Peacocks and Peahens

Aside

Honestly, I don’t know why people bother with opposite gender partners – you can’t know what to do and how it feels to be very good at it…

Imagine that there’d be no need for abortions if everyone same gender pair bonded and only traded gender when they wanted to have a child….

I have often thought that the real objection to gay newspapers is the personals section,  straight men are mad that they have to play at the movies, walks in the rain and beach friends first romance later game to get women to answer ads for sex and get few if any responses;  but gay men can just list physical attributes and positions and get dozens if not hundreds of responses.

Gay men are what straight men would be if they didn’t have to negotiate with women for sex.  Interestingly, gay men are more peacocks when competing for other men than straight men are competing for women.

Funnily enough, I am a little reluctant to realize that it means lesbians have more in common with Beer Belly Billy straight guy than with gay men.

Women, without having to negotiate between men for sex, respond to the lesser pressure of being peacocks, turn into peahens, we can relax and be slobbier.

Dressing up is about attracting a male mate, while females consider other factors in partnering up.

So straight women and gay men are the peacocks – who can attract both the high maintenance mate and the hunter’s gaze –  while us straight men and lesbians are the peahens, dowdy and comfortable with ourselves, just as we are, able to blend into the background.

Well, except that straight men melted into the halls of power and mainstream….

Sex

If you read or watch, it’s pornography – but when I read or watch the same thing it’s erotica.

This seems to be the attitude of a lot of folks who are bizarrely concerned about what kind and with whom other people are having sex.

I think that, unless you’re invited and as long as it’s consenting adults, that it’s no one business what other people do, with what and to whom.

I find it very funny how the religious righteous are constantly crying about gays and lesbians “ramming” sex down the public’s throats – when it’s actually the religious righteous who are obsessed with all the gay sex that they are allegedly not having themselves.

Because for people who are supposedly not having gay sex, kinky sex, anal sex, threesomes, foursomes and moresomes – they sure spend a lot of time thinking about it.

Way more time than people who freely admit to being gay or kinky think about gay or kinky sex.

And, if the religious righteous doesn’t want non-straight non-missionary sex in the public sphere, why do they keep bringing it up?

Unless there’s non-consent, force or children or animals involved – it is not in society’s interest to regulate or monitor sex. It’s costly, time consuming and not at all enforceable. It makes law and law makers foolish.

The only reason I can see to be interested in what other people are doing sexually, is if you’re looking for improvement tips or suggestions.

Just because there’s things that I am not interested in trying doesn’t make them disgusting to the point where I should demand that activity, prop, costume or position be banned and the enjoyers of it shunned.

I can only think that the reason the religious righteous are so wanting to control other people’s sex is that they are doing something worse themselves.

It gets back to that – if you consider ordering a salad with dinner, your brain rewards you and that lets you order the fries instead.

The “quote” at the top is actually mine and something that I’ve used in conversation with men who want to understand why women think there’s a difference between erotica and porn.

The reality is that anything can be either – from sex videos to the newest Ikea Catalog.

Anything that titillates you is erotica and it becomes porn when it changes from two handed reading to one handed…..

 

 

Our Brain Reward System

Our brains are working against our ability to make and carry out good choices.

It turns out that when people in a restaurant are offered a choice of salad or fries, merely considering salad as an option causes our brains to release the reward chemicals and sensations as it would if we actually selected the salad.

So, considering a good choice acts as permission to make the bad choice.

We don’t seem to consider that we may later regret that bad choice, because we tend to prefer to avoid or delay harm or bad consequences, even when we bring them on ourselves. There’s a little bit of Scarlett O’Hara in all of us.

This made me realize why so many high-profile people are so righteous – arguing for restricting gay rights and condemning gay sex as immoral is basically giving yourself permission to head to the nearest cruising zone to get yourself some.

I don’t think it’s a “do as I pray, but not as I do” situation or even arrogant risk taking anymore.

People really are not good or bad, but a neutral balancing act between the two things – I have done a good thing (condemn gays) so now I can or must do a bad thing (gay sex) in order for good and bad to be in balance.

Which really puts a new perspective on all those arguments in Dungeons and Dragons game about what actions are within any given character’s alignment. We all tend towards neutral by doing both good and bad actions and choices to create a net zero balance.

Aside: for the non-geeks – Character alignment is a character’s worldview of lawfulness (lawful, neutral, chaotic) and fairness (good, neutral, chaotic). A character can be any combination of one from the law column and one from the fair column.

Here’s an alignment quiz you can take.

I’m Lawful Neutral.

The only way to move away from these sorts of choices would be to consider future consequences instead of instant gratification.

Although in the extreme cases of dramatic differences between a person’s public morality and private activities, is probably more in need of serious therapy for the high level of self loathing the person is compensating for. Given how completely normal racism used to be (just watch any 1940’s cartoons), it’s really a matter of time before anti-gay public statements stop driving public policy.

So if you are trying to improve your health, it’s not enough to consider salad and order fries – order the salad and get the reward of considering a good choice and carrying out that good choice into future benefit. Remembering that fries may be the better option if the “salad” is soaked with fatty dressing, cheese and lunch-meats. That’s not really a salad, that’s a submarine sandwich minus the bun.

If you really don’t want to have gay sex, then stop talking against it so much in public. If you slip up and have gay sex, then instead of talking, lobbying, drafting legislation and voting for it (or the politician), make a donation to a charity instead – Doctors without Borders is about as good as it gets.

At least that way, when you get caught – and you will be – in the gay bar or outed by your lover – there’s not really a scandal because you’ve not had a public record on the matter.

Better yet, stop thinking about sex – any sex as a bad thing – sex is a good thing, it’s good for stress release, creates intimacy, feels good and is a great cardio workout. So, if you shift your framework just a bit, the sex (gay or not)  can be the neutralizing act in and of itself – the perceived immorality is balanced by the health benefits.

Why are some straights paranoid about gay sex?

It’s interesting to me how alarmed, concerned, freaked out that some straight people are over gay sex – with never a whisper about lesbian sex

Just as an aside, these usually religious righteous straight types actually are more obsessed with gay sex than any gay person is.

Do you think it’s a Queen Victoria thing – women don’t do that?

Or that women on women is somehow less threatening?

Or that women are second class so it doesn’t matter?

It might be because many men are convinced that lesbian sex isn’t real or it’s just what gals do in between men for for a male audience.

Or that we’re convertible……

hmmm

Is that why these offended and frightened straights  fear gay sex so much? They worry that it’s them who are convertible?

If that is the case, then fearing makes no sense, since if they were convertible, they’d like it.

__________

I posted this on another blog, and wanted to add it here, because I didn’t want to lose the thought and they probably won’t approve it.

___________

Sex is risky and life threatening, regardless of gender and orientation. The more partners a person has, the higher the chances they will have sex with a risky person.

There’s all kinds of sexually transmitted diseases – AIDs is hardly the only one.

But it’s risky sex that’s the risk, not sex per se.

If you really want to reduce AIDS in gay men – and I notice you ignore that lesbians have the lowest AIDs rate of all the groups – then the best response is a combination of education, circumcision, and encouraging stable and monogamous relationships.

Let’s just say it: Gay Marriage.

Cold hard truth is that marriage settles people down to monogamous relationships – sure some will stray, just like some straights stray now.

And, let’s say this cold hard truth: AIDS is not a gay disease. Globally, it’s Heterosexual. It only has the gay stigma in the US/Canada because gay men were the first to be diagnosed with it.

And everyone should be glad that they did, because AIDS is an equal opportunity killer and there are no innocent or deserving victims – there are just people who got it through bodily fluid contact – sex, needles or blood.

Gay Marriage is not going to change marriage – straight people will still marry – what gay marriage will change is the gay community.

Gay isn’t going away, the bill of rights does not contain a footnote that reads “this offer is not valid for gay people”, so, if the real concern is the spread of disease, then encourage a behavior change – reduce the risk, make gay marriage legal.