bay Area had gone through a lot of social changes in the years just prior to my moving here, so much so that being "gay" wasn't much of a big deal to anyone. So, I had no problem being "out". But I still had this problem relating to "the gay community" or "gay scene." I just didn't like it. I didn't keep my sexual preference hidden from any of my friends so when she and I met I was pretty up front about it. That we subsequently began to fall in love was kind of confusing for both of us but it was also undeniable. Although we talked about it, we never married (I was actually more open to this possibility than she was). Neither of us particularly wanted children (again, I was probably more open to that than she). Since she was a VERY sexual young woman and I was certain I wasn't going to meet all her sexual needs, we agreed to have an "open" relationship. For me, the way that worked is that I became monogamous with her (by my choice) because otherwise it would have just been too confusing. We agreed that whatever we did we'd not keep it a secret from the other and she did have a few 'affairs' outside our relationship -- all of them emotionally unsatisfactory for her. All during this time I continued to identify (when asked) as "gay." I tried wearing the "bisexual" hat for a while but I knew it wasn't right. I was sexually attracted to men and although I could be sexual with a woman and even enjoy it, it was rare to find myself attracted to a woman and I never fantasized about them.

It wasn't until after the AIDS crisis that all this began to change. (Had I not kept myself monogamous in the preceding years, I very well might have been an AIDS victim.) What changed wasn't "me" so much as the "gay culture" around me. Gay culture suddenly had to deal with some truly significant issues -- such as death and dying and the meaning of relationships. I began attending group sessions with other gay and bisexual men who were, or had been, in relationships with women. Some of them even married with kids. That was a real eye-opener. Through this I also began to meet other gay men and to see that things were changing. It wasn't all just about sex any more -- it was about men trying to understand themselves and their sexuality and it was about the possibility of building lasting relationships in a world that was (especially outside the SF Bay Area at that time) mostly ignorant of and hostile toward such relationships. It became clear to me then that I needed to redefine my relationship with my female partner. She wasn't very happy about it but after the initial rage we worked through it. We're now like close brother and sister. A few years later I met and fell in love with a man, David, with whom I lived for 7 years before his untimely death due to a brain tumor. Prior to his death we participated in a "gay couples group" that met once every three weeks for six years. Within that, there was a core group of five gay couples that not only remained together all during that time but really worked at coming to understand the complexities of male-male relationships in an overriding male-female culture. I suggested to the group at the time that we document what we were discovering but, unfortunately, we were all too busy living our lives and our relationships to do that. (I think it would have made fascinating reading not only for other gay men but for heterosexuals as well. We really aren't all that different although there are important differences, too.)

After David's death I fairly quickly found myself in another relationship that lasted for three years. I'm not going to talk about it because it was very fucked up in a lot of ways, although also quite fascinating. It could be a novel unto itself! Suffice it to say that since that ended in late 2000 I haven't been in a relationship and haven't been sexual at all. Not that I don't sometimes think about it, of course, but, frankly, at this age, I just don't have the energy it takes to find, build and sustain a relationship with anyone. Relationships, for all their joys and sorrows, really are a lot of work.

SO -- all the above (and I realize it is a lot) is to say to any of you who are interested: "This is where I'm coming from." I do this because I first of all need you to know that being "gay," like being "straight," doesn't necessarily conform you to any particular stereotype. We're all individuals and we're all different. We have many things in common and many things that we don't share. The primary difference (so far as I can tell) between "gay" and "straight" is that the latter is assumed to be the norm. It is very difficult for people who identify with the norm to 'get' what that means because it is the water you swim in and take for granted.

Those of us who live and experience life outside that norm have to contend with this in various ways. One (in my opinion ultimately unhealthy) way is to create a sub-culture within the dominant culture. The benefit is it creates a 'safe' social space within which one can be more one's self. The down side is it is isolationist and can feed negative stereotyping (if not down-right misapprehension) of the minority group. The way I see it MOST of the negative associations many straight people have with homosexuality appear precisely because of its normative (judgemental) attitudes towards it -- which then becomes reinforced by the isolationist tendencies of the sub-culture that invariably arises.

That is fairly abstract so let me give an example: Many heterosexuals believe that most homosexuals are only or predominantly interested in sex without emotional involvement, much less commitment. What they don't understand is that this fixation on sex that many homosexual men exhibit 1) isn't all that different from the sexual fixation most heterosexual men experience (the difference being only in the object of desire) and 2) the predisposition to negative judgement and the absence of positive roll modeling within the culture reinforce the need to 'act out' and 'behave' in ways that reinforce the very activity being judged. More specifically, had I been able to freely express my emotional feelings toward the boy I fell in love with as a teenager without the fear of condemnation by either him or the society around us, I likely would have done so. Had those feelings not been reciprocated, that pretty much would have been the end of it. I could still have my feelings and feel 'ok' about having them -- just as a straight boy might have to deal with a similar situation toward a girl who didn't have reciprocal feelings toward him. Or, more favorably, had the boy felt similarly in this imaginary 'ideal' world, we would have been able to explore our relationship in exactly the same way heterosexuals would have -- and without any overriding condemnation of it. ABSENT THIS what happens is the need to keep secret and hidden what ought to be appreciated as an expression of something, well, ultimately 'divine'.

I want to share with all of you something I came across recently that you may find quite interesting. First, what this is is a part of a boy/boy romance story written and posted in an on-line forum that is geared predominantly to pornography of various sorts. Although this excerpt isn't pornographic it does mention 'sucking' so just be aware of that. In brief, the story is about a gay boy, Dermot, whose parents had died leaving him in the care of an abusive uncle who, discovering that he was gay, threw him out of the house. Dermot then ends up on the street and, to survive, becomes a hustler and is eventually beaten and raped by a group of thugs. Battered and bloody, Dermot is discovered by a well-to-do good samaritan who sees to it that he is taken to hospital and cared for so he can begin to heal not only physically but emotionally from the trauma. The good samaritan is a father who has a gay son, Lando, near the same age as Dermot. Lando visits Dermot in hospital during his recovery and they begin to become friends. One thing Dermot discovers is that Lando, while identifying as "gay," also identifies as "Catholic," and Dermot finds this very confusing -- especially since a Catholic priest toward whom he had turned in his desperation basically told him he was going to hell for being homosexual. This is part of their conversation about this subject:

"It doesn't compute, Lando. I think you're fooling yourself. But shit! What do I know?" Dermot concluded in a rush of uncertainty, not wishing to offend his friend.

"If you promise not to get all hostile, I'll give you the benefit of my thoughts on the subject," Lando said.

Dermot nodded.

Lando began, "I did tell you that I had to struggle with it, and you are right in saying that the fit is not perfect. All I can say is that I knew I was both gay and Catholic, and I had to find a way to make that work for me. I talked to my dad, to Father Schiller, and to my psychologist, Dr. Lanier. And I'm going to use the word 'sin' whether you like it or not. Now just shut up and listen. We can argue about it some other time.

"The way I see it, there are three ways a person can experience sex. One way is the way you have experienced it. Sex can be used to hurt someone. The most obvious way is in the S&M stuff you were describing, and in rape. That's a blatant, physical harm. But there are other ways in which sex can be used to hurt someone. Sex can be used to try to control someone. I haven't seen this in my own life, but I have heard of instances at school where a girl told her boyfriend, 'if you don't do what I want, there will be no sex for you.' That's a perversion of sex, I think. Both these examples are more about power and control than sex. And then, sex can be used to depersonalize someone. Use someone. Just treating someone like an object instead of a person. What's the phrase? A cum bucket. So, I think if you're the instigator of any of these kinds of sex, that's a serious sin. What we call a mortal or deadly sin, because it kills the spirit. It dulls the conscience if something like this is done often enough, so people get to think there's nothing wrong with it, but that does not change the reality. You're dehumanizing the other person. In these examples, sex is used to hurt the other person, and treat that person as something less than a full human being, a child of God.

"Another way of having sex is what we might call recreational sex that does not harm anyone. I mean, something like what I described doing. I really enjoy sucking and being sucked, and the guys who have been my partners have been kids at school, like me. It's completely mutual, and completely consensual. Nobody is being coerced, physically or otherwise. Just a couple of guys getting off. But it's not serious. None of us are into a serious relationship. We're not cheating on anybody. It's just fun. Now, I don't think that's a serious sin, but it's not using sex the way God intended it, either. But what I'm doing is no different, morally, than what an awful lot of straight kids are doing on dates. So, I think of this as a venial sin. It is a sin, because it's using sex in something other than the best way, but it's not going to send me to hell. Purgatory, maybe, but not hell.

"Finally, there is sex the way God intended it. Father Schiller told me sex is the greatest gift God gave mankind, next to His divine Son, Jesus. Sex is meant to be an expression of love. St. John tells us, 'God is Love.' In its most perfect form, when it is an expression of genuine, unselfish love, sex is a participation in the love God has for humanity. It's actually something sacred. And that's true whether it's gay or straight sex. And I don't think that kind of sex is a sin at all."

I share this with you for a variety of reasons. One is that although I don't regard myself particularly religious (let alone Catholic) I fundamentally agree with this character's understanding of human sexuality. The use of sexual energy, regardless in what form it manifests, for something other than 'divine union' is to fall short of its true purpose and, worse, when used for purposes of power over others, manipulation and control, or sadistic harm, is a perversion -- again, regardless of the gender specifics involved. Many of us suspect that sexuality is used in this perverse sense by the elites (yes, some within the military) for the purpose of manipulating and control -- including keeping all us confused about the higher purposes of human sexuality (again, regardless of the gender specifics).

I also share it because, having grown up when I did, I'm seeing that many gay young people today don't struggle with their sexuality in exactly the same way I had to. At the very least (whatever their understanding or attitude about it may be), most know that there is a world of "gay" people beyond their immediate social environment. In fact, what I'm seeing is there is a lot of "gay porn" being written by and shared among gay and bisexual teenagers and young adults which often (by no means always) are structured around romantic relationships such as being developed in the story above. Through story sharing they are trying to imagine a world quite different from the one I was brought up in. That these stories also include a strong erotic element may be disconcerting to some but given the fact that 'boys are boys' regardless of their sexual preference, this is hardly surprising.

This thread is now open for conversation (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[Rickysa]

Painter,

Thanks for being so gracious to share your thoughts. I, for one, have always been amazed if not awed, how gay people are able to find life-partners...I mean, it's hard enough to do so in a heterosexual world, and heteros are not running the risk of all the negative stereotypes associated with the gay community.

I went to a very liberal college, where homosexuality wasn't a big deal at all...and like Mark, was propositioned a number of times and felt flattered as well. Even growing up in the south, I never really gave it much thought....folks is folks. My aunt (actually more like a cousin due to age), I learned was struggling with her sexuality while in college (and I in high school), and finally came out in her early twentys. Sadly, she assumed I would have a problem with it, and alienated herself from me.

My sister-in-law also struggled with it, finally coming out just several years prior to her death (suicide).

It is a shame it has to be so difficult.

Rick

[truthmatters]

Thank you so much, Painter, for sharing.

In the thread that introduced this subject, I mentioned that I have a brother who is gay. He is 16 years my junior. By the time he first became aware of his "difference" I was already married and having babies. During his young adult years, when I was still totally unaware of his secret struggles, he and I began corresponding. We had discovered a connection. That led, eventually, to his opening up to me and to the whole family. Our parents did not take it well at first. I remember clearly my thoughts at the time: The fact of his revealing this information to me didn't negate in any way what I already knew about him. He's a wonderful, thoughtful, kind, intelligent human being. That didn't change. I already knew who he was. We have remained close ever since. I feel fortunate to have a loving relationship with all my siblings.

[rob balsamo]

.... and this is why we all love the painter... not only does the man paint beautiful pictures with a brush, but does also with words... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Excellent read my friend.. .thanks for sharing. And yes, i read it all... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

One thing i didnt know was that Bill was openly gay.... i felt pretty close to him, but never knew this about him.... thanks again.

I think Ricky said it best. I can't imagine the struggles involved growing up with something that was not accepted socially. Much respect to you my friend.

[painter]

(IMG:http://www.offrampstudios.net/painter/MIKE_121965.jpg)

.... and this is why we all love the painter... not only does the man paint beautiful pictures with a brush, but does also with words... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Excellent read my friend.. .thanks for sharing. And yes, i read it all... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Thanks, Rob, glad you liked it. One thing i didnt know was that Bill was openly gay.... i felt pretty close to him, but never knew this about him.... thanks again. Hmmm. You didn't notice I dedicated this medley to him? http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10775913 I think Ricky said it best. I can't imagine the struggles involved growing up with something that was not accepted socially. Much respect to you my friend. Thanks. I think most everyone has a hard time growing up one way or another. As much as I'd like to be a teenager all over again, it would only be if I could know what I know now. Otherwise it would be just too damn painful. For a lot of years I blamed much of the dificulties in my life on the fact I was gay. I realized one day (circa age 30) that that wasn't it. I would have had a difficult time regardless -- I'm just plain weird in a lot of ways, "gay" being only one of them. The pic is of me around age 17, taken in a broken truck side mirror.

[painter]

(IMG:http://www.offrampstudios.net/painter/me1960.jpg)

I feel fortunate to have a loving relationship with all my siblings. You are fortunate. I don't have these relationships. I was the youngest of four children, the closest to me in age is a sister 10 years my senior, then another sister 15 years my senior and finally a brother, twenty years my senior. I barely knew my brother. He was in the Navy when I was born and by the time I became aware of such things as "brothers and sisters" he was already married and living outside the home. He was killed in an automobile accident when I was 16 years old (hit by a drunk driver). I've been estranged from the family most of my life. My brother's son, a nephew only 8 years younger than I, is really the only one in the family I have any contact with. He was out here visiting me for the first time just a few weeks ago. I even invited him to join this forum, although I doubt he will. He stayed back in the 'heart land' and has a gay son, now in his 20s, that I haven't seen since he was a young teenager. I have no connection with my born-again sisters at all. The pic is of me about age 12, 1960.

[painter]

I, for one, have always been amazed if not awed, how gay people are able to find life-partners...I mean, it's hard enough to do so in a heterosexual world, and heteros are not running the risk of all the negative stereotypes associated with the gay community. Not to mention running the risk of getting the crap beat out of them, or worse. This gets back to the whole 'sub-culture' thing. There have always been gay men and women and homosexuality has been viewed differently in different cultures at different times. In particularly oppressive societies, gay people have invented sings and symbols to identify themselves to one another. When I was 18-19 it was all about boys in blue jeans: Whether or not they wore kerchiefs in their hip pockets, which pocket (right or left cheek) and what color it was. The "gay scene" of the pre AIDS era was pretty wild and still is, actually. Now with the invention of the internet 'hook ups' are so common in our sub-culture they even make reference to them in our movies. Watch the first 3 minutes and 15 seconds of the video to the left, "Latter Days. I've watched it a dozen times and still find it hilarious. After that it gets increasingly more serious. I went to a very liberal college, where homosexuality wasn't a big deal at all...and like Mark, was propositioned a number of times and felt flattered as well. Even growing up in the south, I never really gave it much thought....folks is folks. My aunt (actually more like a cousin due to age), I learned was struggling with her sexuality while in college (and I in high school), and finally came out in her early twentys. Sadly, she assumed I would have a problem with it, and alienated herself from me. Well, I can certainly relate to the "alienating one's self" part of it. In all my years growing up -- and having lived in some fairly wonderful places -- I never felt "at home" until I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area. The truth is I cut myself off from my family far more than they ever cut themselves off from me. I never "came out" to my siblings or my parents. They'd mostly guilt tripped me about everything my whole life without knowing THAT. My father's favorite thing to say to me was, "You'll never amount to anything." So, I knew this would be one more drama I'd just as soon avoid. My sisters were even worse than my parents in some respects -- all "holier than thou" born-again Christian and, Jesus, Joseph and Mary, all they thought I was was a liberal Democrat. The younger of the two once said to me, and I quote: "Gays, women's libbers and Presbyterians are all demon possessed." (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) But, ok, so you're not like that. Have you ever tried to contact your aunt? Not that you should, just curious. My sister-in-law also struggled with it, finally coming out just several years prior to her death (suicide). Well, I'm sorry to hear that. My best gay man friend of many, many years committed suicide about two years after my partner, David, died. Ira was one of the most intelligent and funniest human beings I've ever met. He was also one of the most neurotic. I loved him as a friend and he was loved likewise by many friends but it wasn't enough to either make him happy or keep him alive. Just two days before he blew his brains out we went out to dinner and had a very long talk. He was depressed, angry and extremely anxious. All of his friends knew that Ira had suicidal ideations but, given his hypochondriac tendencies, we assumed if he ever tried to kill himself it would be with pills. If we'd known he owned a gun, one of us would have found a way to get it away from him. But that's just it, none of us knew or even suspected -- and there wasn't much we didn't know about Ira. He never told anyone he owned a hand gun. Even not knowing what Ira was planning, during our last dinner I'd made up my mind that Ira needed a shock and I was even considering giving it to him. I've done this kind of thing before -- totally changed one gay man's life -- but that is another story. My previous lover, the one after David, attempted suicide twice during the three years we were together. He is still living but he isn't someone I can have a healthy relationship with. It is a shame it has to be so difficult. Rick Yeah. Well, we live in a sick society so it shouldn't be any wonder that it shows up in our lives and in our relationships. Turning it around is a monumental effort worthy as a human endeavor.

[tnemelckram]

Hi Painter!

Thanks for splitting this off. Excellent moderation decision because its an endlessly thought provoking subject. I'll pick up on one thing you said in your OP and run with it.

1.

I still am a guy and although I'll be 62 years old soon, my libido isn't much different than it was at 22. That's not a brag, its just the honest truth.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. . . . Well I'm 52 and from my POV, I always want people to have that impression because untarnished virility is the only viable position for a guy. I fully understand why you say that, and do not take it as a "brag" but just ensuring there's no doubt on the point. After all we're both still guys! As to the "honest truth" part . . . . ummm . . . ummm . . . . after all we're both still guys!

Enough trying to be funny with ironic or cynical comments. Actually I'd like to suggest a reason why what you say is indeed the "honest truth". It might point to a fundamental difference between gay and straight men that has some social policy implications.

I have noticed a decline in my libido lately. There might be a biological reason why yours, on the other hand, has not despite ten more years of wear n' tear. I noticed that the decline coincided with my youngest kiddo reaching age 18 - legal adulthood, and the larger biological concept of viability independent of his parents. The recreational aspects of sex get so much play that we forget that reproduction is the primary reason for the male design. ¹
So perhaps heterosexual male libido naturally declines after confirmation that they have spawned viable offspring (consider the parallel in animals, for example, male salmon just up and die). On the other hand, most gay men never reach this juncture in life, so their hormones have no occasion to send this natural signal that diminishes libido.

I hope you don't find my social policy view on this as backward but instead as realistic and practical. People are just another form of animal, and the primary mission of all species is to reproduce. So anthropology requires human government to have policies that first of all ensure the perpetuation of the species. The nuances of this preclude policies that produce constant, uniform and perfect equality for GLBT people, but we can still come close.

Here's a few critical background thoughts. First, the emotional social policy arguments made by GLBT activists are makeweight because the real driver of their concerns (and their best arguments) lie in economics.² Next, I don't buy the reactionary argument that GLBT people pose a threat to the perpetuation of the species³, so there is no fundamental conflict between the existing social policy that favors reproduction and new ones that redress GLBT concerns. Finally there's nothing wrong with a few policies that grant a benefit to a larger group that is simply not available to a smaller group; it's wrong when the favor protects the large group from some type of harm while its denial keeps the smaller group exposed to that same harm. Here's some examples:

( a ) Gay Marriage - The real reason why this should be allowed is because the property that married people both own can't be seized to satisfy a legal judgment that a creditor has against only one spouse, while GLBT couples don't have this basic protection. Perpetuation of our kind provides a good reason for a policy that protects children from being cast out on the street because of one parent's misjudgment. However, footnote 3 demolishes the notion that GLBT sex decreases the reproduction rate, so discouraging it does nothing to further the policy, and is not a good reason to deny this protection to GLBT couples as well.

GLBT couples split up just like hetero couples but without a legal marriage. structured and orderly divorce proceedings are not available to them. If they cannot agree on how to fairly divide their property, then the less advantaged party has to resort self-help, blackmail, extortion, threats and violence to "encourage" the other one to be fair. The second most important social policy is to do everything possible to prevent such dangerous activity, but it is obvious that denying divorce to so many people actually facilitates these dangerous situations. It's a no brainer.

Finally, both sides wring their hands and make emotional arguments grounded in the romance or sanctity of marriage. "Any two people who love each other should be allowed to marry but only the straights can" or "God says marriage is between a man and woman". At best all that is secondary and at worst a bunch of b u l l s h i t. There are two practical reasons why marriage has symbolic value. First, it makes a record putting the rest of the world on notice that the couple falls within the two above legal categories and gives everyone else has fair warning to conduct themselves accordingly. Second, it clarifies the couple's legal rights and duties inter se.

( b ) Employee Medical Benefits - The above analysis produces roughly the same result here, but that result is dependent on legal marriage being equally available to straights and GLBTs in the first place. If it is, then the extent and quality of these benefits should be the same for any couple that has assumed the benefits and burdens of marriage. I have several reasons for requiring marriage. It gives the employer a bright line test instead of having to make a fuzzy definition "domestic partner" and equally fuzzy case by case determinations about whether a LGBT couple qualifies. The current "domestic partner" concept is unsatisfactory. Unlike marriage, it does not require a really substantial commitment to each other, when the reason why employers provide these benefits is that an employee with fewer worries about substantial commitments is more focused and a better employee. Moreover there is no effective way to prevent a friend or relative of the employee from becoming a "domestic partner of convenience" for the sole purpose of getting benefits.

( c ) Child Tax Deductions - This is a great policy tool to motivate people to have enough offspring and otherwise get with and keep The Big Perpetuation Program rolling. It's true that practically all the benefit goes to heteros and bisexuals while homosexuals are excluded. However, this is a case where the disparity is only on the benefit side because there is no corresponding increase in taxes on homosexuals to discourage them. Moreover, childless heteros and bis are equally excluded. Finally, the only test is whether one has natural or legally adopted children so it is equally available to homosexuals who adopt or decide to have a natural child.

( d ) Married Filing Jointly Tax Rates - Now here's a tricky one. At first blush legalized homosexual marriages would qualify the couple for these lower rates because the only current requirement is a legally recognized marriage (including common law). The problem is that this tax break is currently rooted in the Big Perpetuation Plan and only seems to hang together as part of it. Hetero and bi sexuals are inclined to do what it takes to reproduce, and their marriages tend to encourage having children and then provide a structure that protects them until they are able to become independent and ready to spawn the next generation. On the other hand, married or not, homosexual relations preclude natural children from the outset. Childless married heteros and bis are always capable of doing that, including those who disavow any intent to have children (all it takes is a change of intent or an accident).

The troubling result is that there is no reason to give homosexuals a tax break that is justified by the potential to participate in The Big Plan and even worse, only they suffer an increased tax burden. Unfortunately, the purpose of tax benefits is to influence behavior in a certain direction but in this case money can't produce the desired result. That is not inherently evil like imposing a tax penalty due to a status. Clearly adoption should trigger an equivalent tax break because it restores the justification. Otherwise, this may be a hard case that defies perfect equality.

(e) Gay Adoption - Because I think sexual orientation is pre-wired, it follows that there is no way for this to make any difference at all in the existing straight/gay ratio. We will keep having the same number of babies anyway so this is no threat to the Big Perpetuation Plan. Moral considerations are secondary to that.

But the moral objections I hear are nevertheless hooey. First, I don't view sexual fetishes and preferences such as GLBT as abnormal but rather as deviations from some norm that must be numbingly dull and incredibly boring. To put that in context, all humans are different so only one of them at a time can fall squarely in the "norm" position so by definition all the rest are deviates. To make it even worse, any one person who lands on the norm is immediately dethroned because another birth or death alters his place in the distribution. Deviations from the norm are the norm. When it comes to sex, everyone has their own quirks that make them deviations from the norm so every child in history has been reared by some kind of sexual deviate (including mine). How can you base any moral judgment on sex when the background is this dark, or meaningfully distinguish GLBT's from the other tribes, let alone go even further and say that as adoptive parents they present a special moral problem?


___________________________
1. Upon receipt of a signal from his brain to initiate an . . umm . . "Outreach Program", his brain then shuts down, but his equipment picks up the slack by becoming a tool that, if its quest is successful, can be poked into whatever it ends up finding. Whether the things it seeks are consciously chosen or preordained is another issue that's thankfully beyond the scope of what I'm trying to say. FWIW I think preordained.

2. Another way we're more the same that different - just a bunch of greedy f u c k e r s, the whole lot of us.

3. I think that both reactionary conservatives and GLBT activists overstate the natural incidence of homosexuality and/or how inclined straights might be to cross the line.
IIRC some GLBT estimates exceed 25%. The rednecks don't talk in numbers but tend to be fearful people who perceive threats are behind every tree (there's lots of trees). I put homosexuality at around 5% but also think that bisexuals are far more numerous. You can get to 20% by including them. Bisexuals by definition intend to reproduce so the key to my point that assuming 95% of the population are potential breeders, homosexuality cannot possibly threaten the survival of the species. GLBT activists probably prefer the gross number because presenting a large group in monolithic fashion is an impressive way to show that we are not some exotic fringe group; since widespread de facto social acceptance is fait accompli, public policy must change. The broken down numbers are more impressive to me because they are the key that unlocks the policy puzzle.
Instead of numbers, social conservatives are fixated on moral arguments. Apparently they fear opening the gates because, among other things, most people will then succumb to the temptations of sodomy instead of having enough babies. I think that's nonsense for several reasons. Sexual preference seems to be imposed on people by forces that are outside their control and powerful enough to override casual choice. For millenia, moralists have held the same gate open for easy travel in the opposite direction by homosexuals succumbing to the temptations of hetero sex and just as constantly bemoaned the lack of traffic. Why would the opposite be any different? Is there any objective data showing that one way is much better than the other? No. The only people I can think of who can make a meaningful comparison are bisexuals, but apparently they can't decide.

[painter]

... As to the "honest truth" part . . . . ummm . . . ummm . . . . after all we're both still guys!

LoL. Well, I may have exaggerated a bit but not much. The difference for me has to do with motivation. I've never been interested in or inclined toward anonymous sexual encounters (a lot of men are). Living where I do, even and old guy like me can have plenty of sex pretty much as often as he would want. But that's just it. I'm not motivated to make that happen. It just feels like too much work. However, my imagination is as active as ever.

So perhaps heterosexual male libido naturally declines after confirmation that they have spawned viable offspring (consider the parallel in animals, for example, male salmon just up and die). On the other hand, most gay men never reach this juncture in life, so their hormones have no occasion to send this natural signal that diminishes libido.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions here based on little or no empirical evidence. I haven't researched any of this so I really don't know -- not even sure how one would evaluate the 'truthyness' of a subject's claim in the matter anyway. Put simply, I suspect it is fairly individual and probably more genetically based than environmentally or socially based. Just from personal experience, the gay men I know who have natural sons of reproductive age haven't shown any decline in sexual interest -- but this is an admittedly limited sample.

I hope you don't find my social policy view on this as backward but instead as realistic and practical. People are just another form of animal, and the primary mission of all species is to reproduce. So anthropology requires human government to have policies that first of all ensure the perpetuation of the species. The nuances of this preclude policies that produce constant, uniform and perfect equality for GLBT people, but we can still come close.

I don't mind but I've never been a very "practical" person. I've given a link to this thread to an 18 year old gay activist friend of mine who, no doubt, will find your position and arguments quite interesting. Being the artist, philosopher, mystical type, I'm more interested in the "aesthetics" of the matter. For example, I would never say, "People are just another form of animal." That is one thing we are but it is not all that we are. So far as government's need for policies that "ensure the perpetuation of the species," I think that's just a lame excuse for the policies -- polices which in general perpetuate not the species but the "captive herd" of the work force needed to sustain the (almost invariably) hierarchical structure of the social system. Government's were not the cause of human kind's arising much less its perpetuation except in a given social "form" or "structure". My broad (and admittedly not detailed or deep) survey of social attitudes toward homosexuality and sex in general throughout history suggests there is no clear correlation between these attitudes and any need to insure procreation. If anything, what is evident is the need to define property (wife and children) by patrimony and, in a larger sense, the society as a whole (population) as the property (herd) of a ruling elite. Social attitudes toward homosexuality may be negative but so are social attitudes toward heterosexual promiscuity and infidelity. I'm maintaining that if "survival of the species" was at all a concern this latter would not be the case.

I'm leaving aside a lot more that might be involved here such as the (perceived) need to "control" sexual tendencies and attitudes -- as if people wouldn't know what to do with themselves if there wasn't some "authority" telling them what to do and how to do it. Total bunk, IMO. BUT, unfortunately my time is short and I'll have to leave the rest of your post for another time.

Just to be clear, what I'm most interested in is sexual energy (regardless of the focus of desire) and its uses and misuses. I'm much more interested in talking about how social systems attempt to control the manifestation of that energy, whether it has to do with 'making babies' (property) or selling refrigerators (property). When all the while what is really happening is the dis-empowering of the individual through the sublimation of an energetic force that has many sublime properties -- from procreation to the manifestation of the 'divine'. If it can be sufficiently 'warped' this powerful energy can be put in the service of 'controllers', thus insuring the general complacency of the herd.

I'll let you chew on that for a while.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[dMz]

Although I'm quite likely to disagree with some/much of the above [at a much later time], I just wanted to pick painter's brain on this specific 1967 Janis Ian song that he quoted on my "grotto" thread at post #60 (that I noticed when I was trying to "troubleshoot" Internet speaker problems (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10768411

Much of that was "before my time," and reading her lyrics, I suspect that there was a "context" (EDIT: or two+) that likely applies to this thread... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

EDIT: I never knew that "Grizz" was gay either... Make that one "brother" and one "uncle" of mine that are/were "lately" gay. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[painter]

Although I'm quite likely to disagree with some/much of the above [at a much later time]...

Looking forward to it!

...I just wanted to pick painter's brain on this specific 1967 Janis Ian song...

This particular song was a chart topper in the fall of 1967 when I was a freshman in college. She is specifically commenting on inter-racial dating. Although not overtly stated in the lyrics, it is apparent in the musical composition. Yes, so far as prejudicial social attitudes are concerned, the song is relevant to some of this thread. (It might be interesting to note that Janice Ian is now an "out" lesbian although she was not when she wrote and sang this song.)

Again, my primary interest here is NOT to be an apologist for homosexuality but to bring up questions about the way human sexuality -- a very powerful force -- is "perverted" to serve the interests of a social order that is in direct opposition to our individual liberty and empowerment.

Perhaps I should change the subject title of this thread?

[Sanders]

Maybe, dunnoh, but in lieu of that, I subscribe to the BOLDED in the above post.

I've been reading this thread from the get-go. Both astounding and refreshing.

[tnemelckram]

Hi Painter! Great response to my anthropo-politico tome above!

1. I first theorized:

So perhaps heterosexual male libido naturally declines after confirmation that they have spawned viable offspring (consider the parallel in animals, for example, male salmon just up and die). On the other hand, most gay men never reach this juncture in life, so their hormones have no occasion to send this natural signal that diminishes libido.

You responded:

I think you're making a lot of assumptions here based on little or no empirical evidence. I haven't researched any of this so I really don't know -- not even sure how one would evaluate the 'truthyness' of a subject's claim in the matter anyway.

Well my primary test subject is me! I agree that a lot more is needed. I think there are some scientific studies that support my theory (I'll try to find them). As I grew up I heard a lot of anecdotal evidence from older men - mostly to the effect that they are working so hard to pay for college that they don't have time to think about it, or so burned out from having reared the kiddos and booted them out the door that they don't have as much inclination. Female peers entering menopause probably changes the perspective. Maybe all it amounts to is finally growing up!

Actually, you said something that seems to fit right into the pattern:

The difference for me has to do with motivation. . . . . even and old guy like me can have plenty of sex pretty much as often as he would want. But that's just it. I'm not motivated to make that happen. It just feels like too much work. However, my imagination is as active as ever.

This decline in libido does not show itself physiologically. A guy has to make it clear that he is not talking about that problem. The Lawyer's Process is still serviceable. Like any solid guy, you have already taken pains to make it clear that your situation doesn't involve a physiological issue. I'm just catching up.


2. You said this about the decline in libido when children become viable:

Put simply, I suspect it is fairly individual and probably more genetically based than environmentally or socially based. Just from personal experience, the gay men I know who have natural sons of reproductive age haven't shown any decline in sexual interest -- but this is an admittedly limited sample.

My problem is that your two latest Posts then proceed to make an excellent case that it is environmentally and socially driven to large degree, which is discussed in point 3. We also seem to be stepping on each others toes. I hang my hat on some "Primordial Urge To Reproduce" common to humans and animals. I thought (and most people would conclude) that genetics underlies my argument that there would be a decline in libido after successful reproduction, and here you are saying that it is genetically based! At the same time, due to what you said about environment and socialization, I now think that those factors play a huge part. They distinguish humans from animals and weaken the original genetic basis for my argument.

The men with natural adult sons are interesting. It seems that some of them could be bisexual instead of homosexual. If their interest in sex with females has declined (or disappeared) then it would be consistent with a decline in libido driven by successful reproduction.

I get a charge out of going out socially. So does the wife. We both have enough sexual interest to do some social flirting. The problem is getting up the will to go out in the first place. It often seems easier not to. Perhaps you only see these guys when they are already out socially and similarly charged up. They may have the same going out in the first place problem.

Speaking of the wife, then you have the natural result of decades of marriage and lip service to monogamy overlaid. Somehow the tedium seems safer now. These guys most likely aren't married (or still married) but any of them who are bi could be married and with an understanding spouse, very happily so. The potential marriage factor cuts both ways and throws a real spanner into the works!


3. The following things seem to fit my experience well; making me think that environmental and social factors are primary and that genetics are secondary. In other words, genetics would still naturally cause some decline in libido, but I have a bigger problem than that alone would produce due to the bullshit surrounding me. You aptly pointed it out.

If anything, what is evident is the need to define property (wife and children) by patrimony and, in a larger sense, the society as a whole (population) as the property (herd) of a ruling elite. Social attitudes toward homosexuality may be negative but so are social attitudes toward heterosexual promiscuity and infidelity. I'm maintaining that if "survival of the species" was at all a concern this latter would not be the case.

I'm leaving aside a lot more that might be involved here such as the (perceived) need to "control" sexual tendencies and attitudes -- as if people wouldn't know what to do with themselves if there wasn't some "authority" telling them what to do and how to do it. Total bunk, IMO. BUT, unfortunately my time is short and I'll have to leave the rest of your post for another time.

Just to be clear, what I'm most interested in is sexual energy (regardless of the focus of desire) and its uses and misuses. I'm much more interested in talking about how social systems attempt to control the manifestation of that energy, whether it has to do with 'making babies' (property) or selling refrigerators (property). When all the while what is really happening is the dis-empowering of the individual through the sublimation of an energetic force that has many sublime properties -- from procreation to the manifestation of the 'divine'. If it can be sufficiently 'warped' this powerful energy can be put in the service of 'controllers', thus insuring the general complacency of the herd.

This made me realize several things.

First, part of my problem is that having successfully reproduced, now we turn the kiddos out into the terrible world that we have made for them. Just look at the grim general subject matter of this Board, and all the other topics on the News, Government, and Religion Threads. That's enough to wilt The Proudest Tower One Can Erect! There's a real chance the whole thing was futile.

Second, the biggest misuse of sexual energy that I can think of is the way advertising and entertainment uses it to assign roles to people, which they then dutifully act out. Car ads - for men, penile plumage; for women, sassy attitude; all presented as a way to get laid better. Football Beer Commercials - guys see a beautiful woman and get all stupid, which is demeaning to all men. Worst of all, the lame sexual humor on sitcoms - those people don't even know how to swear right! Fascination with celebrity sex - who gives a s h i t, all they want is to get laid just like you (its genetic?).

Third, the kids are just another control mechanism. The whole time I have felt the Man making subtle threats to their well being if we don't toe the line. They understand my argument about the drive to propagate and know that the worst threat is one made against the survival of your spawn.

And that's just for starters.


4.

Again, my primary interest here is NOT to be an apologist for homosexuality but to bring up questions about the way human sexuality -- a very powerful force -- is "perverted" to serve the interests of a social order that is in direct opposition to our individual liberty and empowerment.

A. I don't think there is anything to apologize for and don't think that you think there is. Hence I'm not surprised that your not here to apologize! Your on solid ground with me my friend!

B. I was sure that you would understand my Post and the rest of your quote shows that you did and took it to a higher level. I started by reducing a conception of a "good society" to a core - policies that support the perpetuation of the species, standing alone and un perverted, are not bad things. That has led to a lot of the historic unequal treatment of GLBT people and that policy is at the root of many of the issues that they raise. When examined, that policy does not justify just about all of the unequal treatment and equal treatment can be provided consistent with that policy (I went the other way on the joint filing thing just to show I'm not a metronome). I also wanted to point out some flaws in the arguments. And as you point out, the biggest flaw in what I say is that you can't look at it so abstractly given how screwed up reality is.

C. Points 1, 2 and 3 address only the "declining libido" question, not this larger social policy question, although the two dovetail.


5.

For example, I would never say, "People are just another form of animal." That is one thing we are but it is not all that we are.

A. I agree that my statement is to strong. I should have left out the "just". Got your attention, did it?

B. People are much more complex. Here's one dark way that we differ from near relatives, the apes. Gibbons are truly monogamous. Gorillas collect in harems. Chimpanzees are pretty promiscuous. Only the humans are capable of hypocrisy - they profess to be like the Gibbons and behave like the Chimps.

C. I think that GLBT's are a nice way that we differ from the animals. I don't think its genetic or the result of environment. What I think is that unlike the animals, people can engage in abstract thought and create conditions that give them time for it instead of spending all their time focused on survival. So I think it is a product of the human brain's capacity and ability to engage in independent and unconventional thought. For example, I prefer women and Impressionist paintings, and can give reasons. There are others who beg to disagree, and have their reasons. I don't mean to say that this is a matter of deliberate choice. No one can control or stop the next thought that they might have. Nor is it genetic. Genetics don't influence your thoughts and there are smart and dumb gays and straights. Finally, its not environmental. Abstract thinking by definition is divorced from the environment.

[Daniels]

Now with the invention of the internet 'hook ups' are so common in our sub-culture they even make reference to them in our movies. Watch the first 3 minutes and 15 seconds of the video to the left, "Latter Days. I've watched it a dozen times and still find it hilarious.

Thanks Painter.

That is pretty darn funny. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[tnemelckram]

Hi Painter and everyone!

Up above here I hypothesized that the male sex drive declines upon confirmation that he has produced viable offspring, which led to some discussion and debate. Here's an article in the Local Rag that might shed some partial light on my thought. There's a natural decline in testosterone levels as males age so a new hormonal therapy is being tested. Then apparently there is a similar problem in post-menopausal women, for which hormonal replenishment is an established treatment but now undesirable side effects are being found. The relevant parts of the article follows.

Can testosterone therapy aid older men?
Study tests hormone gel on men older than 65

Tuesday, November 03, 2009
By Mark Roth, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

As men age, their testosterone levels naturally drop.

But for some men, the male sex hormone may sink so low that they not only lose all interest in sex, but suffer more falls, have memory problems and experience anemia.

A new national study at the University of Pittsburgh and 11 other sites will now explore whether applying testosterone gel to the abdomen, torso or upper arms can reverse those effects.

Dr. Jane Cauley, the main local investigator and an epidemiology professor at Pitt, said that sexual desire, energy, strength and a clear mind are "all important for a person's quality of life, and what we will be doing is to look at these overall markers of well-being."

The study has been years in the making, Dr. Snyder said, and when it was first suggested by the national Institute of Medicine in 2003, it was quite controversial.

The institute's recommendation came out at around the same time that a large study of hormone replacement therapy in post-menopausal women, the Women's Health Initiative, showed that the female hormone treatments put women at greater risk of getting breast cancer, heart disease and other ailments.

That prompted the New York Times to ask in an editorial: "Can American men be rushing into the same reckless use of hormones that brought grief and anxiety to so many unsuspecting women? That disquieting possibility is raised by a new report that laments a huge upsurge in testosterone replacement therapy for men despite a paucity of evidence that it is safe or beneficial. One wonders whether another medical debacle is in the making."

LINK: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09307/1010305-114.stm

[Omega892R09]

The pic is of me around age 17, taken in a broken truck side mirror.

Like the camera. The pentaprism top makes it look like an SR7, or an SR1 or SR 1s which had a meter clip on bracket but with an even narrower top edge to the pentaprism. I note the absence of a mirror up-lock control.

I had a brace of Minolta SRT101s (whilst in the RN - they stood up well to high temperatures and humidity (except the lube' in one lens ran slowing down the aperture close down) which ruined a couple of films before I realised it was happening. Shooting mostly on process paid transparency film Kodachrome II (ASA25), Agfa CT-18 (ASA50) and then early Fujichrome as it appeared (ASA100) I didn't see the results until arriving home on leave.

I still have 3 working SRT 101s and a couple of X700s (and even one of those Minolta 16 IIs) having stayed with Minolta until they vanished. I bought a Dynax 7, then KM Dynax 7D and having moved onto Sony (A100 and A700) whereby my lens and flash kits can be still well used. I have resisted buying any C-sensor standard lenses and have picked up a few v.good second hand Minolta full frame AF lenses.

These AF cameras are all very well but I still like the robust handling feel of the older SRT101s which I can use in inclement conditions that would kill the others. Still use my old Weston Master V which still has its Invercone attachment in it own little leather pouch.

Sorry for the diversion. Not trying to highjack your thread.

[albertchampion]

well, i have always thought hormones to be the invention of satan.

testosterone may have some benefits, but it is regarded as the stimulant for prostrate cancer.

and estrogen, well it is now being thought to be a stimulant for various female cancers and other illnesses.

and the estrogen entering the water supply via sewage is thought to be seriously screwing around with freshwater and saltwater fisheries.

as walt kelly once wrote, we have met the enemy and it[sic] is us.