Darkside Rainbow

A brief bit of discussion on the delurking post from last week regarding an apparent minority of gay Republicans (who seemed surprised to discover each other here) made me start wondering about political orientation, sexuality, and how much the former is affected by the latter. There is a general assumption that most homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders will be far-left, very liberal, definitely Democrats whose major political hot button is always GBLTQ rights - but is that really true?

Out of curiosity I put together this quick ten-question survey for my readers here. I like learning about you guys (and gals, and everything outside and in between), and hearing about varying viewpoints from all over the rainbow spectrum – so if you could take just a minute to take this survey, I’d really appreciate it. You can answer with just the letters, or you can add your expanded views on each question; it’s up to you how much or how little you want to say.

Now I’m aware, due to the type of site that this is, that the general reader base is going to be a bit slanted in a certain direction - so the survey is more a sample of the general feelings of the GBLTQ community and its supporters. If, however, you have friends that don’t quite agree with you on GBLTQ issues and you think they’d be interested in the survey, feel free to send ‘em this way; I’d love to hear from them as well.

Enough out of me; on with the survey!

1. I am:
     (a) gay/lesbian
     (b) straight
     (c) bisexual
     (d) transgender
     (e) questioning/not really sure
     (f) asexual

2. My gender:
     (a) female (biological or MtF)
     (b) male (biological or FtM)
     (c) biologically intersexed
     (d) androgynous/genderqueer

3. My age:
     (a) Under 13 (what are you doing on this site, kiddo?)
     (b) 13-17
     (c) 18-25
     (d) 26-35
     (e) 36-45
     (f) 46 or older

4. My “out” status:
     (a) completely out of the closet
     (b) only out to some people
     (c) totally closeted
     (d) I already told you I’m straight, you daffy blighter.

5. My political affiliation is:
     (a) Republican
     (b) Democrat
     (c) Independent
     (d) Other (please specify)
     (e) Pointedly Disinterested (which gets caps because it’s a large
     enough faction to be its own party)

6. I consider myself:
     (a) very conservative
     (b) moderately conservative
     (c) a fence-straddler
     (d) moderately liberal
     (e) very liberal
     (f) I really can’t stand the terms “liberal” and “conservative”.

7. I plan to vote in the 2008 US Presidential election:
     (a) yes
     (b) no
     (c) only if a candidate I can really endorse is on the ballot
     (d) I’m not old enough to vote
     (e) I’m not a US citizen and don’t much care for your elections, aside
     from hoping you don’t do anything silly. Again.

8. I feel that my sexuality affects my political leanings:
     (a) only a little
     (b) only a lot
     (c) not at all

9. A candidate’s stance on GLBTQ issues affects my view of them:
     (a) very strongly
     (b) moderately
     (c) only a teensy bit
     (d) not at all

10. The political issue that I feel the most strongly about is ___________________. (No, this one’s not multiple choice. Fill in the blank, hm? I’m not going to assume what your issues might be. Feel free to elaborate as much as you want.)

---

If you don’t want to discuss your political views and sexuality openly, you can post anonymously; in the section of the comments field that asks for your name, just fill in “Anonymous” or “None of Your Business” or anything you want other than your own name or the name you use most commonly on the site. Also, if I left an answer off that you feel better applies to you than any of the options available, then write it in; if you want to address a related question that I didn’t ask, such as “Do you think party platforms make them more attractive to people of a certain sexuality?” or anything else, knock yourselves out. Feel free to discuss your responses with each other, or ask me any questions about mine. And if you’re wondering what my answers are:

 

1. a; 2. b; 3. d; 4. a; 5. c; 6. f; 7. a; 8. a; 9. b; 10. separation of church and state.

And I’m done for now. I may post again later today; I haven’t skimmed the news yet, so I don’t know if there’s anything in current events/gay life that I might find rant-worthy - though on an off-topic slant, some people might find this just a little infuriating (although I’ll leave any ranting on that to more qualified people, such as my various readers or April over at Her Daily News). In case I don’t post again, though…see ya’ll (yes, ya’ll, so shoot me for being Southern - at least I don’t have the accent) tomorrow.

~Adri

Edit: It’s been brought to my attention that in my sleepy thoughtlessness, I left “asexual” off the choices for sexuality. It’s on there now. Sorry for the oversight.

gbltq politics, lgbt politics, gay and lesbian politics, gay republicans, gay democrats, 2008 presidential elections, sexuality and politics

Welcome to a train-wreck of foreign relations.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad Denies Gay Existence - GenerationQ

Columbia University, New York, NY (USA) Today [9/24], President of Iran, Ahmadinejad spoke to faculty, staff, and students at Columbia University in New York, NY . Amid quite a bit of protest, this controversial speaker not only questioned the legitimacy of Jerusalem , argued for the proliferation of nuclear armaments and even denied that gay men and lesbians exist in an Arabic state. During the speech, a questioner asked him why does his country deny women and homosexual’s rights. His answer was not only startling in this day and age, but it was disgusting:

QUESTION: Mr. President, the question isn’t about criminal and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women.

(APPLAUSE)

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals, like in your country.

(LAUGHTER)

We don’t have that in our country.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.

Since the year 1979, over 4000 gay men and lesbians have been put to death in Iran.

No one will deny that the culture of a foreign country will be markedly different from that of your homeland. You’ll find everything from different religions to different clothing - traits as superficial as different spices in the food, or as telling as an entirely different set of physical characteristics.

What you will not find, though, is a deviation from the basic tenets of human existence. Bipedal, four fingers and an opposable thumb, one head, two eyes, two genders…and diverse sexuality among those two genders.

So for the president of Iran to boldly state that Iran has no homosexuals would be like President Bush standing in front of the population of a nation and declaring proudly, “We have no idiots in America.”

Where there are humans, there will be idiots. (Some days I’m one of ‘em.) And where there are humans…you will find homosexuality. Let’s face it, homosexuality occurs in nature; it’s been documented in countless species of animals and even finds its place in the social hierarchy of the pack/herd/flock/etc.

We are animals. Evidence grows almost daily to support a biological trigger for homosexuality, whether it’s wired in genetically from the start or some chemical released by the brain. It happens in every country; to claim that it doesn’t happen in Iran is like saying that Iranians are somehow more human than human (hello, White Zombie) and evolved beyond natural occurrences of homosexuality. Of course there are homosexuals in Iran; I can’t believe I even have to state this as an obvious fact. In fact, if you do a Google search right now, you’ll find recent documented evidence of gay Iranians in many venues. You can’t just say that they don’t exist.

Unless you intend on proving that true by executing them all. 4,000 dead gays and lesbians…

So are we vermin now, to be exterminated?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran, Columbia University, Homophobia, Anti-gay sentiment

Even though I’m not particularly flamboyant, people usually pick up on the fact that I’m gay. I don’t really know what my tell-tale markers are, honestly; my mannerisms and body language are pretty gender-neutral. Maybe it’s the hair, or something about my style of dress; maybe it’s the rose sunglasses (which, believe it or not, I wear to cope with painful photosensitivity and not for style), or the piercings - though the latter I doubt as plenty of straight men wear earrings now, too.

Maybe it’s that I can occasionally be caught giving a second glance to a guy whose aesthetic catches my eye. Maybe it’s that I generally don’t even give a first glance to the classic magnets to the male eye: the nearest T&A. Hell, maybe it’s just pheromones and chemistry.

Either way, there’s some signal that I give off well before I even let a “my boyfriend” slip in conversation that sets off people’s gaydar with that distinctive little blip. I suppose I’m so comfortable with myself that it’s wholly subconscious, but some people are a bit more deliberate - and a bit more wary. Some people have their own personal code of body language and carefully-chosen words, subtle ways of letting people know that they’re gay, carefully feeling out the territory around them…while others may be out and loud, proclaiming themselves proudly to anyone who’ll listen and making sure that everyone who even glances their way can tell in an instant that they’re fabulously queer. The hanky code isn’t so popular anymore…but we’ve all got our own ways about us, and different signs that work in different situations. We’ve all got our way of waving our little gay flag.

So if you’re gay…how do you out yourself? Do you let it all hang out, or maybe feel your way tentatively along, throwing out careful phrases like “my partner” to test the waters in your social environment before edging slowly out of the closet? Do you not out yourself at all, carefully covering your tracks to make sure that no one can figure it out? Or do you, like me, not even think about it unless it somehow accidentally comes up as part of regular interaction?

And what signs do you watch for in others? Say you’re wondering if that hottie is gay and maybe just keeping things on the down low; what signs do you watch for to try to tell even in the most “straight-acting” of girls or guys?

Hell…what is “straight-acting”, anyway? I’ve known straight guys who could flame me right out of the water.

This has been your daily interrogation, coming from a very sleep-deprived and coffee-deficient Adri. Let me know if you make any sense out of it, because I sure can’t.

Signing out.

P.S. Remember when I was griping about Dinah Matos-McGreevey being a little gold-digger? Well, she got what she wanted. Absolutely ridiculous.

gaydar, out status, sex and sexuality, gay-acting, straight-acting, butch, femme, governor james mcgreevey, james mcgreevey, dinah matos, dinah matos mcgreevey, mcgreevey, matos, gay nj governor, gay new jersey governor, jacqueline mcgreevey

Sorry to be updating so late today, but I’m technically on a working vacation - meaning I’m keeping a pretty loose schedule here. In keeping with my five days of stress-free life, today we’re going to lay off the heavy, politically debatable news topics and instead relax with a submission to the “Ask Adri” column.

Hey

May seem a bit of an odd thing to be asking, but…

I’ve found that in addition to being bisexual in terms of who I’d like relationships with, I’ve got an odd kind of bi-sexual body image as well. I’m naturally female, but don’t want to be just that. Not that I want to be male. I don’t like having to be either, I do a lot of androgyny with suits and ties and formal footwear to create a sexless effect. I want to be both, or neither. When I have attempted to explain why I do my androgyne look, people either don’t seem to get it or assume I mean I’d rather be male.

I don’t really have much experience with the gay community, finding it to be too brash and busy being ‘fabulous’ to be useful to my sombrely suited self. So I don’t know if it’s a common thing with Queens or the equivalent Kings or whatever they may go by. Is my wish for sexlessness particuarly odd? Are there many others who’d far rather be hermaphroditic or asexual then have to be male or female?

Love the comic, by the way. Long time habit of politics watching, so the links are often useful.

- El

El, really, what you’re feeling isn’t so abnormal; androgyny’s been around for a long time, and wasn’t just a popular fad that produced such 80s icons (and nightmares) as David Bowie, Annie Lennox, and Boy George before fading away. It really has nothing to do with your sexuality, or even with your gender identity; you’re not a Queen or a King, and thus really shouldn’t worry about defining yourself by any terms outlined by an overly-flamboyant (and I’m a bit on your side there) gay community.

Modern-day gender roles themselves are really quite outdated, and it’s quite surprising that they’ve held out for as long as they have. Rigid gender-based behaviors began eons ago out of a need for organization and safety to preserve and further a species of primitive hunter-gatherers divided by those who bore and raised children, and those who provided for and protected the child-rearers and their offspring.

We’ve evolved far from those needs, and since men and women now fulfill pretty much the same roles in society - women protecting and providing for their families, men staying home with the children, and vice-versa - it’s time to abandon the ideas of what men should wear and what women should wear as entirely separate things, and abandon these ideas that who one is is strictly defined by one’s gender. Hormonal influences from gender may affect some personality traits, but in the end you are who you are, and your attachments (or lack thereof) shouldn’t change that.

Just because you have a penis or a vagina doesn’t mean you have to fulfill this preset concept of what a boy or a girl should be. I know, you probably wish you could get rid of your sex-defining anatomy altogether, or else double-up to be both - all or nothing, as it were - but when you can’t do that, the least you can do is ignore societal norms and focus on your own comfort with how you present your genderless (or dual-gendered) identity to the rest of the world.

In a way, you’re just ahead of the times. Yes, many people are socialized into accepting that because they’re male or female, they should act certain ways, desire certain things, wear just these clothes - and they’re comfortable with that, because they don’t even stop to think that it could be any other way. But there are plenty of people who will completely ignore their assigned gender role, recognize that just because society is binary doesn’t mean that they have to be, and will quite contentedly choose their lifestyle based on what they like and how they feel, rather than whether or not their choices fit their gender. They both disdain gender and fluidly embrace it, ignoring its rules while enjoying its every aspect, at once being sexless and yet dual-sexed.

I’m one such person.

No, seriously. Keeping to the topic of clothing alone (so I won’t be here all day boring you), my wardrobe is a mixture of men’s and women’s clothing; when it’s time for me to get new clothes, I wander both sections of the department store looking not for just this type of men’s clothing, but looking for anything that appeals to me regardless of where it happens to be hanging. If I can find women’s jeans that don’t squeeze uncomfortably in the wrong places, I’ll buy them because I love the low-slung hip-huggers, boot-cut to the point of almost being bellbottoms…and yet at the same time I’ll pair those with men’s muscle shirts and some rugged men’s boots. I wear them together because I like the overall androgynous look, not because I’m trying to be masculine or feminine or even balance in between - and I can promise you that I don’t want to be female, even if I’m not so deeply attached to my masculine identity, either. It isn’t about any of that for me; it’s about my own personal style and comfort.

I wear my hair long and like to comb it across my face to accent my eyes prettily (vain, I know), but at the same time think I look silly if I don’t have at least a little rough stubble dotting my jaw; quite often people have to do a double-take with me and check my flat chest to figure out if I’m male or female, which is pretty much how I like it. My behavior patterns range between strict definitions of masculine and feminine, and I don’t care. I can’t even really identify which traits fall where, because to me, I’m just acting like Adri, and Adri would be Adri regardless of anatomy. It has nothing to do with me being gay, either; as the wide range of gay male behavior - from butch to femme and all along the road in between - will tell you, sexuality really has nothing to do with masculine or feminine behavior. But then you already know that quite well, being you.

Basically what this whole mess boils down to is that you aren’t alone in feeling this way, and there’s nothing wrong with it. In fact, in my eyes you’re more normal than any promotion of strict behavioral separation by gender. If you don’t want to be a boy or a girl, don’t be either. You can’t change your anatomy, but you don’t have to let it guide how you act, how you dress, or how you feel; make the best of what you have. Just be El, enjoy being El, and to hell with everything else.

Hope this helped at least in some way, even if half of it was just a little commiseration from a similarly-minded person.

Androgynously yours,
~Adri

ask adri, gay advice column, genderqueer, androgyny

You don’t have to be a genius - or even moderately clever - to guess how I feel about ex-gay “therapy”. I find it disturbing, a chilling violation of the self, and don’t think there’s anything particularly therapeutic about it at all.

True, I can’t be wholly critical of people who make the choice to deny their homosexuality under their own influence. I think it’s sad and I feel sorry for them, but they’re doing what they think is in their own best interests. I may not agree, but I can’t deny them the right to try to live as comfortably as they can. One’s sexuality isn’t an easy thing to come to grips with, and for some people it’s just safer and less painful to run away.

The people that bother me the most are those who advocate ex-gay therapy…and even more, those who administer it. The fundamental psychology of someone who takes it upon themselves to assist in changing another’s sexuality would probably make an interesting study, and I’m sure someone more well-versed in psychology than I could write one hell of a paper. I just can’t help but wonder what kind of mind it takes to say, “Your sexuality is wrong - but not only will I tell you why, but I’ll aid you in changing it…through force, if necessary.” Ex-gay therapy often involves dangerous practices of electroshock therapy, deprivation, imprisonment, psychological manipulation…and in one case right here in Texas, sexual molestation.

Ex-Gay to Pay - Miami New Times

The Fort Lauderdale based group [Worthy Creations] operates under the spiritual umbrella of the “ex-gay” movement, which uses reparative therapy to purportedly rid homosexuals of same-sex attraction. [...] This past week the ex-gay movement made headlines again after one of its “ex-gay” counselors in Texas — who employed “touch therapy” with clients to cure them of their homosexuality — was convicted of sexual assault.

According to court documents, Christopher Austin counseled ex-gays at Church of Christ South MacArthur in Irving. He was first arrested in 2002 after a patient claimed his techniques included nude sessions and physical intimacy, including oral sex. News coverage of the case led to other victims coming forward who alleged the ex-gay leader “unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly caused penetration.”

One of the comments on the Miami New Times blog wonders if the victims were male or female. I can’t help but wonder that, as well. I don’t know which would be more reprehensible - that Austin was sodomizing gay males as part of his “touch therapy”, all the while claiming what they were doing was wrong and punishable…or that he was forcing himself on lesbians as if physical intimacy with a male would somehow make them start to desire men. I can feel my gorge rising just thinking about either.

Behavior like this is the sign of a deeply disturbed individual with control issues. Considering that he’s not the only one to apply the sort of techniques mentioned above, how often has this kind of behavior taken place while the victims remained silent, the actions of their self-appointed “therapists” possibly even condoned?

I don’t really think that these ex-gay therapists are doing this for their misled patients. I think they’re doing it for themselves, and that they derive some sort of pleasure from manipulating people this way. Granted, tomorrow I may cool down and be willing to revise my opinion and speak more fairly, as I’m sure that some really do think they’re trying to help and are just grossly misinformed. Right now, though, I’m speaking from the revulsion welling deep within my gut, and the horror shaping words on the tip of my tongue…and I couldn’t be more disgusted. I’d rather be gay and reviled by the rest of society for a healthy expression of love between two men than be someone disturbed enough to cause that kind of harm to other people for the sake of “conversion”.

Ex-gay therapy helps people, huh? About the only thing Austin helped anyone realize was that they didn’t need to be anywhere near his sort of “therapy”.

At least, in that, there’s a mixed blessing.

chris austin, fort lauderdale, ex-gay therapy, conversion therapy, worthy creations, sexual assault

The political world has been churning with so much news on the gay-related front lately that I haven’t even known where to start, especially not before my first gallon of coffee. There’s Senator Larry Craig, still sawing at his proverbial wrists as he continues to commit political suicide, while the governor of Iowa is making an arse of himself. Anti-gay religious leader James Kennedy has died (they’re dropping like flies lately; I don’t know if it’s the generation and their age, or if I should reconsider my atheism and wonder if the Rapture is coming…not), and so has any chance of passing an adoption bill in Arkansas that could affect gays wishing to adopt. Last but not least, employees who faced workplace discrimination due to their sexual orientation spoke before a House panel on Wednesday.

It’s a mess, a tangle that’s almost impossible to unravel, and all I’m doing is sitting back and watching like a good little media voyeur to see what’s going to happen. At this point, what else can you do other than shake your head? (Though I swear, if any of you callous monkeys start yattering on about being happy that Kennedy is dead in the same way you did about Falwell…bloody inhuman wankers.)

I will say this regarding the last article: I wish we could leave sexuality out of the workplace wholly. While we should never have to bite our tongues when referring to our husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, regardless of our own gender…we go to work to work. Our sexuality and whom we’re involved with are a part of our private lives; that goes for gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, whatever. There’s nothing wrong with knowing “Oh, Bob over there is married to Sue, while Trish is dating this nice girl Mary”, but it really shouldn’t go any farther than that. It shouldn’t matter, either way. It shouldn’t be something that we need to proclaim at the top of our lungs, but it also shouldn’t be something that our employers need to consider when dealing with issues of employment.

Work. Leave your personal life at home, and let your employees leave their personal lives at home. The gender of one’s partner has no impact on how well one performs a job.

Anyway…I’m done with that little rant. Instead I want to wander away a bit and take a poll of my readers. I often mention the Kinsey Scale as a way to measure degrees of hetero-and-homosexuality, and I’m curious, so comment and tell me: where do you think you stand on the Kinsey Scale?

The Kinsey Scale
Rating	Description
0	Exclusively heterosexual
1	Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2	Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3	Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4	Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5	Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6	Exclusively homosexual
X	Asexual

Okay, so technically X isn’t a number, but you get the idea. I’d say I’m a definite 5. How about you?

senator larry craig, gop, arkansas gay adoptions, iowa governor, iowa gay marriage, death of james kennedy, workplace discrimination against gays, kinsey scale, sexuality

I freely admit, with a bit of sheepish pride, that I’ve “turned” a few boys gay. By “turned” I mean they were already gay and in the closet, and I just fluttered my pretty lil’ Southern-boy lashes at them until they couldn’t take it anymore. I suppose a little flirtation is nothing particularly reprehensible, until you consider the fact that a couple of those boys were my sisters’ (ex) boyfriends. Still, it’s harmless, and may even have helped those boys comfortably ease out of the closet when otherwise they might not have ever ventured forth - and at least I didn’t flirt with all my sisters’ boyfriends.

I left the straight ones alone, naturally.

The point I’m making here, other than that sometimes I act like a shameless hoyden? You can’t really “turn” anyone gay, or bisexual, or straight; all you can do is encourage them to act on their natural tendencies. They’re attracted to the sex they’re attracted to, period, and no act of seduction or coercion is going to change which chemicals in their brain get tripped off by which gender. Which is why, on a more serious note, today’s news is entirely reprehensible, and downright disgusting:

Revenge Rape Of Stepson ‘To Turn Him Gay’ - 365Gay.com

(Hillsboro, Oregon) An Oregon man has been sentenced to 25-years behind bars for raping his step son to get revenge on the boy’s mother.

Following his arrest William Gerald Collins, 44, told police he wanted to force the boy into being gay so that his ex-wife would not have any grandchildren.

According to court records Collins told police he sought revenge after the ex-wife forced him out of the house and sought a divorce from him.

Collins pleaded guilty to six counts of first-degree sodomy and eight counts of first-degree sexual abuse.

Six counts of sodomy and eight counts of sexual abuse.

All so he could use this boy, who’d done nothing to deserve this (what would deserve this?) to cause harm to his mother, out of some sick and twisted view that not only can you force someone to be gay, but rape is the best way to do it.

I’m glad I haven’t had breakfast yet today; last night’s dinner is already trying to come back up just from imagining what the boy must have suffered. That’s not revenge, a**hole, that’s child abuse and rape, and I can’t imagine the kind of malice it takes to deliberately do that to someone with a specific purpose in mind.

I often criticize the American judiciary system, and the permissive and corrupt nature of the courts. Not today. Today I’m glad that the system took action against this man, and handed out far more than the minimum sentence. Twenty-five years behind bars and a lifetime on the sex offender registry will hopefully teach Collins about the results of his actions, before he does it yet again, as he threatened to do to another.

Am I hoping that he receives the same treatment? No, although I’m sure that’s what many are thinking; he raped a boy, and now he’ll be afraid to drop the soap in the shower and it’s probably what he deserves, right? …no. What I’m hoping, instead, is that prison teaches him the value of another’s life by placing him in a less secure situation where he no longer has the power to harm others. Changing someone’s perspective and removing their secure footing without physically harming them can often do a great deal to alter their understanding of their acts. You can make them understand the fear of the victim, without actually making them a victim.

At the very least, he’s got a great deal of time to think things over. I hope remorse finds him at some point in his time behind bars, because I find it hard to believe that anyone can do that without even the slightest shred of guilt.

You can’t turn someone gay, just as you can’t turn someone straight. Period. All you can do is cause them intense physical and psychological harm in the effort, and the end result will never be what you want, and will never be good for them. Then again, I suppose Collins did get what he wanted; even if he didn’t turn the boy gay, he’s left him physically and mentally scarred, something his mother will have to deal with and probably has been dealing with without knowing it in the years since it happened.

I hate that. I hate it - that even if he was punished for his crime, he still succeeded in causing harm to people who didn’t deserve it, even if the outcome wasn’t what he intended. That boy is going to need therapy for years, and it’s too bad this wasn’t discovered earlier, for his sake; his self-esteem is probably a wreck, and he’ll probably consider himself damaged goods even if, in my opinion, there’s no such thing as ‘damaged goods’ - just victims who need help getting past the view of themselves fostered by a traumatic experience.

Congratulations, William Gerald Collins. You’ve fractured a boy’s life.

I hope you enjoy your 25-year reward.

william gerald collins, enforced homosexuality, sodomy, child abuse, rape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, judge thomas w. kohl, hillsboro oregon

I’m taking a cue from several of my blogging cohorts and taking today as an early weekend due to the Labor Day holiday on Monday, to relax for some much-needed tension relief. As a result I won’t be waxing poetic in any great length on my opinions on various topics today, though I will be cropping up Monday with a new comic as usual. Before I go, though, I did want to leave you with this interesting little tidbit:

Report: Khan Banned Homosexual Acts - AP via Forbes.com

BEIJING -Homosexual acts were punishable by death under Genghis Khan’s rule, according to researchers who spent more than a year compiling the legendary Mongolian conqueror’s code of laws, the official Xinhua News Agency said Thursday.

Article 48 of the code said men who “committed sodomy shall be put to death,” according to experts at a research institute in the Chinese region of Inner Mongolia.

Soooo…that an example you really want to follow, President Bush? Somehow I’m thinkin’ Genghis Khan ain’t exactly a favorable comparison. He may be a legend, but he stepped over a lot of bodies to get there.

The sad thing is, we can’t even look at this as ancient history; even today many countries impose a death penalty for homosexuality, and I personally know a few of my “fellow” Americans who would like to see that instituted here. Lovely, don’t you think?

You’ve probably heard of SSDD - “same sh*t, different day”. Stephen King beat the phrase to death in his novel Dreamcatcher (which I’m rereading right now; it’s one of my favorites). I’d say a few centuries of SSDD - or SSEE, same sh*t, different era - is more than enough. It’s time to stop punishing people for their sexuality…but how many centuries do you think that will take?

I’m outta here; see you Monday. Have a good weekend, all.

~Adri

P.S. Way to go, Iowa.

genghis khan, mongolian empire, sodomy laws, death penalty

I can’t say “choice or chance” without thinking of that old show, Space: Above and Beyond. I remember when I was a teenager, I thought the graphics were amazing…while now I think the effects are hokey, the script dated, the costuming horrible, and yet I’m still addicted. Maybe it’s my old high school crush on Joel de la Fuente, the actor behind the character Paul Wang - but what I’m remembering right now is the AIs, and their mantra: chance or choice, choice or chance.

That mantra has been stuck in my head since yesterday’s comic regarding research into the existence of a gay gene. The topic really captures me, possibly because of my avid interest in science and science fiction, and possibly because it raises so many questions about who I am - who we all are. It’s at once comforting and disturbing to know that something that can affect you as powerfully as your sexuality can be so wholly beyond your own control.

It’s comforting because it would prove without a doubt that while we may be mutations of the status quo (and mutations aren’t always a bad thing; successful mutations aid evolution, while failed ones die out), we are not abominations; we are not signs of any kind of sin, or of any moral deficit in the eyes of whatever god you choose to follow. We’re a natural result of biology experimenting with variations on the basic template of mankind in an attempt to improve the species. I can’t say if we’re a positive or negative change, but if biology determines sexuality and homosexuality has remained prevalent among both humans and animals, then we must serve some purpose in the natural order of things. I’m fine with that. I don’t mind being part of one big evolved method of population control, really.

But I’m a stubborn creature, and an independent one, and just contrary enough to be bothered by the fact that although I’m quite content being gay, I had no choice in the matter. It would frighten the hell out of me knowing that others had a choice in my sexuality, as could become possible with emerging gene therapy. However, I don’t think I’d mind so much if I had that choice - if I could make it a choice, rather than chance. I think I might even choose to be gay, for personal reasons that I’d rather not share here.

And yet that makes me wonder - out of the gay population of the world, how much of it is chance and how much is choice? It’s hard for me to think that sexuality is wholly biological when one considers aspects of social conditioning; take the classic example of Greek culture, where intimacy among male friends was considered commonplace and was as much of a socialized trait as the modern male’s fear that even a casual touch will cause others to perceive him as gay. I can’t help but think that part of our sexuality is influenced by genetic factors…but part of it may have to do with how we’re socialized, and there may be men and women who identify as gay who don’t share this common “gay gene” that researchers are searching for. At some point they made a choice, whether conscious or not, that affected their entire sexual identity…and wholly as a result of influencing factors in their environment.

Maybe there is no gay gene. Maybe that’s how it works for all of us; something in our developmental years triggers a portion of our brain, and that chance happening causes us to make a subconscious choice - maybe even psychology as a result of biological chemistry. I don’t know. I know that even if science doesn’t ever manage to identify a biological cause for homosexuality, or isolates it to something wholly psychological, I’ll be content either way. Knowing the why won’t do much to change the who. Genetic, psychological, whatever…I’m gay, I’m not ashamed of that fact, and I’m wholly comfortable with who I am…

…whether it was by choice, or by chance.

gay gene, homosexuality in genetics, biological causes for homosexuality, choosing to be gay

You may recall the suit against eHarmony claiming discrimination against gays, whose rejection from the site was implicit in the inability to choose “male seeking male” or “female seeking female” or specify an orientation and whose pleas to customer service were denied. Chemistry.com has capitalized on that with a clever series of “Rejected” ads, claiming that they welcome those rejected by eHarmony with open arms:

 
Chemistry.com’s tagline is “come as you are”, implying open acceptance not only of gays, but of anyone not suitable for eHarmony’s strict guidelines of what makes a good match. I first ran across the ads while glancing at No Style’s listing on OnlineComics.net, but on browsing Chemistry.com’s website found a full series of the simple but effective ads, appealing to all walks of life. It’s a fairly bold stab at eHarmony, to openly criticize their practices through advertising - and one that I’m sure other competitors wish they had thought of first. Chemistry.com looks to gain a significant market share from the gay dating community and others unsuited to sites like eHarmony, if the ad campaign succeeds. It certainly caught my attention, so they’ve done at least one thing right.

Gay? Lesbian? Rejected by others? Unhappy with yourself? Chemistry.com’s ad campaign proposes to offer safe haven to people who don’t fit the safe definition of happy, shiny singles looking for romance, and its home page touts novel views of marriage and dating in a modern culture. I do notice that the profile options on their site don’t allow one to choose TS/TV/TG as a gender option, but it does give you the option to choose “Male seeking Male” or “Female seeking Female”. No option for both, though. No love for the bisexuals or the trans community. Isn’t that always the case?

It’s a step in the right direction, and gets a few brownie points from my particular corner of gay life even if it’s about what I’ve come to expect from a dating site not specifically targeted towards the gay community. With the exception of fetish sites like Alt.com that cater to anyone’s desire for anything, Chemistry.com’s options are typical of mainstream dating sites that don’t specifically exclude same-sex pairings. The only difference I’ve seen is that other communities leave the option there and then seem to look the other way if users choose to exercise it, while Chemistry.com openly flaunts their availability to the gay and lesbian community.

So is Chemistry.com really doing something new? Not in the area of services offered, no - but they have taken advantage of an opportune situation to contrive an ad campaign perfectly suited for the moment.

Sometimes it’s not what you do, but when and how you do it that makes the difference.

gay dating, online dating, eHarmony lawsuit, chemistry.com, dating websites, dating communities, ad campaigns, anti-gay discrimination

Don’t forget that tonight is the Democratic presidential debate on gay and lesbian issues, broadcasting both on the LOGO television channel and on the LOGO website at 9 p.m. ET/ 6 p.m. PT.

We’ve talked about ex-gay/conversion therapy here before, as something that people do as a personal choice. I don’t agree with it, I don’t like it, but I can’t argue with someone’s right to follow that path if they really think it will make them happier with who they are. What I can argue with, however, is the recruitment for ex-gay therapy in public schools.

Ex-Gay Group Can Hand Out Fliers in Virginia Schools - Citizenlink.com

Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays (PFOX) is celebrating after settling a lawsuit with an Arlington, Va., school district. The group will be allowed to distribute fliers to middle school students with the message that change is possible for people who are dissatisfied with living homosexually.

The Arlington County Schools had refused to allow PFOX to send home or post the fliers, even though other groups were allowed that privilege, including gay organizations. That’s when the Christian Legal Society (CLS) and Alliance Defense Fund stepped in, prompting the school district to settle.

Timothy Tracey with CLS said PFOX now can get important information into the hands of students.

“I think this is a definite victory for the First Amendment,” he said. “It’s Arlington County Schools recognizing its obligation to the First Amendment to treat community groups evenhandedly.”

As with every issue, there are two angles to consider for this story. If groups like PFLAG or a school’s GSA are allowed to hand out fliers in public schools, groups like PFOX should be allowed to as well, right? The question is whether or not handing out those fliers is causing potential harm to the students.

I, personally, think that telling already-confused teenagers that their sexuality is unhealthy but that it can be “cured” is beyond harmful. It’s wrong, it’s disgusting, and it leaves me aching for the children who are told such things at an impressionable age and come to believe it, damaging their self-confidence and their growth into healthy adults. Those who believe that homosexuality is wrong, however, could say the same about the advocacy of a school’s gay-straight alliance or fliers distributed by PFLAG, and claim that the organizations are corrupting their children into homosexuality. It’s hard to view this case objectively, when the validity of it is based wholly on standing to one side or the other of a subjective morality debate. Trying to enforce equality for all only clouds the waters further.

Despite my obvious leanings, being gay myself and quite firmly believing there’s nothing wrong with it, I try to look at it by breaking it down into two simple statements of intent:

PFLAG, GSAs, etc: if you’re gay, it’s all right; if you’re straight, it’s all right as well. We offer you support in accepting who you are at a young age so that you can grow up confident and healthy in your sexuality. If you’re uncomfortable with it, that’s all right. Most teens, gay or straight, start off uncomfortable with their sexuality. It just takes time.

PFOX: If you’re gay, it’s wrong. That uncomfortable feeling is perfectly natural, because deep inside you already know that you’re doing something wrong. It’s okay. We can help you to correct that so you feel more comfortable with yourself and who you are, and so you can live your life in the way that you feel should be right.

 
I don’t know about you, but I know which one of those I’d pick as more damaging to young, impressionable minds.

[sigh] And yet for me to say that I don’t think that PFOX should be allowed to distribute its materials would be hypocritical, and in denial of my belief in equality. I argue often for fair treatment of homosexuals based on my firm belief that we are deserving of the same human rights as anyone else, because we are all created equal under the eyes of whatever deity or mathematical concept or whatever you happen to believe in. However, equal rights doesn’t just mean fair treatment for me and what I believe in; it means fair treatment for everyone, including people whose stances I absolutely abhor. As long as they use only words and don’t actually force anyone into conversion therapy, they have the right. It pains me to admit that, to the point where I’m grinding my teeth trying to force the words out, but fair is fair.

But I’m still allowed to say that I don’t like it.

One can only trust that the parents and friends of these children will be enough to counteract the propaganda spread by groups like PFOX, and that in the end, no matter what happens, nothing harmful comes of it.

pflag, gsa, gay-straight alliance, equal rights, pfox, parents and friends of gays and ex-gays, cls, christian legal society

Oh, man, I haven’t done one of these in a while, have I? I’ve had a bunch of letters sitting on the back burner and they kept getting pushed aside for various current events. Well, it’s a bit of a slow news day (or it’s the Friday of a long week and I’m feeling too lazy and burnt-out to trawl the headlines or create my own), so let’s root around in the mailbag and see who today’s victim topic is.

Adrian,

I’m not sure, but I think I might be gay or bi. I’ve dated girls all my life, but keep looking at men. It’s not that girls turn me off, but men turn me on more sometimes. But sometimes they don’t. I get confused there. The men I’m attracted to are feminine and very pretty. Maybe I’m straight and attracted to feminine things. But I like dick too. I’ve experimented a little and girly guys get me off but I like butch girls. I don’t like butch guys. I’m really confused and don’t know if I’m gay. How did you know you were gay?

-Mix in NY

Weeeeeell, that’s kind of a funny story that I’ll try to keep brief so we can focus on you instead, mmkay, Mixy m’boy?

My best friend told me.

I sh*t you not.

I was thirteen years old and my best friend was this girl named Trish. Pretty, popular, annoyingly perky as all hell with a tongue that could cut like razors. Me? I was working my way towards being a teenygoth, bad poetry and all, although I never went for the makeup and the spikes (that phase came later). Just the dark clothing, long hair, sullen looks, and the floridly awful “my soul is dark” writing. She belonged out in the light. I belonged pressed up against the wall glaring at everyone who tried to talk to me because I was utterly socially maladjusted and far too shy for social interaction, so I hid it behind defensive anger. We’d never have been friends if she hadn’t decided, one day in P.E. class, that we would be. Just like that, she sat down next to me and said that she liked my attitude, and we were going to be friends.

Trish…was not someone that you said no to. And I tried. Oh, gods, did I try. The girl practically stalked me until I gave in, and you know, we turned out to get along really damned well once I stopped being a surly arse and she stopped nattering at me all the time. And that was when she told me “hey, you. I think you’re cute, so we’re going on a date.”

Again, Trish was not someone that you said no to. And so despite my absolute flabbergasted confusion and reluctance, we went on a date. We went to a movie, we held hands, she dropped a million hints at me to kiss her in the movie theatre and I missed every last one of them until she smacked me upside the head with a cluebat and kissed me.

And I felt nothing. Except a little panic, maybe, but my toes didn’t curl, my little budding teenage hormones didn’t bubble and froth, my little…well, you get the idea. I tried to kiss her back, but she might as well have been kissed by a cardboard cutout. I just wasn’t into it. It had been something I’d run up against rather often when other boys were talking about girls as they started growing out of their “girls are icky” phase. I didn’t think girls were icky, but I wasn’t that interested in the blossoming contents of their training bras, either. I wasn’t quite sure what I was into, and although I’d glanced at a few boys before, I was too sheltered to know that it was even possible to be attracted to other boys. I thought I was just looking at them because they might be nice to draw, sometimes. I had sketchbooks full of profiles.

Well, Trish shattered that illusion. She kissed me once, she kissed me twice, then she gave up in frustration and said, “I knew it. You’re gay. Damn it, I had to try anyway.”

“I’m…what?”

That’s right, kids, I had no idea what homosexuality was. At thirteen years old, in the early nineties. I told you I was sheltered. Trish had to explain it to me, while I squirmed and blushed and tried to deny it even as I thought back to the number of other boys I’d quietly studied and conceded that she was probably right.

I didn’t accept her verdict blindly; I spent a long time thinking it over, and for years after tried to remain flexible about the idea until my hormones stabilized and I knew what it was that I was really attracted to. It took a little experimentation on the side, too. Kiss a few more girls, kiss a few boys, see which one set off the butterflies in the stomach. But Trish was the one who opened me up to the idea, and made me stop and take a good look at myself to realize.

So there you go. There’s your answer as to how I knew; now let’s talk about you.

Yours sounds like a very iffy situation in which I don’t want to concretely tell you that I think you swing one way or the other. Most solid and safe thing to go with is bisexual - in other words, stop worrying about if you’re gay or straight and just do what you want with the people you’re attracted to regardless of gender. We place too much importance on sticking ourselves in one box or the other. Forget the bloody effin’ label, man, seriously. You like what you like. Stop worrying.

I mean, c’mon. I say I’m gay, because mostly I’m into men. But every once in a while a girl can turn my head, and it doesn’t rock my world because the adhesive on my label may be peeling just a little bit. If you need the label of bisexual to help stabilize your world so you can come to grips with the fact that you’re not 100% hetero, that’s fine. It helps some people to have a specific way to identify themselves until they get comfortable with their own identity and can stop focusing on it as a world-turning issue. But don’t cling to that label so hard that any tiny shift of it causes your world to go completely off-kilter.

Date your girly boys. Date your butch girls. Enjoy whatever it is that draws you to either of them. If you’re worried about one day settling down with one gender but being worried that you’ll still have a desire for the other, thus making your long-term relationship inadequate…9/10, you won’t face that problem. If you’re comfortable enough with someone that you settle with them for the long term, then they’re most likely fulfilling your needs adequately enough that unless something in your relationship dynamic changes drastically, you won’t need to seek fulfillment elsewhere.

And you know, maybe you are gay and you’re just starting to find your way towards that, leaning away from women and taking slow, progressive steps towards men, and the fact that you’re attracted to more feminine men is confusing you there. If that’s the case, that’s fine, too. Just keep in mind that you don’t have to jump in with both feet and you can keep playing both fields until you’re 100% sure exactly what it is you want. No one’s judging you but you, so it’s okay to be a bit lenient on yourself, be a bit confused, experiment a bit, and change your mind if you feel like it…but do have a bit of consideration for those that you experiment with as you try to find yourself. Don’t break too many hearts on your way to learning your sexual orientation.

The basic gist of all of those is to just let things happen naturally. Destress, Mix. Don’t worry about issues of attraction until you’re faced with someone you’re attracted to, and then take it on a case-by-case basis. Deciding something arbitrarily is just going to confuse you even more, anyway, because no matter what your head says your body’s going to make up its mind without consulting your primary thought processes - and then you’ll be stuck in a war between the two, trying to force your cock to adhere to what your brain has decided when it really doesn’t want to.

Most women will probably kill me for telling you this, but y’know…sometimes it’s okay to let the little head lead. It knows what it wants even when you can’t consciously figure it out.

Still confused? Yeah. So am I. It’s a brain-burning issue, trying to sort out what goes where and with whom, and it’s different for everyone. The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter at what moment you know that you are or aren’t gay, because you and your life are changing every second and something might just come along to rock that later.

So don’t worry about that defining moment. Worry about this moment, right here, right now…and just live in it.

Have a good weekend, because I am out.

~Adri

Anyone remember that whimsical little song? They’re coming to take me away, ha-ha; they’re coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-ha! To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time and I’ll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats! With any luck, members of the GBLTQ community will no longer have to worry about those nice young men just for discussing their sexuality with their mental health professionals. The American Psychological Association has a decade-old policy that has allowed for mental health professionals to view homosexuality as something that can and, at the discretion of the psychiatrist, should be ‘cured’ even if it isn’t classified as a mental illness. This is known as reparative or conversion therapy. The policy, however, is thankfully coming under review:

Psychologists To Review Stance On Gays - 365gay.com

(New York City) The American Psychological Association is embarking on the first review of its 10-year-old policy on counseling gays and lesbians, a step that gay-rights activists hope will end with a denunciation of any attempt by therapists to change sexual orientation.

[...]The current APA policy, adopted in 1997, opposes any counseling that treats homosexuality as a mental illness, but does not explicitly denounce reparative therapy. The APA has decided to review the policy at a time when gay-rights groups are increasingly critical of such treatment and groups that support it.

Conservatives contend that the review’s outcome is preordained because the task force is dominated by gay-rights supporters.

I, for one, could not be more relieved. For the American Psychological Association to emphasize that homosexuality is not something that can or that needs to be ‘fixed’ should go a long way towards fostering acceptance in the United States. We are born this way, and we shouldn’t have to feel as if there’s something wrong with us for being the way that nature (or God, depending on your beliefs) made us. It would also be a slap in the face of ex-gay ministries…which is probably why many conservative and religious organizations are up in arms about this.

I don’t understand why they insist that reparative/conversion therapy remain a viable option; their argument is that therapists and other psychological professionals should retain practices that respect patients whose religious views conflict with homosexuality. I think it’s quite possible to retain a respect of those views in mental health/counseling practices without actually enacting conversion. It’s quite possible for a therapist to counsel a religious homosexual on their sexuality without engaging in possibly harmful therapy to turn them straight. A balance can be struck here; it just requires a willingness to consider both sides and a basic understanding of human rights.

I only hope that the review yields favorable results.

Moving on - if you’re not doing anything on the evening of August 9th, I hope you’ll be parked in front of your TV or your computer tuned into either the LOGO network or LOGO website. Both the channel and website will be broadcasting the very first ever presidential candidate debate dedicated solely to GBLTQ issues. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards will be participating; other Democratic candidates may also be involved. The broadcast is at 9 p.m. ET (6:00 p.m. ET) and I know I’ll be glued to LOGOonline, watching the streaming broadcast.

Anyone else wondering why the Republican candidates won’t be involved in that debate? [snrk]

apa, american psychological association, reparative therapy, conversion therapy, homosexuality, therapy, presidential debate, democratic candidates, GBLTQ issues, 2008 presidential election, LOGO, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards

Happy 4th to all you Americans. Right now I feel as if I should be saluting a rainbow flag lowered to half-mast after an article that Lyndsey pointed me to, about how a prominent gay activist has decided that he’s no longer gay, with exclusive testimonial.

‘Gay’-rights leader quits homosexuality
Rising star in movement says God liberated him from lifestyle - WorldNetDaily.com

He was a rising star in the “gay rights” movement, but Michael Glatze now declares not only has he given up activism – he’s no longer a homosexual.

Glatze – who had become a frequent media source as founding editor of Young Gay America magazine – tells the story of his transformation in an exclusive column published today by WND. [...] The radical change in his life, Glatze recalls, began with inner “promptings” he now attributes to God.

Oh, honey…being gay isn’t a lifestyle. It’s just a simple fact of who you are. Your lifestyle is up to you.

I know I should feel angry about this, should be appalled, shocked, but…I just can’t bring myself to. It’s his life, his personal decisions, and no doubt the struggle to make this choice was very difficult and personal to him so I can’t exactly label Glatze a traitor, but it still makes me feel so very, very sad. It’s rather painful to think that someone who once fought for our rights has made such a drastic reversal…and why? Cultural and social pressures? Stigmas? Why would he make such a switch?

Religion is cited as the answer, but many homosexuals have reconciled their faith with their sexuality successfully without having to sacrifice one or the other. And for him to say something like this:

Homosexuality came easy to me, because I was already weak.

Weak. Oh, gods…I really have no words for that. Reading the rest of the exclusive actually brings tears to my eyes and a knot to my throat, because he goes on to talk about the good that was done for the gay community during his time and how all of those good things that he did were wrong. How homosexuality is basically pornography and perversion that poisons the minds of youth.

I just don’t understand how someone can make such a vicious about-face. I can understand being very confused about one’s sexuality at a young age, as he says he was. Some homosexuals don’t realize or acknowledge until later in life that we are, in fact, gay. It happens. It’s a discovery stage that we all go through at one point or another. That discovery can happen in reverse, if a confused young boy embraces homosexuality at a young age and realizes later that he swung himself in a direction that really didn’t suit him. It’s more rare, but it happens. Figuring out “I’m straight” shouldn’t automatically mean “gay is evil” any more than figuring out “I’m gay” automatically means “straight is evil”.

What are you fighting so hard against, Glatze? What are you trying so hard to reject? Is it fear? Shame? You say we cannot see the truth when we’re blinded by homosexuality, but I think you’re willfully blinding yourself here to so many basic human truths, throwing up a wall of intolerance so thick one might almost think you’re hiding something…or hiding from something.

What bothers me the most is his talk of a “lifestyle” of late-night parties and substance abuse in direct association with his sexuality, as if that was somehow caused by homosexuality. No, that’s caused by lack of self-discipline, and that happens to both gays and straights. He can’t blame his own bad choices on the entirety of homosexual mankind.

I really don’t know how to close this. If this was his true face, I can’t really mourn his loss from the world of gay activism, because we don’t really need someone like that on our side, fighting against us while pretending to fight for us.

But he could have done this with more grace. He could have found himself, gotten himself sorted out, without deciding to condemn an entire innocent echelon of humanity in the process just because he couldn’t live with himself.

How many times will we take the fall because someone can’t deal with his or her own personal demons?

micheal glatze, young gay america, ex-gay, gay activism

I’m not in the mood to be pissed off about gay news today. Being a blog columnist with a topic so political and divisive can be damned depressing sometimes, and today I refuse to do that. It’s my day off from my other jobs and I have all I need to relax right here: a huge mug of coffee, Haagen-Dazs flavored like Bailey’s Irish Cream (no, it’s not alcoholic), and some serious boy-toy eye candy to look at:

That, my friends, is Wentworth Miller, star of Fox’s Prison Break. I’ll confess, I had never taken more than a passing glance at the boy until now; I don’t watch TV, really. It’s just not my thing. I’m a book-nerd, I download a few hundred gigabytes of movies at a time on Vongo and love going to the movie theatre across the street from my apartment, and when I’m not reading I’m working on the novel or bumming around with the boyfriend. (Yes, I have one now. Long story.) But oh my, that piece of pretty right there might just change that when season three rolls around. I’m allowed to be shallow every once in a while, and I’d watch the show for him even if rumors weren’t floating around that he’s definitely gay and dating Luke McFarlane. That boy sets my adrenals off almost as much as Hugh Laurie or Vin Diesel. Yes, Vin Diesel. Every once in a while I get the hots for a big dumb lunk of smooth, bald-headed, gritty-voiced muscle.

While my mind is firmly entrenched in the gutter, though, let’s take a serious second to divert and talk about something sexual that’s not so sexy: STDs. You know it’s a serious issue in the gay community, unless you’ve had your head firmly buried in the sand. And it’s getting more serious:

U.S. tracks serious form of syphilis in gay men - Yahoo News

A particularly serious form of the sexually transmitted bacterial disease syphilis has been detected in gay and bisexual U.S. men infected with the AIDS virus, federal health officials reported on Thursday.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked 49 HIV-infected gay and bisexual men who had “symptomatic early neurosyphilis” from January 2002 to June 2004 in four cities — Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago, New York.

The CDC cited the report as further evidence that gay and bisexual men, many also infected with HIV, are the driving force behind increases in U.S. syphilis cases this decade.

The findings also indicate that these men are engaging in the same risky, unprotected sex that can spread the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS.

I can not stress enough that no matter how invincible you think you are, no matter how much you might think it’ll be okay “just this one time” because hey, what are the odds: always practice safe sex. I have too many friends, my generation and older, who are just too careless and reckless - in fact, it’s an unfortunate stereotype of the gay community that too many of us reinforce. Indiscriminate and unsafe sex. Why do we do it when we know the risks? Because it feels better that way?

Yeah, and I’m sure dealing with whatever disease you picked up, every day for the rest of your life, feels great. Guys: please, please make sure you use a condom. It’s not just there to prevent pregnancy, as that sure as hell ain’t a concern when you and your partner have the same junk ridin’ around in your jeans. Guys and girls: get tested regularly, whether you’re frequently sexually active or just have a one-nighter here and there, and be careful whose bodily fluids go where if you’re with someone that hasn’t been recently tested and that you don’t trust implicitly. Even if you’re in a long-term relationship and you trust the other person enough to have unprotected sex with them, both of you should be tested regularly not because you don’t trust each other, but for your own health. Sexually transmitted diseases are not to be taken lightly; they can infect you for life, and shorten that life expectancy severely.

I shouldn’t have to tell you that. But considering the statistics of STDs in the gay community, obviously many of us are far too careless, and we need all the reminders we can get.

Be safe. Care enough about yourself, and about others, to take that little extra step.

I am out of here, kids, so have a good weekend and I’ll see you Monday with a new No Style comic.

Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do before a few tequila shots,
~Adri

wentworth miller, luke mcfarlane, prison break, stds, unsafe sex, sexually transmitted diseases, hiv, aids, syphilis