#ryan is gay and extremely in denial

[hoperays-song]

Dating? Never.

Meena: Are you dating Ryan?

Johnny: What? Fuck no, there's nothing going on between Ryan and me. Why would you think that?

Ryan: *walks by*

Johnny: Hey, love! *kisses his cheek* You're looking amazing as always!

Ryan: *kisses Johnny on the cheek, smiles, and walks away*

Meena:

Ash:

Johnny: Anyway, you guys are exaggerating. Stop seeing romance where there is none.

[themagnificentartofshipping]

This is a Glee post about the Kurt and Quinn fight about Karofsky’s suicide attempt. It’s probably gonna get ranty, I watched the clip on youtube and I didn’t want to right my opinion in the comments because it will probably be long and it could possible end up turning into being about Quinn’s issue and how the show angers me with how they treat her and her clear problems. I haven’t written it yet, so we’ll see. And you know me on my bullshit especially about  Quinn should be in the place where in the year 2020 I still have a Quinn icon.

I love Quinn Fabray , if you couldn’t tell so I'm definitely biased towards her, but I do understand what she said about suicide was insensitive and I don't agree with it. I still think Kurt is in the wrong, one because he shouldn't downplay what Quinn's been through, and also I don’t think it fair for him to act like he understands what Karofsky’s going through just because he’s also gay because Kurt’s coming out experience was positive and he didn’t lose people in that process and just Kurt relationship with his sexuality is very different from the way were shown Karofsky’s. 

And to be honest(and this is where people may be pissed at me) I feel like Karofsky’s experience with being outed and his peers and friends reactions is closer to Quinn’s experience with her pregnancy then Kurt's coming out experience and I want to say I’m not equating Quinn’s pregnancy with being gay, I’m bringing this up because I think Kurt and Quinn have experienced different parts of what Karofsky’s was going through. Kurt obviously understands the mental and emotional struggle that figuring out and coming to terms with your sexuality is. Quinn understand the isolation and just awfulness when people you thought cared about you and were your friends turned on you and just dropped you and/or made fun of you( the glee girls in mash up said some not great things in reference to her and her pregnancy and Santana bringing up her having a baby in their fight and we never see a cheerio who’s not San or Britt speak to her in season 1 after her pregnancy news drops) This is going to sound shallow but, both Quinn and Karofsky care about where they are on the social hierarchy of high school and they both had their spot at the top ripped out from under them. They also both did not get to control when important life changing information about themselves was released to the world or their families. Quinn only got to tell Finn about her pregnancy her self every other time it was announced she didn’t get to do it or know it was going to happen, and that caused her to be blindsided by changes in her life and personally I think she should have been allowed to tell people when she was ready. I know that it is different from being outed but, I do think it has in common the feeling of being blindsided, and not being able to prepare for the worst/ peoples reactions and having people know a very personal thing about you without your permission. Writing this section made me realize i’d probably be significantly less pissed off if Santana would have called out Quinn instead, I still would have been upset about dismissing what Quinn has gone through, but since Santana has experienced being outed and having to tell family before she was ready and even family rejection over her sexuality as well as her fearing losing high school status, I think she does understand Karofsky’s experience so has higher ground to stand on. 

So now this section will be about what Quinn has gone through, why I feel dismissing it is shitty and the way Kurt said specifically upset me, it might get into how season 3 treats her as a whole but we’ll see. So like i have an issue with the fact that he said the world never stopped loving her cause that’s just not true. Her father called her a disappointment and kicked her out of her house and as far as we are aware they still are not in contact(like he doesn’t show up at her HS graduation and she got into Yale) and that is parent who is suppose to love you unconditionally. And Sue a person she looked up to and respected publicly told her she was a disgrace. She lost her social standing and it seems like most of her friends and losing popularity might seem shallow but, it was important to Quinn. Also just the fact that she made the effort to rejoined the cheerios even though the culture of it is awful with the weigh ins and Sue’s shakes proves to me that she definitely didn’t feel like she was still loved by the world or the school. Back to the parent thing, I feel like its big part of why Kurt saying this is so frustrating to me because one of the stand things about Quinn’s pregnancy is the fact that her parents completely abandoned her and didn’t even try to support her because that is something Kurt could never get because he has the most supportive dad in the world. Like being a pregnant teen is hard, you have to make a lot of adult decisions and experience all the physical and hormonal changes while being this extreme outsider in your age group is difficult enough(which Kurt kind of dismissed)but, you add on not having familial support and having to worry about where your going to live and holy shit that’s hard and awful and emotional tasking. Also learning that your parents love for you is conditional can not be an easy thing to go through emotionally. And the world clearly didn’t love her at the beginning of season 3, when no major adult in her life made any attempts to help her, Sue used her breakdown for her own gain and Will just screams at her and tells her to grow up and says a bunch of mean things to her that are easily disapproved.

Moving on to dismissing her struggles at the beginning of season three as a bad dye job, its just very frustrating to me cause it very clear that that wasn’t it. And like I’m aware that Kurt as a character is likely unaware of all the shit going on with Quinn in season 3, but the person who wrote that line should be aware of what’s been going on with Quinn so I’m very confused about there intention. Because I think its clear even to people who don’t sympathize with Quinn that she was not in her a good mental state when Shelby was there, (i think that’s like until the 8th or 9th episode) and that clearly shows something else is going on and I believe that Quinn not being okay didn’t come out of nowhere, the last 3 episodes of season 2 had Quinn not being in the best place ending with her big meltdown in New York. Some people read/interpret Quinn as being depressed at least at the beginning of season 3, I kind of agree with that interpretation and definitely believe she had/has some sort of mental illness/disorder, I just don’t want to personally be like she definitely has this blank and diagnosis her in anyway. But I don’t think her issues just appeared they all go back to her pregnancy and giving up Beth and just don’t think she dealt with her feeling and was repressing them and living in a state of denial throughout most of season 2. This is going to become even longer if I allow myself to go on that tangent, (so maybe another post to explain that stuff and Quinn headcanons and stuff) but basically I have an issue with dismissing early season 3 Quinn as just rebellion and things like that because it clear that it alot more then that.

Kurt also basically said that Quinn doesn’t understand self- loathing and despair and I don’t think i need to give examples of Quinn not loving herself I feel like that’s pretty obvious, just like watch the show. But despair like her dad pretty much disowned her and giving up her baby clearly fucked her up, so I feel like she‘s felt despair. Kurt also acting like the fact that she’s going to Yale somehow eliminates her pain and I just don’t understand that. 

Also just want to make it understood that the intentions of this post is not to hate on Kurt. I just don’t get why this scene exists, like it has always felt to me like its one of those scenes where the intention is just to make people hate Quinn and not empathize with her since it takes huge struggles that she had that caused empathy in viewers and dismissing them. And with the idea that existed at the time the show was on that, Ryan Murphy didn’t like that people liked Quinn, it’s one of the explanations that makes sense to me. Also that this is in the same episode as Quinn’s car accident is so fucking crazy and i don’t like it.

[chicagocityofclans]

Nathan Cleirigh → Hugh Dancy → Warlock

→ Basic Information 

Age: 766

Gender: Male

Sexuality: Gay/Questioning

Powers: Elenchus

Birthday: January 7th

Zodiac Sign: Capricorn 

Religion: Christian 

Mark: Cleirigh 

Generation: 2nd

→ His Personality Nathan is the black sleep of the Cleirigh mark and his family. Compared to his family, and most other witches and warlocks, Nathan is unreliant on his power. It's a helpful tool in his profession, but if he lost his power, he could go on. At times he forgets he even has it. Nathan is also unique in his resistance against the melancholia that pervades older witches and warlocks. Nathan appreciates every time period for what it was, and lives firmly in the present. With an ‘inactive’ mental power, Nathan has always turned to knowledge. He’s smart and excels at everything he tries. He is extremely thorough, responsible and dependable. Nathan also has a well-developed power of concentration. He truly loves life. 

→ His Personal Facts

Occupation: Psychiatrist at Cleirigh Psychiatry Center

Scars: Yes

Tattoos: None

Two Likes: Newborns and Midnight 

Two Dislikes: Pathological Liars and Deadbeat Parents

Two Fears: Being Burnt At The Stake and Losing Control 

Two Hobbies: Meditation and Crosswords/Sudoku 

Three Positive Traits: Romantic, Hopeful, Understanding

Three Negative Traits: Blunt, Unforgiving, Arrogant

→ His Connections

Parent Names:

Ronan Cleirigh (Father): Nathan bumps heads with his father often and their relationship has been strained since the disappearance of Nathan's younger brother Sean. He doesn’t agree with a lot of things he’s father does but is trying to mend their relationship.

Lilith Harlow (Mother): His mother is one of his best friends. Nathan grew past his hatred of her leaving him with his father and not trying to establish a relationship for him. She is married and works as a foster mother for unwanted or abandoned witches and warlocks. She refers most of her children to him.

Ishtar Cleirigh (Step Mother): Ishtar has tried many times to get on his good side but Nathan is content with just one mother. He doesn’t care for her but shows her the utmost respect as the mother of his siblings and the wife of his father.

Sibling Names:

Ethan Cleirigh (Brother): They don’t have much in common and are polar opposites but Ethan is his little brother and Nathan loves him. Nathan has an underlying jealousy of Ethan's close relationship with their father, brothers and other family members. 

Sean O’Payne-Cleirigh (Brother): Nathan doesn’t remember much about Sean anymore but he knows that his brother deserved better. 

Judson Cleirigh (Brother): Judson is his best friend and they’re the closest of their siblings. Lately, Nathan has been feeling Judson pulling away from him and he’s trying not to blame it on Ethan or Roman taking up his time.

Teyla Cleirigh (Sister): Nathan was surprised to find his father and step-mother were having another child. Teyla is sweet but there’s not much Nathan can do for her right now. He is her last line babysitter which is far too rare.

Altair Cleirigh (Borther): Altair wasn’t a surprise. After Ronan and Ishtar renewed their vows, Nathan knew another sibling wasn’t far behind. Unlike his relationship with Teyla, Nathan finds himself more active in Altair's life. 

Children Names:

None

Romantic Connections:

Richard Fili (Interest): Nathan and Fili have been going out on dates randomly for decades. Nathan does not know if what they have is an on again/off again relationship. That is mostly because they can never seem to make it past date number three without losing contact or Fili freaking out and calling things off. Nathan cannot remember if they have ever kissed or done anything more than hold hands. Fili has been sending Nathan gifts lately which Nathan has returned but Nathan can not help but to feel smitten by the gesture. Unable to trust Fili again, Nathan has been trying to avoid Fili and keep his own feeling about the vampire at bay. Fili showing interest again couldn’t have come at a worst time.  

Helenus Askeris (Ex-Lover): Both Nathan and Helenus were still reasonably young when they met. Their friendship quickly developed into something more. Over the years though, they found their lives pulling them along different paths and to completely different places. Before things got messy they decided they should break it off, and as a result they are still on good terms to this day. 

Matt Staton (Ex-Boyfriend): Matt nearly ruined Nathan’s life and tore him away from his family. Nathan placed Matt first on multiple occasions, including his own emotions. His wants were placed on the back burner by Matt and had ultimately led to their break up. Nathan nearly proposed to Matt and wanted to suggest that he take a vampire’s bite so that they could be together forever. Nathan’s hatred runs so deep that he wishes nothing but the worst for Matt.

Platonic Connections:

Talia Cleirigh (Co-Worker/Friend): Talia and Nathan have more than one connection outside of work. She is his father's former mentee, she is dating his little brother and she lives with and mentally cares full time for his uncle. Nathan considers her a true friend. Outside of work and his family, they would still be friends. 

Kady Gaines (Friend): Nathan formed an easy friendship with Kady as she mentored with Ronan. She finds his powers amusing and he finds her amusing. 

Lyra Cleirigh (Friend): Nathan and Lyra bonded while she mentored with Kaylor. He usually tries not to ‘shrink’ family and friends but he has convinced Lyra to come visit him and has promised that Dr. Cleirigh will stand apart from Nathan. 

Ryan Cleirigh (Nephew): Nathan tried to get Ryan not to rely on his magic as much but failed. He’s worried about his nephew but Ryan refuses to come in to talk to him. It's against the family rules to force himself on family members but Nathan is considering it for Ryan’s own good. 

Akasha Genesis (Cousin): Akasha’s wild and free spirit drives Nathan up the wall. She purposely tries his nerves and it drives him away from her every time. They were close when they were younger but Nathan has no idea what happened. 

Gennifer Genesis (Cousin): As a child, Nathan was once in love with Gennifer before he realized he couldn’t marry or date family and that he was more interested in men. 

Owen Genesis (Cousin): Owen is the brother Nathan always wanted but never had. Their friendship is blossoming more now that Judson is occupied. 

(Nathan does not see those he offers therapy as part of his platonic connections).

Hostile Connections:

Jia Hu Cleirigh (Annoyance): Nathan has made very little progress with Jia. Despite them being friends and technically family, Jia drives Nathan up the wall.

Clarisse Fields (Annoyance): Clara is in denial. Her lies give Nathan a headache. Even more so that she believes in most of her lies. She’s a good friend but lately she’s been more of an annoyance and Nathan dreads their sessions together. 

Dan Prior (Annoyance): Dan was in a dark place when he first came to Nathan nearly 30 years ago. Sometimes they make progress and sometimes Nathan finds himself blocked out completely. He is almost at a loss with Dan and that has never happened to him.

Pets:

Tyr and Fenrir (Brother Capybaras): Nathan mistakenly brought them both online thinking they were expensive stuffed animals for his child patients. Unable to return them and unwilling to send them to the zoo, Nathan kept them.

→ History Nathan didn’t have a hard life or a complicated life. Besides his father and mother being separated, Nathan lived and enjoyed the plain and simple life. While his younger brothers focused on magic, Nathan begged his father to let him attend the local schools, wanting to learn about the human world too. He enjoyed it and enjoyed a break from the constant buzzing of magic around him. He was almost 16 when he learned that he wouldn’t age like his friends. Nathan associated it with their constant moving, he wanted to abandon the supernatural path and his powers. Thanks to his powers he knew that wasn’t at all possible. That’s when he started refusing to rely on magic and it drove everyone mad. 

Nathan had always been interested in why people lied and what triggered such sadness in people. That curiosity led him to join the medical field. At first it was human biology that caught his attention, then neuroscience and pathology. It took him a while to settle into a field, as new ones popped up every decade, but Nathan had a knack for listening to people and helping them. In the early 1800’s Nathan entered psychiatry; the medical treatment of the soul. Nathan never changed his profession. Every 40 or 50 years returning to school and learning new findings. When his family settled in Chicago, Nathan opened up his own practice, to both humans and supernaturals. It took decades to get the local animal shifters, vampires and human shifters to trust him and he respects that trust above all else.

→ The Present Nathan has recently gotten out of a bad relationship that nearly ended him and placed him at odds with his family and friends. Nathan thought he was in love with Matt, a human and was blinded by his need for normalcy outside of the supernatural community. Although it has been nearly a year, he has yet to fully recover and still refuses to join the dating scene, especially with Fili. Nathan knows that his breakup with Matt has caused an unwarranted hate and distrust of humans within him. However, their break up also pushed him to be closer to his family and triggered a family oriented trait he was unaware he had. Never had he ever shown an interest in his father, uncles or brothers' work within the supernatural community. Now he finds during his free time he’s sitting around watching Judson or Roman mixing potions and asking questions and offering to help his father with the wards around the house and their establishments. Nathan's next step is rekindling friendships and a closer bond to his patients.

[guylty]

My annual social media Lent is coming up. From Ash Wednesday I will abstain from Twitter for the next 6 and a half weeks (until Easter Sunday), allowing me to recalibrate a little and concentrate on other things. Such as my blog – or RAnet. That means I need blog fodder. Almost four weeks have passed since The Stranger launched on Netflix. Enough time to assume that most fans and readers have watched the show and will not be spoiled by the discussion of the show. Moreover, some more in-depth discussions have already started in the comments. Last weekend, for instance, we got into the intracacies of the “bar scene” in episode 4 of TS, talking about the casting, costuming and directing of that particular scene and how we, as women of a particular age reacted to that scene.

However, it would probably make more sense to start at the beginning. So anyone who’d like to discuss TS with me, you are welcome to write your observations, reactions and opinions in the comments. I know I am kind of launching into this without announcement. But by doing this episode by episode, I hope you can follow along and catch up with individual episode if need be. I’ll also try and summarise every episode at the beginning of each review post so we know what we are talking about. Hm, I may need to rewatch the show for that. The hardship!!! However, the discussion will probably focus on the plot… eh… Adam. Anyhow, I hope you’ll join me and share your thoughts either here – or your own blog, if you are blogging, too.

The Stranger – Episode 1 Recap

Prior to the trailer, TS starts with teenagers at a bonfire party, culminating in a naked boy escaping through the dark forest. The plot then begins with the Price boys driving in the car to the football club where younger son Ryan is trying out for the A team. While at the club, daddy Adam briefly speaks with his wife Corinne on the phone. She is away at a teachers’ conference while Adam looks after their sons. In the clubhouse, Adam is approached by “a stranger” who reveals a devastating secret to him: His wife faked her pregnancy a couple of years ago. He is shocked and disturbed.

Once back home after football training, Adam can’t resist checking the details the stranger passed on to him, and sure enough, his suspicions are confirmed – there is a credit card payment for a fishy website called Novelty Funsy, and the ultrasound scan of the miscarried baby does not quite match the ones of his two sons. Meanwhile, Adam’s elder son Thomas heads out to the bonfire party with his friends.

The next morning, police woman Johanna investigates a bizarre crime scene of a decapitated alpaca in the city centre. With her DS, she drives to a nearby alpaca farm to confirm where the animal came from. On their return trip their attention is attracted by some pieces of clothing in the forest. They follow the trail of clothes and find a naked body. The young man is still alive.

Adam meanwhile looks after his day job – he is the legal advisor to an obstinate tenant who refuses to move out of a house that has been earmarked for demolition. Upon his return, Corinne arrives back from her conference and Adam receives confirmation that the mysterious credit card payments are for a website that provides fake pregnancy products. He immediately confronts Corinne. She does neither deny nor explain why or what she did, only hinting that there is more to it than he thinks. The Prices spend the night in separate bedrooms.

The next morning Adam observes Corinne taking a phone call outside the house. She later suggests to Adam that they talk later that day after a school awards ceremony where she will explain all. However, Corinne never shows to the event. Adam receives a text message asking for some time apart.

The episode ends with Thomas revealing the decapitated alpaca head in his cupboard.

  Episode 1 – Discuss

So, first of all – I have watched the first episode about three and a half times. Twice on my own, once with hubster, and finally today a quick run-through for the sake of the recap where I fast forwarded through a lot of scenes, focussing on Adam mostly. I couldn’t help it… My first response to the show at the very first viewing was – WOW! I remember that I was fully engaged during every minute of it – even the scenes and story lines that Richard did not feature in. Granted, I was most interested  with the “grown-up” arcs, not least because anything involving drugs and other goings-on with teenagers makes *this* mama really worried. But having said that, I think the first episode was very effective in establishing the storylines and the characters. Hence the show spends most time following Adam (Richard Armitage) – as a father, as a lawyer and as a husband. Then there are the two police officers who also are presented as round characters – the middle-aged senior officer Johanna (Siobhan Finneran) approaching retirement who has just decided to split from her husband, and her much younger partner, a gay black man. Adam’s son Thomas also gets a good bit of screen time with his friends, making him more than just secondary. Other secondary characters include first and foremost Dervla Kirwan as Corinne, Stephen Rea as obstinate tenant Martin, and Jennifer Saunders as Johanna’s BFF Heidi.

So, the first watch was highly exciting and addictive, so much so that I basically binged the whole show. On second and subsequent views, I found the episode not quite as fast and exciting anymore – only natural, as a lot of time was actually spent setting up the characters and the various story lines: Johanna waking up in bed to her snoring husband; Johanna meeting Heidi in her café; observing the teenagers at their bonfire party; visiting Dante in hospital…

RA is the natural focal point from the get-go. Not only for fangirls, I might add. The show is really good at setting him up as the perfect family man who obviously has great rapport with his sons, both the “difficult” almost grown-up older son, but also the younger lad who needs a different kind of care than a young adult. I found the casting really great, with Thomas definitely matching the tall, dark, handsome vibes of TV-dad Richard, and younger boy Ryan more a mirror of his blond, curly-haired TV-mum. They all have great chemistry together, and found Misha Handley (Ryan) very natural and convincing. Jacob Dudman as Thomas was also great.

… really aged well… hehe

RA really shines in the confrontation scenes, both with the stranger and with his wife, when he has to convey both suppressed anger and outright fury at having been deceived. Both his major scenes with Corinne are very convincing, and I appreciated the decision to make Adam extremely angry, on the verge of volatile, when Corinne refuses to explain her actions. Adam’s anger is immediate, raw and confused and Armitage really draws the viewer on his side with his emotional outburst. So much so that I basically missed Dervla Kirwan’s nuanced acting in that scene. On second and subsequent viewings, once you know how the show ends and why she doesn’t want to talk immediately, you start to notice the little things: her refusal to talk has more to do with fear than with anger or denial. She is afraid of actually addressing the fact that the reason for her faked pregnancy will also bring another secret out in the open, and the subsequent discussion (which she had successfully avoided by faking the pregnancy in the first place) will now have to take place. What might have looked as callous or dismissive at first viewing, conveys much more detail the second time round: there is a sadness to Corinne that Kirwan expresses very subtly – in a slight pause, or the tiniest glance into the mid-distance. The same applies to their second and much calmer confrontation the next morning. What might have looked almost callous on first viewing, gains much more weight when you watch it with prior knowledge of the plot. When Adam says he has lost trust in her, Corinne replies “it hurts, doesn’t it?“. The question tag really stood out to me on first viewing. It confused me. Why is she phrasing it like that? It of course became clear in episode 4, but again, Kirwan really gave it a spin by loading it with subtle sadness that doesn’t only confuse the viewer but also Adam. Armitage here kept his response at just the right level of confusion without giving away how much Adam really recognises or understands what she was hinting at. RA reacts with great detail expressions. No words are needed. And in hindsight you can see how he begins to wonder whether she knows about his affair. Loved it.

Let’s talk a bit about Armitage’s look in this show. Such a spectacle!

Yes, I like details like that. The jury is still out on whether this is a prescription that Armitage wrote into the script himself 😂, or whether we just had a costume department that is on the ball. Yes, it’s time for the presbyopic lenses. Happens to most of us at around middle age. 🤓 I found it a lovely detail that makes Adam more relatable. Because – a dad bod he has not.

Even if he claims he does. I find this a rather attractive package for a middle aged family man. Also:

Bonus WRP. Needs no further elaboration

But to get back to the look and style – I enjoyed the casual style of Adam. Once again, it felt right – nothing too fancy, with windbreaker, jeans and shirts, and even a tracksuit at home, the perfect attire for a father of two (pre-) teen sons. I was surprised how good RA looked in other colours than just black and blue. The red polo shirt was very nice on him.

I can’t say I am as convinced of the costumes provided for Corinne. In fact, I think there were some rather sledge-hammer style decisions going on there, putting the wife and mother into rather dowdy, pale pink mom trousers and giving her a hole-pattern, fluffy knit jumper. Then there was that turquoise dress that went slightly longer than her knees – apparently the work wear for female teachers in English private schools, judging by an equally frumpy outfit for Corinne’s colleague and friend Vicky? (This observation I will come back to in a later post once we get to episode 4.) It just kind of made me think that Corinne was made to look older and less casual than her husband who even attends to his client in jeans and shirt…

Police officer Johanna Griffin OTOH looked *real* and great. (I kept double-taking because O’Brien’s severe look kept coming back to me.) And I loved Heidi’s funky style – very much the slightly crazy café-owner with a café as stylish as herself… And can we also mention the Price’s residence here? There were only quick first glimpses of their house – but oh, that stylist made it a gorgeous family home. The garden was beautiful but I can take it or leave it. Too much work – I don’t like to get my fingers dirty. But the dining area with the floor-to-ceiling windows and the sleek white kitchen? Big win, especially because it doesn’t look like a showroom but has photos on the fridge and a mess on the counters.

So episode 1 gets a big thumbs up from me – for introducing us to almost all the characters (some held back for more surprise later on) and establishing the plot. Yes, there is a lot going on here, which I haven’t even all mentioned in the recap: the stranger dropping her first bomb, the Price family life, the secret in Corinne’s past, the tenant who refuses to move out of his home, the colleague who has trouble with her pre-teen daughter, the teenagers who are partying under the influence of drugs, the mystery of the boy who was hunted through the forest, the curious story of the decapitated alpaca, an almost-comic police duo, a police officer who is splitting up with her hubby, her friend, the funky café owner, the gregarious neighbour, the busybody football trainer… Too much? I’d say a lot of it is deliberate overload to distract us, yet give us some extra info about the characters, their work, their life and their environment.

The strategy definitely works when you watch the show for the first time. You are busy dealing with Richard Armitage’s overwhelming handsomeness taking it all in. The questions only really pop up when you watch again.  Such as: When stoned Mike takes the alpaca for a walk into the city centre, why is there no CCTV footage? I mean, nowadays there is hardly *any* urban area that does *not* have CCTV on shops and banks or traffic spots. How come no one saw him decapitating the alpaca, in a city centre? And how did he manage to decapitate it anyway`- it’s hardly a one-chop job?Likewise and with hindsight we know now that Corinne’s text message was not sent by her at all: But how did the sender actually know the password to Corinne’s phone to send that message? I mean, don’t all people lock their phone with a password these days? Possibly nit-picking questions, but that’s the fun of it, isn’t it? You can enjoy a show immensely – and still want to pick a few holes into the plot just to see whether you are cleverer than the writer 😉.

There is probably so much more to discuss, but for the sake of getting the discussion started, here is the post. What is your take on the first episode of TS? Any agreements with me, or disagree? Other points of interest? Let me know in the comments!

Let’s Talk About… #TheStranger – Episode 1 My annual social media Lent is coming up. From Ash Wednesday I will abstain from Twitter for the next 6 and a half weeks (until Easter Sunday), allowing me to recalibrate a little and concentrate on other things.

[anarcho-decepticonism]

we fixed hsm

here are our 3 page fanfic plans

Troy & gabriella break up after like a month in college. Gabriella is around people smarter than her for the first time in her life & she’s really struggling & he doesn’t understand what she’s going thru & she realizes that he’s not that empathetic & bad at communicating. She’s single for like a year just adjusting to college & making new friends & figuring out who she is after hs & also not putting her entire identity in her intelligence. She tries out for theater & they’re like “you’re not that good at singing” & she’s like “never mind” bc she liked it because it was with her friends in the first place. She finds community elsewhere & eventually is in a more fulfilling & communicative & mature relationship

Troy is having a lot of trouble bc being a student athlete isn’t enough at FUCKING BERKELEY!!! And he’s having trouble at school. He also isn’t getting lead roles in the theater program bc it’s like. A hobby as opposed to his major/career path. He has to learn to like things without being the best at them & also communicate w people better. He’s no longer super special and the focal point of everything. He immediately tries to rebound by getting a new gf & she realizes right away that he just wants her to love him and pay attention to him and solve his problems and is like “fuck that dude go to therapy”. He goes to the school therapist which sucks but he finds a good therapist & like. Improves as a person lol. He has to think more abt the experiences of others and not need to have everyone love him all the time. He gets a dog -- good for him bc he has to be responsible for the life of something else but also dogs are very affectionate

Sharpay goes to UA & at first loves it bc she’s the star but then is super underwhelmed & depressed. She talks to Ryan and he’s like “you know you can just transfer” and she’s like “wow i’m so smart i’ll just transfer”. After like a semester she transfers to a different school with a good theater program (not Juliard tho). She has a good mentor figure who’s a prof who’s like “your ambition and drive are good things actually especially bc ur a woman and will be told that ur awful & bossy for standing up for yourself.” she makes her first real friend other than her brother (i am So sad) in a theater class-- not someone who worships her but like an actual human connection. Specifically a girl who she respects & doesn’t feel she has to compete with. She has a learning moment when her friend gets the lead role and Sharpay is genuinely proud of her and she realizes she wouldn’t have been suited to that part and that she doesn’t have to be the center of attention all the time. She learns to derive self worth from her love of theater instead of from everyone validating her. Also her friend is goth & tells her that all the pink she wears is bad. They both initially loved the theater bc they wanted to be accepted but learn together that they can just find worth in each other and themselves and their work. Also at one point Sharpay starts dating someone and gets really annoying and her friend is like “you’re being annoying” and they get in a fight and Sharpay is like “i don’t even like him that much but i feel like i have to be in a huge romance relationship (bc of troy and gabriella but also Society)” and this eventually leads to her realizing that she’s a lesbian and also that she has an unhealthy view of relatioships. She goes to therapy (it takes her a really long time to go but once she realizes she gets to talk abt herself she is more willing). Important that she does not date her friend (her emotional support system) but she does eventually get a gf. It takes her a long time to figure out how to be a good girlfriend and that her professional ambitions are different than her personal ambitions (she’s used to treating her relationships like a business instead of a two-sided thing where there needs to be emotional connection and both people being like vulnerable w each other)

Her and Ryan having space from each other where he can shine by himself and she feels like she doesn’t have to upstage him all the time. He feels for a long time that he can’t rely on her bc she’s a mess but eventually he texts her like 16 times in a row abt a person in his program he’s really annoyed at and she’s like “oh my god he’s ruining your show you Have to talk to the director!!!!” and it’s really helpful to just talk it out w her even if he doesn’t take her advice. It’s helpful for him to realize that it is a problem and he’s not overreacting but also that he should not take things to the extremes that Sharpay does lol. He should not poison this person. They eventually fall into a good & more balanced sibling relationship where they can rely on each other for a certain subset of things but they aren’t the only people in each others’ lives

Ryan meets other gay guys at Juliard who tell him that his hats are bad and show him how to dress not like an idiot. They’re like “it’s ok buddy. I know you were the only out guy at your high school but you don’t need to do that”. He’ll like. Do fine in college! He’s like fairly confident in his abilities and identity & good at like. Balancing career & personal life. He’s fine enough at school and doing well in his theater things. He’s charismatic and makes more good friends. He “formally comes out” to his parents in like a big thing. He choreographs it and makes Kelsey write him a song to sing. His parents are like “well we knew that but did you have to make it this much of a thing” and he’s like “yes”. His mom is generally more accepting than his dad and his dad is like “please don’t talk about this to the people at the country club” and he’s like “i… wasn’t? I don’t know these people. They’re your friends”

After college Ryan gets famous before Sharpay does and generally has a good thing going wrt doing choreography for “really important things” (he isn’t public facing)-- he’s good at choreo and also good at working with divas (thanks Sharpay i love u). He gets Sharpay a good role in a thing but he makes a big deal like “I got you an audition i didn’t get u the part u did it all yourself :)” but he totally got her the part lol in that he recommended her. She does a rlly good job tho (obvs) and does well in the spotlight bc she;s actually like. Hardworking and driven and good at musical theater. Her Big Break is in like a movie adaptation of a musical. She’s Glinda when they finally make a Wicked movie. The choreography is really good bc Ryan does it

Taylor tries to become a politician but slowly realizes that her passion for being an activist doesn’t super align with that and figures out that she wants to enact social change without like. Being a part of the system. She has a youtube channel where she talks about social issues and wears her stupid sweater vests & ties. Also she dates someone who likes women. Before she was invested in the public-facing aspect of the relationship and she learns what it means to actually have private moments of caring & how to not follow a stereotypical relationship and instead to do like. What she actually wants to. She’s bi and she dates a woman and enjoys not having societal expectations wrt how relationships are supposed to go. She dates a guy and realizes that a m/f relationship also doesn’t have to conform to societal expectations. Both are super important experiences for her even if neither are “endgame” (i love u matty)

Chad is heartbroken after Troy goes to a different school but tries to hide it/is in denial. He kind of lashes out at people who want to make friends with him and goes into a depression spiral. He eventually snaps out of it when Sharpay (who is still going to UA at this point) is like “what’s your problem?? Anyway i started going to therapy and it helped actually. Toodles!” and he’s like “what the fuck just happened” but he makes an appointment. The first session he’s like “hwatever this is stupid idk why i’m here. Whatever” and the therapist is like “yeah. Okay.” but he eventually opens up and then like. Learns to see himself as not part of a friendship or group/team and see himself as an individual. He gets over Troy, which takes him a while but he does it & we’re proud of him <3 it also takes a while to make friends who he can be emotionally vulnerable around bc he’s never really had that type of relationship before (bc he and troy are very guys being dudes & he like. Wasn’t super close w Taylor as they were p much just a relationship for show). He makes friends w both some guys and girls who aren’t all on the basketball team and has friends from lots of different places. This process takes him like. All of college.

Chad doesn’t date anyone in college and afterwards it’s super awkward bc it’s like the first time he’s actually dating someone. He ran into Ryan and they have a talk where Ryan’s like “you could’ve been my first love but you were never really emotionally available bc u were in love w a straight guy and also not confident in the fact that u are gay. Like that summer was fun but it wasn’t real” and chad is like “oh”. Ryan was like in a serious relationship at that point but didn’t mention it bc he didn’t want to feel like he was rubbing it in lol. And then Chad thinks about things. This is like during a Thanksgiving break while still in college. Chad eventually dates a guy who understands how it’s like. Hard to be gay and figuring out relationships and stuff at different life stages.

Kelsey gets negative feedback for the first time and freaks out but eventually learns that a prof who only gives positive feedback when she deserves it is good actually. She incorporates criticism and starts to write songs that don’t suck. She continues to wear awful outfits. She has a nice girlfriend who also wears awful outfits. They are an awful annoying couple but they’re happy. They do annoying theater kid things

Ms Darbus realizes that it’s bad to force her students to completely write & choreograph their own shows and stops pouring her entire life into high school theater and fixes her problems with her “legal domestic partner” whom she was feuding with

Zeke realizes that he likes Sharpay in the same way he likes celebrities and that isn’t a crush. He makes plenty of friends in college bc everyone loves a guy who brings baked goods to places. He continues doing basketball & baking as hobbies but neither is a career & he finds passion elsewhere. He loves doing whatever he’s currently doing but doesn’t have like a Thing he wants to do forever and it takes him a while to find a forever career. He ends up teaching a variety of classes at community college and is happy doing that but also he might not do that forever. He comes to terms with his “contentment w the transience of life” and is like “if i’m happy doing what i’m doing now then that’s good enough for now”. He serves as a good contrast to all of the super driven people who know exactly where they want to be (gabriella, sharpay, ryan)

We did it. we fixed high school musical

[laveritaswoman]

What’s the Big Deal?

Just came across these new pics of two beautiful couples on the red carpet: Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively at the Deadpool 2 premiere and Jamie Dornan and Amelia Warner at the Old Vic Bicentenary Ball (a pic, coincidentally, that S happened to “Like”. Both couplings are made up of successful married actors who look pretty happy to be appearing in public with their spouse, many years and several children after they tied the knot.

These coupley pics made me nostalgic for all the magic S and C once had that made them so special to all of us. From the time they met at C’s screen test in 2013 until the IFH in 2016, we were treated to an off-the-charts chemistry from two people who acted and looked, from all appearances, like a couple in love off-screen as well as on. But then the fuckery began with the IFH, with C in particular implying then and on other occasions that they could not be together because it would be too hard to be with someone else in the business. Since the IFH, we’ve had occasional glimpses of the pre-IFH magic, but soon after we’re subjected to some form of fuckery, whether it be adjacent trolling, a bizarre engagement, UBA photoshops, or fake pap walks.

I look at these other happy couples in which both spouses are actors and I think of the negative relationship comments C has made. Comments where she blithely dismisses the very possibility of dating or marrying another actor because of the potential problems caused by the ups and downs of the profession. Problems in a marriage can occur no matter what vocation either spouse is engaged in. Despite what C says about the downside of dating an actor, couples like Blake/Ryan, Jamie/Amelia and many others have successfully navigated this path by demonstrating a  commitment to treating each other as equals, supporting one another’s projects, and keeping their private lives private.

So when we see successful A-list actor pairings, who ignore all the outside noise and make their marriages work despite both being “in the profession,” it begs the question: if C-list actors S and C are in fact in a RL relationship with one another, what is the big deal and why are they going to such extremes to deny it and keep it hidden? The level of potential intrusion from fans in their private lives would be 1/16th of what A-lister actor couples would experience and most of those couples are doing just fine, so ... just ... why?  

I think we shippers ask ourselves that every day, especially when we’re treated to a rather nasty dose of fuckery. So what are the potential reasons S and C could be together privately but living a lie publicly and how well has it worked for them? 1. Well, if this sham is a brainchild of S and C, it is failing and appears to have taken the glow from their faces and the ebullience/chemistry out of their interactions – one of the very things that originally made them stand out from other actors and brought many shippers, followers, and viewers on board OL. Under current conditions, IMO, if movie scouts were to see their wan appearances and lack of banter and interaction on the red carpet, I can’t imagine them giving S or C a second thought for movie roles. 2. If it’s a non-frat driving this narrative, then S and C, their managers, and TPTB need to reassess the whole “not together” approach and acknowledge that it’s created either a negative effect or no notable positive effect. In fact, a positive effect would be best accomplished by allowing S and C to drop their charade and their adjacents and return to how they acted with one another before the IFH -- that’s what helped draw people to the show. 3. If S and C are concealing a relationship because they want awards panels and casting agents to believe their great onscreen chemistry is just amazing acting, they may have succeeded in reinforcing that through their many RL relationship denials, but has it really helped them? C has received some noms and awards, but she hasn’t appeared in any roles outside of OL since the IFH and S has had one supporting role thus far, in an LG movie. 4. If it’s to protect other people in S/C’s private life from fan intrusion, I refer you once again to A-listers like Jamie/Amelia and Ryan/Blake, who have successful marriages and children whilst maintaining their privacy. I think S and C would get more privacy if they came out with the truth. Then people would stop obsessing with speculation and sleuthing. 5. Another theory is that the denial may be in place to hide what S and C or TPTB might perceive would be a loss of viewers if a same-sex orientation is the issue for one of them. Hello, this is 2018 -- most people are accepting of gay actors in straight parts and if S were gay IRL, the majority of fans/viewers would still embrace him as the manly OL Highlander that he has played so well on screen for many years. And if some fans/viewers are not OK with that, why would S and C even care if they lost these fans? S, and particularly C, have numerous friends in same-sex relationships and both post in support of gay rights, so wouldn’t it be hypocritical to beard or hide the fact that one of them was gay? 6. Maybe S and C are really just not together or were but now aren't. Then why are these expensive and draining games necessary? 7. Finally, in the unlikely event that T is in fact a real fiance, then C needs to do herself, T and everyone else a favor and own the man by actually saying the words “my fiance Tony” in an interview, or by posting a pic of her and T on SM and labeling it “me and my fiance Tony.” And also by actually treating him like he’s a fiance/SO in public, not just a PA that holds her purse and wanders about aimlessly behind her at events. C needs to actually look at T, walk with him, talk to him, smile at him and touch him, you know, things that normal couples do and kind of what she does (still) with her platonic co-star S. 

SMH at all the time- and energy-wasting antics that have gone into this charade of S and C’s. Own your truth, S and C, whatever it is, and get back to focusing on OL -- you know, the actual TV show and not the Droughtlander sideshow. And speaking of Droughtlander: since we still have a few more months of drought left to go and more in coming years, hire more skilled promotional/PR staff and give fans and viewers something “real” to focus on instead of fake narratives.   

[scripturehomosexuality]

Are the g0ys and Man2Man Alliance Really Homophobic?

As an alternative to the “gay” sex model, this blog has endorsed the g0ys and the Man2Man Alliance. Though their philosophies differ in some aspects, they agree on the fundamentals. Both oppose the predominance of anal play in same-sex activity. Both criticize the link made between “gay” culture and general same-sex activity. Both say that our current sexual labelling system is woefully inadequate, and should be abandoned as soon as possible.

Because of all these points, these movements have earned the wrath of the “gay” movement. It doesn’t matter that that they advocate for homoeroticism too. As such, the “gay” leadership frequently labels these groups homophobic. They say that these groups contain men in deep denial, who don’t want to fully embrace the homoeroticism inside them.

The g0ys have been a favorite target. Perhaps in response to their increased publicity, Queerty published a extremely mocking article about them in August 2017. Attaching a picture of enthusiastic masculine guys at the top, Queerty characterizes their opposition to anal as “their biggest hangup”. After two block quotes of the front page, the article ends with a GIF file of a woman reacting in shock.

Interestingly, the article never takes on any claims the g0ys make. But I digress.

The point is, when the “gay” leadership insists that both groups are homophobic, we must see if that accusation is true. Indeed, are the g0y movement and the Man2Man Alliance homophobia. The answer will determine which groups have merit, and which ones do not.

What is Homophobia?

Like the contradictory word “gay”, homophobia carries two contradictory meanings in the “gay” community. In fact, the contradictory definitions of “gay” actually lead to those of homophobia.

One is the conventional definition also used in the “straight” world - dislike or prejudice against same-sex activity and attraction, and against people who engage in such. So under this definition, slamming frot or mutual masturbation counts as homophobia. Making nasty comments about same-sex attraction counts as homophobia, along with ostracizing or ridiculing someone who perceives such. This is the definition most people know when they hear the word.

A more specific definition exists within the “gay” community - criticism or opposition to any key aspect of “gay” culture. Under this definition, it doesn’t matter if you oppose all same-sex activity or not. This definition holds all “gay” culture as sacrosanct and above criticism. So if you question the association between drag and homoeroticism, you’re homophobic under this definition. If you want to act masculine while being openly into men (aka “acting straight”), you’re homophobic. If you don’t want to bottom during anal sex, you’re homophobic. If you don’t want anything to do with anal, you’re one of the most homophobic people on Earth.

Interestingly, the second meaning is never openly defined, but it’s used just as much as the first one. Thus, the word is used as a weapon to silence any valid criticism of “gay” culture, whether it comes from “gays” or “straights”.

You must keep these definitions in mind whenever you hear the “gay” leadership label anything as homophobic. They use both freely, without ever admitting that they use more than one definition. Since most “straights” (and even some “gays”) don’t know this, they might become confused about what the LGBT movement labels as homophobic.

You must also remember these definitions whenever the “gay” leadership discusses the g0y movement and the Man2Man Alliance. This leads to the question posed in the next subheading.

Why Are These Movements Considered Homophobic?

It’s very interesting that the “gay” movement openly labels those groups as homophobic. Under the conventional definition, there’s no way that they can be labelled as such.

Even through a cursory look at their websites, their stance on same-sex activity becomes perfectly clear. Everything about these pages radiates homoeroticism. For example, nearly each post of the Alliance ends with a picture of two men kissing, fully nude and with their penises firmly pressed against each other. Many pages of the g0y website exhibit men who are fully or half naked. Some Alliance pages show men masturbating each other, while others show them ejaculating. Each story in the g0y collection describes male-male sex in graphic and titillating detail.

Their openness doesn’t stop there. Both of them openly, repeatedly, and insistently advocate for the safe and responsible practice of same-sex activity. They say that it’s not just for “gays”, and that our current labeling system should be abandoned. They don’t condemn any kind of frot or mutual masturbation. They don’t even oppose oral, though they do put out advisories about it.

The only activities that they staunchly condemn are anal ones, because of their physical and psychological dangers. Furthermore, they both shout that masculinity and same-sex activity are not opposed to each other. They proclaim that “gay” culture shouldn’t be intrinsically linked to anal, and actually criticize much of “gay” culture.

This should clue you into why they are labelled homophobic. The “gay” establishment is using their more specific definition to do it. As such, it doesn’t come from an objective standpoint. It’s done to prejudice people against these movements, and keep them from digging deeper and seeing what they’re really about.

To drive the point home, consider this - as a side argument, “gay” media says that these movements consist of guys in denial. They say that these men don’t want to fully accept that they’re into men.

My question is, what are they denying? They’re openly and explicitly saying that they’re into men, and that they support and endorse same-sex love. They include myriads of intensely homoerotic content on their websites, whether in photos or text. In the face of that, it’s very hard to say that these men are denying being attracted to men.

As mentioned before, these movements also say that same-sex activity isn’t “gay” and shouldn’t be labelled as such. In expressing this, they’re not trying to say that such activity isn’t sexual or that it’s “straight” behavior. They’re denying being part of a group whose interests and activities don’t represent their own. Remember that “gay” is a sexual identity, and not a sexuality. Identities can be assumed or denied at will. So given that, is such a stance that unreasonable?

Most of all, they’re denying the sovereignty of the “gay” leadership (and their culture) over them. To me, that’s what really irritates the “gay” movement. Remember that in the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy, “gays” have exclusive authority over same-sex activity. That gives them a lot of power, because under that idea, anything they say about same-sex activity becomes law.

By saying that same-sex activity isn’t “gay”, they’re saying by extension that the “gays” don’t have a monopoly on same-sex activity. As a result, they are calling that power into question, and are saying that other voices are just as valid. The “gay” leadership doesn’t appreciate the idea that they don’t have the final say on homoeroticism.

As a side note, they are also denying the thrust of modern sexual philosophy - that homoeroticism is inherently abnormal. This leads us to the question posed in the next subheading.

Who’s Really Homophobic?

As has been shown, the Man2Man Alliance and the g0y movement are not homophobic, at least by the conventional definition. While they may be homophobic according to the “gay” specific definition, that meaning was created to silence dissent. Thus, that definition is completely invalid.

Instead, if any group is homophobic, it’s the “gay” movement itself. There are many reasons why I say this.

First of all, they truly believe that homoeroticism is inherently abnormal, and should be treated that way. They fully support modern sexual philosophy, with all its rules and regulations that suppress and distort expressions of homoeroticism. They could only support that philosophy if they believed it to be true.

However, they don’t just stop at believing it. They use its central thought - that homoeroticism is abnormal - to guide how they conceptualize same-sex activity. That’s partially why they support the practice of anal, because it vainly mimics “normal” heteroerotic activity. That’s also why they support drag and a plethora of dangerous anal practices. Since those activities are considered abnormal by most, they seem to be a perfect match.

To drive the point home, let’s see that homophobia in action, as shown through two examples.

Firstly, let’s look at the article “How It Feels to Get F---ed In The Ass”, written by columnist Ryan O’Connell. To be clear, this piece fully supports the practice of anal sex between men. We won’t focus on that support, as much as why he supports anal sex. Notice this quote: “[anal sex] just literally feels unnatural because you’re using an exit as an entrance. Funnily enough though, that’s how you derive a lot of enjoyment from it. The unnatural feeling enhances the pleasure.” In other words, even he admits that anal sex feels unnatural and abnormal. Yet, instead of repelling him, he gets pleasure from it because it’s unnatural. How can he feel comfortable saying that in one second, and yet advocate for same-sex love in the other, unless he internally hates his attraction to men?

The other concerns reaction to the ITV show “Bromans”, which aired in the UK during 2017. For context, “Bromans” is a reality show which throws modern British men into a replica of Ancient Rome, and explores how well they could survive in that society. In keeping with the standards of Greco-Roman society, the men are naked or nearly naked around each other for substantial periods of time. As this blog has covered in the past, this kind of contact helps foster homoeroticism, which is displayed clearly in the show.

This time, the article states how in a new episode, two contestants are talking with each other while eating. While dressed only in brief-like material, they are discussing each other’s penis size, and start feeding each other on camera. To me, that’s pretty hot, and I would have loved to see more. Note however how the writer describes the moment in the article’s first line: “This show gets even more ridiculous by the week.” After describing the events therein, he then says “Let’s just say we needed a cold shower after watching this scene…”

I can’t remember reading anything like that anywhere in the g0y or Alliance websites. I think they would have reacted the same way I did - that it was hot to watch. Yet, this writer feels compelled to describe these events in very negative terms. He’s not denying that he wasn’t turned on, but it certainly doesn’t sound like he enjoyed being turned on by this show.

Granted, it might be out of frustration that they feel free to do that while not identifying as “gay”. Yet, that thought in itself reinforces the supposed abnormality of this behavior. Under that thinking, no “normal” man should express affection for another man. So how could this writer feel comfortable saying that unless, on some level, he thinks that he shouldn’t be turned on by this content? Why else would he say that he needed a cold shower? Personally, all I wanted to do was see more of the show, and without any kind of guilt.

Thus, not only are the “gay” movement being malicious, they’re also being hypocrites. They routinely say very homophobic thoughts about their own attractions, yet that’s not considered homophobic. When the Alliance and the g0ys advocate open and free practice of same-sex activity, they’re labelled homophobic because they oppose how the “gays” do it. And most amazingly of all, this makes sense in the cluttered logic of modern sexual philosophy.

However, there are wider implications of this discussion.

Wider Implications

Because of these definitions, and how the “gay” leadership uses them, we must reanalyze what is labelled homophobic in other areas of life.

Firstly, we must look into how “straight” people (particularly men) react to same-sex activity. To the “gays”, the dislike or disgust of some “straights” toward same-sex activity stems from homophobia. As such, the solution partially depends on providing better education about homoeroticism. It also depends on “straights” to stop being prudes, and just embrace the sexual practices of most “gay” men.

In reality, most “straight” men aren’t completely opposed to same-sex activity. Instead, they’re reacting to the link made between same-sex attraction and anal play. These men are justifiably disgusted by the optics and disease of anal play, and fear the physical injury caused by it. However, in the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy, “gays” have exclusive domain over same-sex love. Furthermore, the “gays” insist that the highest fulfillment of homoeroticism is anal sex. Thus, the literal and figurative stench of anal play spreads to all same-sex activity, which creates that strong reaction.

Believe me, when you say that anal play need not play a part in same-sex love, a lot of “straight” men begin to change their tune on same-sex activity. Of course, the “gay” movement will never broach the subject. If they did, it would mean that some criticisms of “gay” sex practices are valid.

Secondly, we must look at the implications on the definition of “homosexuality”, as the “gay” movement sees it. Within the United States, most “straight” people see any same-sex activity as “homosexuality”. Meanwhile, to the “gays”, “homosexuality” is mainly defined by anal play. This is why any opposition to anal is labelled homophobic, and I doubt they would be so insistent with other activities. We must acknowledge that this inconsistency affects what is labelled homophobic by whom.

Thirdly, we must acknowledge that “homophobia” is being used as a slur by the “gay” leadership. By labelling the g0ys and the Man2Man Alliance as homophobic, the “gay” leadership is trying to keep people from reading their content. In this case, they are being labelled “homophobic” purely because of political and social rivalry. It has very little to do with sex. As such, this demands that future claims of “homophobia” from the “gay” leadership must undergo deeper scrutiny.

Conclusion

As an alternative to the “gay” sex model, this blog has endorsed the g0ys and the Man2Man Alliance. Though their philosophies differ in some aspects, they agree on the fundamentals: they oppose anal, current sexual labels, and the link between “gay” culture and same-sex activity.

Because of this, the “gay” movement has accused them of being homophobic. They have also accused them of being in denial, and not wanting to embrace their own homoeroticism. Because the accusation were so serious, this post focused on whether they were true.

As you just saw, the issue is much more complex. What counts as homophobic depends on who you talk to. In the case of the “gay” leadership, anything that criticizes their culture is homophobic. In that case, it doesn’t matter where you stand on general same-sex activity. As such, it is used as a weapon to silence dissent inside and outside the “gay” community, even if said dissent is valid.

This is why the g0ys and the Man2Man Alliance are labelled as such. If you look at their websites, you quickly find that they are anything but homophobic. They simply advocate a different model of homoeroticism, and deny the authority of the “gay” leadership over same-sex activity. That’s why they’re labelled homophobic.

Meanwhile, the “gay” movement routinely displays homophobia in their actions. A “gay” writer openly said that he loves anal sex because it feels abnormal and unnatural. Another one blurted out a very homophobic reaction to a rather homoerotic reality show in Britain. Why aren’t these reactions considered homophobic? Apparently because they have the right opinion on anal sex.

Thus, given that they show homophobia so loosely, I personally label the “gay” leadership as homophobic. After all, they themselves believe that homoeroticism is inherently abnormal and should be treated that way. You can’t do that unless you really believe that homoeroticism is nothing to be proud of.

So I advise you to take their output with a grain of salt. Take another look at the g0ys and the Man2Man Alliance. Focus on the points they’re making. You might walk away with a different viewpoint.

Also, please read further on this site, to further your necessary education. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others.

Most of all, don’t take an accusation of homophobia at face value. You’ve just seen that it can be used as a weapon. Whenever you see it being used, take a close look at it and use your own judgement.

[brittanyyoungblog]

Civilized Sex: Has Civilization Changed Sex for Better or for Worse?

Civilized to Death. Image courtesy of Avid Reader Press

There’s a tendency to believe that civilization is our greatest human accomplishment and to think that every advance we’ve made—whether scientific, medical, or otherwise—has made things better because it has fixed a problem. However, as Dr. Christopher Ryan argues in his new book Civilized to Death: The Price of Progress, this line of thinking may be all wrong. 

As Ryan argues, every advancement we’ve made has brought with it a different set of problems, and sometimes those problems are more serious than the ones we were trying to fix in the first place. So in the process of attempting to make the world a better place, we may have inadvertently made it more dangerous. 

Ryan’s book is broad and provides numerous examples to support his argument. He explores everything from climate change to tooth decay to mental health; however, the part of the book that interested me the most—as a sex researcher and educator—was how civilization has changed sex and reproduction. 

I recently interviewed Ryan (who also happens to be co-author of Sex at Dawn) about his latest book and the subject of civilized sex in particular. In a two-part series, I’ll be sharing the highlights of our discussion.

The first excerpt from my conversation with Ryan appears below, which has been lightly edited for clarity. 

Lehmiller: Let me start with this question. How has civilization changed sex? Has it changed the way we think about sex? The way we have sex? What can you tell us about that?

Ryan: I think the first place to start would be how agricultural societies view relationships between men and women differently than pre-agricultural or non-agricultural societies do. One of the points that I make repeatedly in both Sex at Dawn and Civilized to Death is that women are thought to be equal to men in their stature, authority, independence, and autonomy in hunter-gatherer groups, whereas in agricultural societies, women are almost universally held to be very low stature compared to men. In fact, they're considered the property of men. This seems to be a result of the fact that property per se as a concept is really not understood or valued by hunter-gatherer groups. If someone hoards things for themselves, that's actually seen as a social taboo. Sharing and cooperation are the central organizing principles of a hunter-gatherer society.

When you don't have a sense of personal property, it becomes very difficult to think of other people as property. But with the shift to agriculture, for the first time people settled down and started growing food on the same land year after year. They started building permanent shelters, domesticating animals, and investing a lot of time and energy into these things, which led private property to become very important. As soon as that happened, men became very concerned with who was going to inherit this property that they'd spent their lives accumulating and tending to. And so at that point, as we argued in Sex At Dawn, paternity certainty became a very important principle in human endeavors. And that leads to men trying to control the reproductive behavior of women so that the lines of inheritance can be well-established and very clearly maintained. So the relationships between men and women changed radically along with every other human relationship with the advent of agriculture. And the repercussions are far ranging, certainly.

I often point to a line in the Old Testament: thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. I used to think that this line was only about respecting our neighbors’ marriages. But if you read the full context of the line, it says, “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his ox, nor his house, nor his slaves, nor his ass” and all these other properties of the neighbor. The wife, in that context, is just another possession of the man. And we still see this where the father gives the bride to the husband, or in societies around the world where a woman who's been raped is considered to be without any value. She's no longer “pure.” And what does this purity mean? It means that the sperm from the chosen approved man is the only sperm that's ever been in this woman's body. So any children that come from her have to be from that man. There’s a sense of purity that's very much based upon the notion of property. 

Lehmiller: In reading Civilized to Death, I noticed that you talked about human beings as this deeply, essentially sexual species. For millennia, however, we've been pressured into thinking that we're supposed to ignore, tame, and repress our sexuality. As a prime example of this, you talk about this guy John Harvey Kellogg, who is someone I talk about in my human sexuality classes. He was kind of a quack because he was this doctor who held the belief that masturbation was bad for you, and that sex was bad for you, too.

He actually developed the original cornflake thinking that it was a cure for masturbation because if you were eating bland foods, you wouldn't be sexually excited and therefore you'd be less likely to touch yourself and you wouldn’t want to have sex. Kellogg also advocated for circumcising boys who were masturbating without using any anesthetic because the pain would make them not want to do it anymore. He also suggested applying carbolic acid to the clitoris of girls who were masturbating to prevent that behavior as well. 

Kellog is just one of many examples of medical authorities in our past who tried to tell us that we need to repress our sexuality and sexual impulses. Being told for so long that we're supposed to repress our sexuality, what kind of effects has that had on us sexually or otherwise? 

Civilized to Death author Dr. Christopher Ryan. Image courtesy of Avid Reader Press

Ryan: Oh my God, that's, that's a massive question. I think it's resulted in generations of twisted, tormented people who then pass on their twists to the next generation. So there's been a cascading effect in terms of shame and denial and the grotesque forms that these essentially beautiful and life-giving energies can take when they're pushed underground. I think you could argue that the Catholic church is essentially a result of the repression of sexuality in general and specifically of gay male sexuality. The church was a place where gay men could go and sort of be protected in a sense by an institution that was built upon denial. 

I think it was James Prescott who looked at the anthropological database and correlated how open a society was in terms of accepting the sexual expression of adolescents vs. punishing them with how violent the society was. What he found was an almost perfect correlation amongst societies showing that the more repressed they were sexually, the more violent they were, both within the society and in terms of warfare and conflict with other societies.

So it could be argued that the repression and shame that you're pointing to are essential components of violence and war. Obviously correlation doesn't imply causation, but I think it's no accident that when you look at some of the greatest conflicts in the world right now, you have one very sexually confused and twisted society, which is the United States, in conflict with certain types of Islam, which are also extremely confused and conflicted around sexuality.

There's a section in Civilized to Death where I talk about the connection between sexual repression and outbursts of violence in in the Islamic world and mass shootings in our world. I think these things are certainly connected. There’s also the violence against women that's being perpetrated right now in the United States where abortion clinics are being shut down and doctors are prohibited from speaking honestly with their patients about their reproductive options. Then there’s abstinence only sex education, which doesn’t work but is supported by the federal government to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per year. These are all forms of institutional violence against our innate sexual nature and, particularly against women even learning how to feel comfortable in their own bodies. These are all reflections and echoes of these changes that took place no more than 10,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture. We're still reeling from it today.

Lehmiller: I think that's such an interesting way of framing it. I think we all realize that sexual repression happens and that it has consequences, but people tend to focus on how that leads to, say, unhappy marriages and other things like that. But what you're arguing is really how there are these much larger global consequences that may result from sexual repression.

Ryan: One of the themes in Civilized to Death I tried to play throughout the book is that the war with our inner nature is a reflection of our war with the nature outside us, the nature within which we live. These are two aspects of the same misguided conflict. And so just as we're being constantly told that we shouldn't trust our nature—and of course, sexuality is a big part of that nature that we’re told we should be repressing, resisting, fighting, denying, and hiding—we're also told that the world outside us is to be conquered and controlled and not to be trusted. There's an essential conflict between these two aspects of nature. I think they're two sides of the same coin, and I don't think we're going to ever be able to live in peace with our natural environment until we're at peace with our inner environment and vice versa. 

Lehmiller: I think that's really beautifully put. If I remember correctly, you also talk a little in your book about how things are not necessarily the same cross-culturally when it comes to this conflict we face surrounding sex, right? For example, you bring up the Dutch model of sex education and one of the things you argued there is that the Dutch approach emulates the approach taken by early foragers in terms of recognizing that adolescents are sexual beings. Can you talk a little bit about that and how this tendency towards sexual repression and openness varies cross-culturally and also how in cultures where there's more openness and more respect for teenage sexuality, the outcomes tend to be better?

Ryan: The outcomes in the studies contrasting the Dutch approach with the American approach couldn't be clearer in terms of which approach is more effective. Teen pregnancy in Holland is a fraction—I think it's a fourth, fifth, or sixth—of what it is in the United States on average. Then if you look at the US states where abstinence-only education is in effect, the contrast is even higher. STI transmission rates reflect the same differences. So there's no question that talking about things openly, in letting students and children know that they can come to adults with questions and that they're not going to be shamed, and that teachers are here to talk about these things—that's how people learn. Why would we make an exception for sexuality? I often think that if we taught kids to drive the way we teach them about sexuality, we would essentially just say, "Look, here are the keys to the car. Don't tell me when you go driving. Figure it out and try not to wreck the car." That's essentially our approach to teaching kids about sex. And it's absurd.

I think this isn't even really a conversation about educational techniques or what works and what doesn't. That's all very well established. There's no question. The question is why are we so uptight about this? Why is this one area of life in the United States so difficult for us to deal with rationally? I think it’s that we're living with the lasting effects of a very Old Testament, puritanical approach to these matters. 

You know, I lived in Spain for most of my adult life and even though Spain is an officially Catholic country, they have a much more relaxed, open, and tolerant approach to issues of sexuality. Whether it's sex ed, condom use. distribution of condoms, or extramarital affairs, all of these issues are actually approached with a much more relaxed attitude, even though the country is officially Catholic. It's an interesting contradiction.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of my interview with Dr. Christopher Ryan, and be sure to check out his new book Civilized to Death. Also, read my review of Ryan’s previous book Sex at Dawn here.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Image Credits: Avid Reader Press

Check out these other interviews with authors: 

Sex and Psychology Podcast: An Interview with the Gottmans on Sex, Love, and Relationships

Better Sex Through Mindfulness: An Interview With Dr. Lori Brotto (VIDEO)

ADHD After Dark: How ADHD Affects People’s Sex and Love Lives

from Meet Positives SMFeed 8 https://ift.tt/2qzC3al via IFTTT

[ellenlucasonlinedatingblog]

Civilized Sex: Has Civilization Changed Sex for Better or for Worse?

Civilized to Death. Image courtesy of Avid Reader Press

There’s a tendency to believe that civilization is our greatest human accomplishment and to think that every advance we’ve made—whether scientific, medical, or otherwise—has made things better because it has fixed a problem. However, as Dr. Christopher Ryan argues in his new book Civilized to Death: The Price of Progress, this line of thinking may be all wrong. 

As Ryan argues, every advancement we’ve made has brought with it a different set of problems, and sometimes those problems are more serious than the ones we were trying to fix in the first place. So in the process of attempting to make the world a better place, we may have inadvertently made it more dangerous. 

Ryan’s book is broad and provides numerous examples to support his argument. He explores everything from climate change to tooth decay to mental health; however, the part of the book that interested me the most—as a sex researcher and educator—was how civilization has changed sex and reproduction. 

I recently interviewed Ryan (who also happens to be co-author of Sex at Dawn) about his latest book and the subject of civilized sex in particular. In a two-part series, I’ll be sharing the highlights of our discussion.

The first excerpt from my conversation with Ryan appears below, which has been lightly edited for clarity. 

Lehmiller: Let me start with this question. How has civilization changed sex? Has it changed the way we think about sex? The way we have sex? What can you tell us about that?

Ryan: I think the first place to start would be how agricultural societies view relationships between men and women differently than pre-agricultural or non-agricultural societies do. One of the points that I make repeatedly in both Sex at Dawn and Civilized to Death is that women are thought to be equal to men in their stature, authority, independence, and autonomy in hunter-gatherer groups, whereas in agricultural societies, women are almost universally held to be very low stature compared to men. In fact, they're considered the property of men. This seems to be a result of the fact that property per se as a concept is really not understood or valued by hunter-gatherer groups. If someone hoards things for themselves, that's actually seen as a social taboo. Sharing and cooperation are the central organizing principles of a hunter-gatherer society.

When you don't have a sense of personal property, it becomes very difficult to think of other people as property. But with the shift to agriculture, for the first time people settled down and started growing food on the same land year after year. They started building permanent shelters, domesticating animals, and investing a lot of time and energy into these things, which led private property to become very important. As soon as that happened, men became very concerned with who was going to inherit this property that they'd spent their lives accumulating and tending to. And so at that point, as we argued in Sex At Dawn, paternity certainty became a very important principle in human endeavors. And that leads to men trying to control the reproductive behavior of women so that the lines of inheritance can be well-established and very clearly maintained. So the relationships between men and women changed radically along with every other human relationship with the advent of agriculture. And the repercussions are far ranging, certainly.

I often point to a line in the Old Testament: thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. I used to think that this line was only about respecting our neighbors’ marriages. But if you read the full context of the line, it says, “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his ox, nor his house, nor his slaves, nor his ass” and all these other properties of the neighbor. The wife, in that context, is just another possession of the man. And we still see this where the father gives the bride to the husband, or in societies around the world where a woman who's been raped is considered to be without any value. She's no longer “pure.” And what does this purity mean? It means that the sperm from the chosen approved man is the only sperm that's ever been in this woman's body. So any children that come from her have to be from that man. There’s a sense of purity that's very much based upon the notion of property. 

Lehmiller: In reading Civilized to Death, I noticed that you talked about human beings as this deeply, essentially sexual species. For millennia, however, we've been pressured into thinking that we're supposed to ignore, tame, and repress our sexuality. As a prime example of this, you talk about this guy John Harvey Kellogg, who is someone I talk about in my human sexuality classes. He was kind of a quack because he was this doctor who held the belief that masturbation was bad for you, and that sex was bad for you, too.

He actually developed the original cornflake thinking that it was a cure for masturbation because if you were eating bland foods, you wouldn't be sexually excited and therefore you'd be less likely to touch yourself and you wouldn’t want to have sex. Kellogg also advocated for circumcising boys who were masturbating without using any anesthetic because the pain would make them not want to do it anymore. He also suggested applying carbolic acid to the clitoris of girls who were masturbating to prevent that behavior as well. 

Kellog is just one of many examples of medical authorities in our past who tried to tell us that we need to repress our sexuality and sexual impulses. Being told for so long that we're supposed to repress our sexuality, what kind of effects has that had on us sexually or otherwise? 

Civilized to Death author Dr. Christopher Ryan. Image courtesy of Avid Reader Press

Ryan: Oh my God, that's, that's a massive question. I think it's resulted in generations of twisted, tormented people who then pass on their twists to the next generation. So there's been a cascading effect in terms of shame and denial and the grotesque forms that these essentially beautiful and life-giving energies can take when they're pushed underground. I think you could argue that the Catholic church is essentially a result of the repression of sexuality in general and specifically of gay male sexuality. The church was a place where gay men could go and sort of be protected in a sense by an institution that was built upon denial. 

I think it was James Prescott who looked at the anthropological database and correlated how open a society was in terms of accepting the sexual expression of adolescents vs. punishing them with how violent the society was. What he found was an almost perfect correlation amongst societies showing that the more repressed they were sexually, the more violent they were, both within the society and in terms of warfare and conflict with other societies.

So it could be argued that the repression and shame that you're pointing to are essential components of violence and war. Obviously correlation doesn't imply causation, but I think it's no accident that when you look at some of the greatest conflicts in the world right now, you have one very sexually confused and twisted society, which is the United States, in conflict with certain types of Islam, which are also extremely confused and conflicted around sexuality.

There's a section in Civilized to Death where I talk about the connection between sexual repression and outbursts of violence in in the Islamic world and mass shootings in our world. I think these things are certainly connected. There’s also the violence against women that's being perpetrated right now in the United States where abortion clinics are being shut down and doctors are prohibited from speaking honestly with their patients about their reproductive options. Then there’s abstinence only sex education, which doesn’t work but is supported by the federal government to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per year. These are all forms of institutional violence against our innate sexual nature and, particularly against women even learning how to feel comfortable in their own bodies. These are all reflections and echoes of these changes that took place no more than 10,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture. We're still reeling from it today.

Lehmiller: I think that's such an interesting way of framing it. I think we all realize that sexual repression happens and that it has consequences, but people tend to focus on how that leads to, say, unhappy marriages and other things like that. But what you're arguing is really how there are these much larger global consequences that may result from sexual repression.

Ryan: One of the themes in Civilized to Death I tried to play throughout the book is that the war with our inner nature is a reflection of our war with the nature outside us, the nature within which we live. These are two aspects of the same misguided conflict. And so just as we're being constantly told that we shouldn't trust our nature—and of course, sexuality is a big part of that nature that we’re told we should be repressing, resisting, fighting, denying, and hiding—we're also told that the world outside us is to be conquered and controlled and not to be trusted. There's an essential conflict between these two aspects of nature. I think they're two sides of the same coin, and I don't think we're going to ever be able to live in peace with our natural environment until we're at peace with our inner environment and vice versa. 

Lehmiller: I think that's really beautifully put. If I remember correctly, you also talk a little in your book about how things are not necessarily the same cross-culturally when it comes to this conflict we face surrounding sex, right? For example, you bring up the Dutch model of sex education and one of the things you argued there is that the Dutch approach emulates the approach taken by early foragers in terms of recognizing that adolescents are sexual beings. Can you talk a little bit about that and how this tendency towards sexual repression and openness varies cross-culturally and also how in cultures where there's more openness and more respect for teenage sexuality, the outcomes tend to be better?

Ryan: The outcomes in the studies contrasting the Dutch approach with the American approach couldn't be clearer in terms of which approach is more effective. Teen pregnancy in Holland is a fraction—I think it's a fourth, fifth, or sixth—of what it is in the United States on average. Then if you look at the US states where abstinence-only education is in effect, the contrast is even higher. STI transmission rates reflect the same differences. So there's no question that talking about things openly, in letting students and children know that they can come to adults with questions and that they're not going to be shamed, and that teachers are here to talk about these things—that's how people learn. Why would we make an exception for sexuality? I often think that if we taught kids to drive the way we teach them about sexuality, we would essentially just say, "Look, here are the keys to the car. Don't tell me when you go driving. Figure it out and try not to wreck the car." That's essentially our approach to teaching kids about sex. And it's absurd.

I think this isn't even really a conversation about educational techniques or what works and what doesn't. That's all very well established. There's no question. The question is why are we so uptight about this? Why is this one area of life in the United States so difficult for us to deal with rationally? I think it’s that we're living with the lasting effects of a very Old Testament, puritanical approach to these matters. 

You know, I lived in Spain for most of my adult life and even though Spain is an officially Catholic country, they have a much more relaxed, open, and tolerant approach to issues of sexuality. Whether it's sex ed, condom use. distribution of condoms, or extramarital affairs, all of these issues are actually approached with a much more relaxed attitude, even though the country is officially Catholic. It's an interesting contradiction.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of my interview with Dr. Christopher Ryan, and be sure to check out his new book Civilized to Death. Also, read my review of Ryan’s previous book Sex at Dawn here.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Image Credits: Avid Reader Press

Check out these other interviews with authors: 

Sex and Psychology Podcast: An Interview with the Gottmans on Sex, Love, and Relationships

Better Sex Through Mindfulness: An Interview With Dr. Lori Brotto (VIDEO)

ADHD After Dark: How ADHD Affects People’s Sex and Love Lives

from MeetPositives SM Feed 4 https://ift.tt/2qzC3al via IFTTT

[robbiemeadow]

Civilized Sex: Has Civilization Changed Sex for Better or for Worse?

Civilized to Death. Image courtesy of Avid Reader Press

There’s a tendency to believe that civilization is our greatest human accomplishment and to think that every advance we’ve made—whether scientific, medical, or otherwise—has made things better because it has fixed a problem. However, as Dr. Christopher Ryan argues in his new book Civilized to Death: The Price of Progress, this line of thinking may be all wrong. 

As Ryan argues, every advancement we’ve made has brought with it a different set of problems, and sometimes those problems are more serious than the ones we were trying to fix in the first place. So in the process of attempting to make the world a better place, we may have inadvertently made it more dangerous. 

Ryan’s book is broad and provides numerous examples to support his argument. He explores everything from climate change to tooth decay to mental health; however, the part of the book that interested me the most—as a sex researcher and educator—was how civilization has changed sex and reproduction. 

I recently interviewed Ryan (who also happens to be co-author of Sex at Dawn) about his latest book and the subject of civilized sex in particular. In a two-part series, I’ll be sharing the highlights of our discussion.

The first excerpt from my conversation with Ryan appears below, which has been lightly edited for clarity. 

Lehmiller: Let me start with this question. How has civilization changed sex? Has it changed the way we think about sex? The way we have sex? What can you tell us about that?

Ryan: I think the first place to start would be how agricultural societies view relationships between men and women differently than pre-agricultural or non-agricultural societies do. One of the points that I make repeatedly in both Sex at Dawn and Civilized to Death is that women are thought to be equal to men in their stature, authority, independence, and autonomy in hunter-gatherer groups, whereas in agricultural societies, women are almost universally held to be very low stature compared to men. In fact, they're considered the property of men. This seems to be a result of the fact that property per se as a concept is really not understood or valued by hunter-gatherer groups. If someone hoards things for themselves, that's actually seen as a social taboo. Sharing and cooperation are the central organizing principles of a hunter-gatherer society.

When you don't have a sense of personal property, it becomes very difficult to think of other people as property. But with the shift to agriculture, for the first time people settled down and started growing food on the same land year after year. They started building permanent shelters, domesticating animals, and investing a lot of time and energy into these things, which led private property to become very important. As soon as that happened, men became very concerned with who was going to inherit this property that they'd spent their lives accumulating and tending to. And so at that point, as we argued in Sex At Dawn, paternity certainty became a very important principle in human endeavors. And that leads to men trying to control the reproductive behavior of women so that the lines of inheritance can be well-established and very clearly maintained. So the relationships between men and women changed radically along with every other human relationship with the advent of agriculture. And the repercussions are far ranging, certainly.

I often point to a line in the Old Testament: thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. I used to think that this line was only about respecting our neighbors’ marriages. But if you read the full context of the line, it says, “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his ox, nor his house, nor his slaves, nor his ass” and all these other properties of the neighbor. The wife, in that context, is just another possession of the man. And we still see this where the father gives the bride to the husband, or in societies around the world where a woman who's been raped is considered to be without any value. She's no longer “pure.” And what does this purity mean? It means that the sperm from the chosen approved man is the only sperm that's ever been in this woman's body. So any children that come from her have to be from that man. There’s a sense of purity that's very much based upon the notion of property. 

Lehmiller: In reading Civilized to Death, I noticed that you talked about human beings as this deeply, essentially sexual species. For millennia, however, we've been pressured into thinking that we're supposed to ignore, tame, and repress our sexuality. As a prime example of this, you talk about this guy John Harvey Kellogg, who is someone I talk about in my human sexuality classes. He was kind of a quack because he was this doctor who held the belief that masturbation was bad for you, and that sex was bad for you, too.

He actually developed the original cornflake thinking that it was a cure for masturbation because if you were eating bland foods, you wouldn't be sexually excited and therefore you'd be less likely to touch yourself and you wouldn’t want to have sex. Kellogg also advocated for circumcising boys who were masturbating without using any anesthetic because the pain would make them not want to do it anymore. He also suggested applying carbolic acid to the clitoris of girls who were masturbating to prevent that behavior as well. 

Kellog is just one of many examples of medical authorities in our past who tried to tell us that we need to repress our sexuality and sexual impulses. Being told for so long that we're supposed to repress our sexuality, what kind of effects has that had on us sexually or otherwise? 

Civilized to Death author Dr. Christopher Ryan. Image courtesy of Avid Reader Press

Ryan: Oh my God, that's, that's a massive question. I think it's resulted in generations of twisted, tormented people who then pass on their twists to the next generation. So there's been a cascading effect in terms of shame and denial and the grotesque forms that these essentially beautiful and life-giving energies can take when they're pushed underground. I think you could argue that the Catholic church is essentially a result of the repression of sexuality in general and specifically of gay male sexuality. The church was a place where gay men could go and sort of be protected in a sense by an institution that was built upon denial. 

I think it was James Prescott who looked at the anthropological database and correlated how open a society was in terms of accepting the sexual expression of adolescents vs. punishing them with how violent the society was. What he found was an almost perfect correlation amongst societies showing that the more repressed they were sexually, the more violent they were, both within the society and in terms of warfare and conflict with other societies.

So it could be argued that the repression and shame that you're pointing to are essential components of violence and war. Obviously correlation doesn't imply causation, but I think it's no accident that when you look at some of the greatest conflicts in the world right now, you have one very sexually confused and twisted society, which is the United States, in conflict with certain types of Islam, which are also extremely confused and conflicted around sexuality.

There's a section in Civilized to Death where I talk about the connection between sexual repression and outbursts of violence in in the Islamic world and mass shootings in our world. I think these things are certainly connected. There’s also the violence against women that's being perpetrated right now in the United States where abortion clinics are being shut down and doctors are prohibited from speaking honestly with their patients about their reproductive options. Then there’s abstinence only sex education, which doesn’t work but is supported by the federal government to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per year. These are all forms of institutional violence against our innate sexual nature and, particularly against women even learning how to feel comfortable in their own bodies. These are all reflections and echoes of these changes that took place no more than 10,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture. We're still reeling from it today.

Lehmiller: I think that's such an interesting way of framing it. I think we all realize that sexual repression happens and that it has consequences, but people tend to focus on how that leads to, say, unhappy marriages and other things like that. But what you're arguing is really how there are these much larger global consequences that may result from sexual repression.

Ryan: One of the themes in Civilized to Death I tried to play throughout the book is that the war with our inner nature is a reflection of our war with the nature outside us, the nature within which we live. These are two aspects of the same misguided conflict. And so just as we're being constantly told that we shouldn't trust our nature—and of course, sexuality is a big part of that nature that we’re told we should be repressing, resisting, fighting, denying, and hiding—we're also told that the world outside us is to be conquered and controlled and not to be trusted. There's an essential conflict between these two aspects of nature. I think they're two sides of the same coin, and I don't think we're going to ever be able to live in peace with our natural environment until we're at peace with our inner environment and vice versa. 

Lehmiller: I think that's really beautifully put. If I remember correctly, you also talk a little in your book about how things are not necessarily the same cross-culturally when it comes to this conflict we face surrounding sex, right? For example, you bring up the Dutch model of sex education and one of the things you argued there is that the Dutch approach emulates the approach taken by early foragers in terms of recognizing that adolescents are sexual beings. Can you talk a little bit about that and how this tendency towards sexual repression and openness varies cross-culturally and also how in cultures where there's more openness and more respect for teenage sexuality, the outcomes tend to be better?

Ryan: The outcomes in the studies contrasting the Dutch approach with the American approach couldn't be clearer in terms of which approach is more effective. Teen pregnancy in Holland is a fraction—I think it's a fourth, fifth, or sixth—of what it is in the United States on average. Then if you look at the US states where abstinence-only education is in effect, the contrast is even higher. STI transmission rates reflect the same differences. So there's no question that talking about things openly, in letting students and children know that they can come to adults with questions and that they're not going to be shamed, and that teachers are here to talk about these things—that's how people learn. Why would we make an exception for sexuality? I often think that if we taught kids to drive the way we teach them about sexuality, we would essentially just say, "Look, here are the keys to the car. Don't tell me when you go driving. Figure it out and try not to wreck the car." That's essentially our approach to teaching kids about sex. And it's absurd.

I think this isn't even really a conversation about educational techniques or what works and what doesn't. That's all very well established. There's no question. The question is why are we so uptight about this? Why is this one area of life in the United States so difficult for us to deal with rationally? I think it’s that we're living with the lasting effects of a very Old Testament, puritanical approach to these matters. 

You know, I lived in Spain for most of my adult life and even though Spain is an officially Catholic country, they have a much more relaxed, open, and tolerant approach to issues of sexuality. Whether it's sex ed, condom use. distribution of condoms, or extramarital affairs, all of these issues are actually approached with a much more relaxed attitude, even though the country is officially Catholic. It's an interesting contradiction.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of my interview with Dr. Christopher Ryan, and be sure to check out his new book Civilized to Death. Also, read my review of Ryan’s previous book Sex at Dawn here.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Image Credits: Avid Reader Press

Check out these other interviews with authors: 

Sex and Psychology Podcast: An Interview with the Gottmans on Sex, Love, and Relationships

Better Sex Through Mindfulness: An Interview With Dr. Lori Brotto (VIDEO)

ADHD After Dark: How ADHD Affects People’s Sex and Love Lives

from Meet Positives SM Feed 5 https://ift.tt/2qzC3al via IFTTT

[mdye]

Like what you read below? Sign up for HUFFPOST HILL and get a cheeky dose of political news every evening!

Donald Trump passed along sensitive intelligence to Russia’s ambassador, endangering American assets in the exact same way that Barack Obama did when he bowed to that guy. We’re convinced that at this point, Mitch McConnell’s entire family could be eaten by bears but so long as the plan to lower the effective tax rate for corporations were on track, he’d be cool.  And it seems like Trump’s week couldn’t get any worse unless he had a photo-op with an authoritarian ruler like Recep Tayyip Erdog — oh. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Tuesday, May 16th, 2017:

THIS MIGHT BE HOW THE DEMOCRATS BLOW 2018 - Greetings from Georgetown, where everyone knows the reason Trump won in November was because there weren’t enough Beltway gatherings at hotels where a side order of foie gras butter is a reasonable $15. As such, the Center for American Progress and practically the entire Democratic establishment thought it a good idea to to have an “Ideas Conference” at the Four Seasons today. Naturally, this had us wondering whether the setting might undermine the speakers’ messages of economic inclusion (”Concentrated money and concentrated power are corrupting our democracy,” warned Elizabeth Warren; Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the economic woes of working people in California are “not much different from people in coal country;” “All we do is fight for working families in our country,” claimed Nancy Pelosi, adding that it was imperative that the Democratic Party better communicate its agenda to voters). “CAP’s Ideas Conference isn’t about the venue — it’s about the ideas and energy our speakers are bringing to the day,” said CAP spokeswoman Allison Preiss, who added that the venue was chosen to accommodate unexpected press interest (though the group’s 10th anniversary policy conference in 2013 was held, somewhat suspiciously, at the St. Regis). We asked Senator Jeff Merkley what he thought of the setting. “I did find it kind of ironic as I was walking here from the subway stop that we were moving into elite Georgetown for this conference,” he said. Merkley said he didn’t know enough about the planning to comment at length, but noted, approvingly, “this is a union shop.” Onward to 2018!

This is arguably the GOP’s worst news cycle of the year, and Republicans were giddy to tee off on the conference’s location: “Giving speeches to rich, white, elites inside $800 per night hotels in the toniest section of the most hated city in America only picks up where Hillary Clinton left off,” Ken Spain, the former communications director for the Republican National Campaign Committee, told us. Sam Geduldig, a leading GOP lobbyist and erstwhile aide to former House Speaker John Boehner, picked up on that theme. “I have this vision of wealthy liberals picking at a seafood tower while talking about people they know nothing about,” Geduldig said. “Maybe they can conduct a focus group of the hotel staff, while they have them in one place?”

Taking BernieLand’s temperature: “A tone-deaf luxury bootcamp for CAP-affiliated consultants, operatives, and big money donors accustomed to losing elections means the Democratic party might not get in shape ahead of the 2018 midterm elections,” People for Bernie co-founder Winnie Wong told us.

TRUMP ADMIN STILL DANCING AROUND INTEL LEAK DENIAL - Marina Fang: “President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday continued to provide a muddled explanation of reports that the president shared classified information with Russian officials in an Oval Office meeting last week. National security adviser H.R. McMaster, who had said on Monday that The Washington Post’s reporting was false, would not directly confirm or deny that Trump had shared classified information. ‘We don’t say what’s classified, what’s not classified,’ McMaster said at a press briefing Tuesday, before adding that ‘what the president shared was wholly appropriate.’ Trump all but confirmed that he shared classified information in a series of tweets early Tuesday morning, proclaiming that he has ‘the absolute right’ to share any information he wants.” [HuffPost]

Oh: “McMaster’s pushback came just hours after Trump himself acknowledged Tuesday morning in a pair of tweets that he had indeed revealed highly classified information to Russia — a stunning confirmation of the Washington Post story and a move that seemed to contradict his own White House team after it scrambled to deny the report.” [WaPo’s Ashley Parker]

DONALD TRUMP GAVE SENSITIVE INTEL TO THE RUSSIANS AND THE GOP IS ON IT - And by “on it,” we mean, “has the same canned response queued up.” Amanda Terkel: “Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) said the news was ‘deeply concerning,’ and he will raise it when the House Intelligence Committee meets. ‘I would be concerned anytime we’re discussing sensitive subjects with the Russians,’ said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) similarly said the revelations were ‘deeply disturbing,’ while Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told the White House to get its act together: ‘The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order. It’s got to happen.’ House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said he wants a ‘full explanation’ from the administration of what Trump disclosed, while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would simply like ‘a little less drama from the White House on a lot of things so that we can focus on our agenda.’” [HuffPost]

Haircuts: Jeffrey Young (h/t Jeffrey Young), Canada’s own Todd Zwillich (h/t Tiger Beat).

Like HuffPost Hill? Then order Eliot’s book, The Beltway Bible: A Totally Serious A-Z Guide To Our No-Good, Corrupt, Incompetent, Terrible, Depressing, and Sometimes Hilarious Government

Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It’s free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to eliot@huffpost.com. Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill

OH GOOD LORD, TRUMP MEETS WITH ERDOGAN - The whole Russian intel leak thing reminded us that Trump will also likely meet with Rodrigo Duterte at some point this year. Can’t wait! Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Mark Landler: “President Trump on Tuesday praised President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey as a stalwart ally in the battle against Islamic extremism, ignoring Mr. Erdogan’s authoritarian crackdown on his own people and brushing aside recent tensions between the United States and Turkey over how to wage the military campaign against the Islamic State. Welcoming Mr. Erdogan to the White House, Mr. Trump said, ‘Today, we face a new enemy in the fight against terrorism, and again we seek to face this threat together.’ … Mr. Erdogan praised Mr. Trump for the ‘legendary triumph’ he had achieved in the election and declared that his first meeting with the new president would be a ‘historical turn of tide’ in the Turkish-American relationship.” [NYT]

Congratulations to Jared Kushner: “Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) took himself out of the running to be the nation’s next FBI director, informing President Donald Trump’s administration that he intends to stay in the Senate instead. In a statement released by his office on Tuesday, Cornyn, the Senate’s majority whip, said the country needs a ‘well-credentialed’ and ‘independent’ FBI director to replace James Comey, who was fired by the president last week.” [HuffPost’s Igor Bobic]

THE 11-DIMENSIONAL CHESS OF FAKE NEWS - True Detective Season 13: The first one starring Tim Allen and Kelsey Grammar and streamed on NewsmaxTV. Alex Seitz-Wald: “The Dallas-based financial adviser, Ed Butowsky, a Fox News contributor who has written articles for Breitbart News, contacted the parents of Seth Rich and urged them to hire a private investigator to look into the death of their 27-year-old son, who was shot and killed last July in what police say was a robbery gone wrong. The Rich family hired the detective who had been recommended, Rod Wheeler, a former D.C. homicide detective who is also a Fox News contributor and who last month tweeted a photo of himself at the White House captioned, ‘Doing my part to Make America Great Again!!’ Wheeler said on Monday there was evidence to support the conspiracy theories, including that Rich had been in contact with WikiLeaks before his death — prompting a quick rebuke from both the police and Rich’s family…. Police say it was a robbery gone wrong, but the death quickly became a fascination of conspiracy theorists, who alleged he was the source of DNC emails published on Wikileaks, even though U.S. intelligence agencies say they actually came from a Russian hacking operation.” [MSNBC]

Condolences to Melissa McCarthy: “As President Donald Trump is reportedly frustrated with his communications team and mulling a major staff shake-up, Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle signaled Tuesday that she could be leaving the president’s favorite channel for the White House. In an interview with the Bay Area News Group, Guilfoyle said she had been in conversations with the Trump administration about becoming White House press secretary or taking on another press role.” [HuffPost’s Michael Calderone]

NC GOV PROMISES EXECUTIVE ORDER ON HB2 - Pretty amazing considering the state legislature stripped Roy Cooper of pretty much every power save for the approval vanity plates. Julia Craven: “North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) vowed Tuesday to issue an executive order ‘pretty soon’ to increase protections for LGBTQ people in the state. The pledge follows the state’s partial repeal of HB2, a law barring local governments from passing any anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay and transgender people. ‘I’m going to issue an executive order pretty soon that is comprehensive, that helps with LGBT protections and we’re going to keep working every day,’ he said during the Center for American Progress’ Ideas Conference. Cooper’s office told HuffPost they could not immediately give additional details about the order.” [HuffPost]

MAN ARRESTED FOR THREATENING CONGRESSWOMAN - McSally, to refresh your memory, represents Gabby Giffords old district. Curt Prendergast: “The FBI arrested a TUSD employee on suspicion of threatening U.S. Rep. Martha McSally. FBI agents arrested Steve Martan, 58, in connection with three messages left on the congressional office voicemail on May 2 and May 10, according to a criminal complaint filed May 12 in U.S. District Court in Tucson. Martan is a campus monitor at Miles Exploratory Learning Center in the Tucson Unified School District. He was placed on home assignment and told not to come into work as the district investigates the allegations. The voicemails contained threats to McSally, including that she should ‘be careful’ when she returns to Tucson and that her days ‘were numbered.’ He threatened to shoot her in one of the expletive-filled messages.” [Arizona Daily Star]

BECAUSE YOU’VE READ THIS FAR - Here is the flyest toddler to ever take to a moonbounce.

COMFORT FOOD

The dopest of elevators.

How to make the carbonara from “Master of None.”

Take a break from this nightmarish newscycle and relax by watching some Japanese joinery.

TWITTERAMA

Thoughts and prayers to all those GOP lawmakers concerned about Trump’s behavior

— Amanda Terkel (@aterkel) May 16, 2017

White House reaction cycle 1 - It never happened 2 - POTUS tweet 3 - It happened; NBD 4 - Nobody cares but you 5 - No more questions on this

— Brad Heath (@bradheath) May 16, 2017

Regular reminder that the entire election turned on fake anger that Clinton had mishandled unmarked material at low-level classification.

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) May 15, 2017

Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson (eliot@huffpost.com)

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

[itsfinancethings]

Over the last several years, anti-LGBTQ “purges” have taken place in Chechnya, a conservative Russian republic. Chechen officials, according to many reports and testimonies, have rounded up people they believe to be gay, tortured them and then released them to family members who were encouraged to commit “honor killings.”

Fearing for their lives, some young queer people have fled the predominantly Muslim region with the hopes of finding safety outside Russia. Welcome to Chechnya, a documentary by David France premiering June 30 on HBO, follows these refugees and the activists going to extraordinary lengths to help them escape.

Chechen officials have denied that purges took place, saying in one case that gay people do not exist in that part of Russia and if they did, their relatives would be so ashamed that they “would have sent them to where they could never return.” European countries have criticized Russian authorities for allowing a “climate of impunity” in the republic.

Welcome to Chechnya is France’s third documentary. His first, 2012’s How to Survive a Plague, based on his own book of the same name, reflected on the early years of the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. and earned numerous awards including an Oscar nomination. His second, 2017’s The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson, explores the life of the prominent activist. Ahead of the release of his new film, TIME spoke with France about the extreme security measures he put in place for Welcome to Chechnya, what he thinks of the government’s denials and why, despite the risk, Chechens were willing to tell their stories.

TIME: When did you realize you wanted to make this film?

David France: I decided to do the film the minute I realized that this activism was taking place, desperately, in a world that wasn’t helping. No one was covering it. So I just left for Russia.

After working on the film for 18 months, how would you describe the dangers of being gay in Chechnya?

It’s not possible to live if it’s known that you’re gay. The campaign in Chechnya is a cleansing of the blood, as it has been described. It is a mission to round up and exterminate LGBTQ Chechens, and that doesn’t end when people run away. It only ends when they’re dead.

How did you proceed once you got to Russia, given that your subjects would be in danger if they or the film were discovered?

I had an encrypted phone call with the staff from the Moscow Community Center for LGBT+ Initiatives [an organization helping individuals get resettled in other countries] and presented it to them. They felt it was important to show the world what was happening but said that not everyone would want to be in the film, so we made certain ground rules. I hired a local cameraperson and we moved into [one of the safe houses the center was operating].

What were among those ground rules?

We were careful not to take taxi cabs, for example, directly to the place. We were careful to alter our routes and to not appear in any way to be a film crew. We used a very small consumer camera, beat it up and made it look like a tourist thing. When we were filming in public, we taped up the plastic body so that no lights would be shown and operated it with a cell phone. But there were places where we couldn’t even use that.

Many people in the film are “digitally disguised,” with the faces of other people imposed on their own to hide their identities. Was that something you promised at the outset?

That was one of the security issues that I had with the people who were escaping, to get them to trust me. I signed little deals with everybody that said I wanted to shoot their faces, which they hadn’t let anybody else do, and I would protect my footage with my life. I would somehow find a way to disguise them and I would bring that back to them for their approval.

And had you used this technology before? What is it?

We call it face doubling. This technology has not been used before. We had additional burdens: that we could not move any of our footage over the Internet and we couldn’t work with the footage in an open studio setting. So we had to set up a kind of windowless room in order to keep with our security protocols and hire our own team to do it. We developed the IP with [software architect] Ryan Laney. For documentary filmmakers, this is a brand new tool.

Even with the digital disguises, why did people agree to do this? What did they tell you about why it was worth it to them to risk being on film?

Because they want this to end. And so they would participate if it had a chance of getting us closer to safety in Chechnya. They want to go home. They want to go back to their moms. They’re so young, most of them, to be flung out into the world like this. They want to at least be able to call home, and they can’t even do that. This way they were allowed to tell their stories and affirm their lives in a way that didn’t put them in deeper peril.

Do you see the film as a rebuttal to Chechen and Russian officials who say no persecution has taken place or no investigation is necessary?

Yes, it’s absolutely a rebuttal.

What do you feel is the most compelling new evidence you’re offering, knowing we still don’t see the torture itself?

We are telling stories. We are letting people narrate their journeys. And through the activists who are rescuing them, we’re seeing what the danger is to anybody who is queer in Russia and trying to expose this issue in their own country.

Do you believe Russian President Vladimir Putin is responsible for putting a stop to this? In your highest hopes, what changes after this film?

Putin is setting the tone here. Putin is rolling back LGBT rights in Russia. Putin is fomenting hatred for queer people in Russia. Putin has given permission for all his regional leaders to carry that out in their own way, and that’s why this is happening now. Putin could call up [Chechen leader Ramzan] Kadyrov and say, “Stop,” and Kadyrov would stop. And if we can get that, that’s a beginning.

What else needs to happen?

Kadyrov needs to go, and so do his henchmen. They run a regime of thugs, not just thuggery against the LGBTQ community. They were [threatening] people with pipes for not observing lockdown during the coronavirus pandemic there. It’s a brutal, brutal regime.

Besides investigations and pressure campaigns already going on, what should the international community be doing?

I think it’s really going to have to come from higher levels. European leaders, anybody doing political business or economic business with Russia should demand equal treatment. And they’re not. Washington could stop this.

Given Trump’s record on LGBT rights and his relationship with Russia, do you have hopes of Washington actually stepping in?

No, not while he’s in office.

[felixeberstark-blog]

March 7, 2016

Before dealing with Heather, I had to deal with Tye.  I’ve texted Ryan last week to wish him a happy birthday, and he apologized for Tye’s aggressive behavior. I expressed my desire to discreetly be able to still see him every once in a while without his knowledge, and he said he’d be willing to make it work because he valued me.  My twisted plan consisted of infecting Tye with HIV through Ryan’s blood. The idea seems too far-fetched at first, but I was insistent on making it work.  Over the course of our friendship, I’ve often seen Ryan miss or even purposely avoid taking his HIV medication because of various side effects. He mainly complained about severe fatigue and tiredness the medication had caused which prevented him from having the necessary energy to practice his job as a go-go dancer. He also mentioned something I found quite interesting about his viral load; he said even while on a steady medication regimen, his viral load would often fluctuate from undetectable to detectable without any reason. His doctor warned him that he’d be putting himself at risk by not adhering to his treatment which could easily cause the HIV to multiply and for the virus to mutate and produce a drug-resistant HIV which would result in the treatment’s failure. I’m not sure how low his CD4 count is now, but I’m assuming it’s moderately low, probably around 200-300 due to his unstable treatment regimen. I also know Tye isn’t on any antiretroviral medication and that the only way they’ve erred on the side of caution is by strictly practicing protected sex.  Last week, Tye had to leave for Dallas for a few days for a family emergency. It was ideal to invite Ryan over the day he was gone. We had lunch then headed over to my place.  Upon our arrival, I was eager to get him wasted so I plied him with beer while we watched TV. I watched him closely for signs of change in his behavior and waited for the flood of alcohol to take its ride into his bloodstream. Once it did and he started to lose consciousness, I dragged him to my bedroom and put him in my bed. I grabbed the needle, tube and hand sanitizer and started the procedure. I used a non-defective needle secured in a holder and inserted it into the blood collection tube. I traced his veins with my index finger and inserted the needle in one of them and started drawing blood. Once I reached the recessed line on the needle holder, I released the vacuum.  One thing people don’t understand about positive gay men is how isolated and unwanted those can feel. They’re scrutinized and discriminated against daily which makes it hard for them to find meaningful relationships with healthy individuals who, reasonably enough, wouldn’t easily consider being with someone who suffers from the disease. That kind of marginalization can sometimes lead to severe depression and suicide. When I look at Tye and Ryan’s relationship, I can distinguish the fact Ryan has given Tye the upper hand because of his authoritarian personality, but mainly because his boyfriend’s healthy and he’s not. Ryan is okay with being submissive and controlled strictly because he’s afraid Tye might leave him. Revenge aside, the whole idea behind my grievous act was for Tye to inherit and share Ryan’s suffering; that way they’d both be equals and he won’t have to feel so alone. Unfortunately, I can predict that won’t be the case. Part of Tye’s confidence lies in the fact he’s made it through most of his life without contracting one of the deadliest diseases in history, and I can’t wait to see how he’ll respond to the news once he gets infected too.  Ryan had absolutely no clue about what I did or what I was about to do to his boyfriend. When Tye came back, I familiarized myself with his routine by stalking him as he made his way to work each day. He’d show up at 7 a.m. and leave by 8 P.M.  Around 8 P.M. on Wednesday, I made my way to the hardware store and waited for Tye’s shift to be over. He left approximately half an hour later after my arrival and walked over to the parking lot. It was dark outside, the only light source coming from the LED lights located around the area. I was covered in black clothing from heard to toe, and even wore gloves and a ski mask. I anxiously I waited for the right moment to strike. When he got to his car and stopped to withdraw his keys, I stealthily ran, swung my right arm and hit him with knockout force across the side of his face. Blood splattered from his mouth and nostrils as his face hit the top of his car before totally collapsing on the ground. I looked to make sure no one was around before punching him again. I then spilled the entire content of Ryan’s blood in his mouth, took out his wallet from his pants to make the whole incident seem like a burglary before disappearing instantly afterward.  I felt victorious committing a crime and getting away with it. However, it also caused me to feel alienated. The idea of hurting someone who’s been hostile toward me simply didn’t seem to clash with my instincts or motivations, both which wouldn’t have existed in the first place had Tye had been nicer to me. I did absolutely nothing to deserve such hatred from him. Honestly, I think he was envious of the unique connection me and Ryan had, and that made him extremely jealous and insecure. To him, I was a walking threat to their relationship. It all comes down to the way he perceives himself. He always seemed uncomfortable in his own skin even though he constantly tried to come off as upstanding. If he was confident enough in himself and in Ryan, he wouldn’t have had a problem with me. Ryan is the kind of person you can blindly trust; he doesn’t drift. When I impulsively tried to kiss him, he backed off and maintained a strict boundary to our friendship without making things awkward. He’s honest and trustworthy; rare qualities Tye had failed to see and appreciate, and so he doesn’t deserve him. I might not deserve him either, but that’s okay. This isn’t about me and Ryan, it’s about me and Tye and the hostile environment he constantly created every time the three of us were around each other. He needed to face the consequences for brutally messing with someone like me.  The morning after the assault, Ryan reached out to me to inform me about what had happened. I rushed to the hospital and thankfully Tye was asleep when I got there. The police suspects the incident to be a robbery because his wallet was missing. There were no witnesses on sight. For a moment, I didn’t think I even did it. It wasn’t denial because I knew I did, but the nature of the incident was so disturbing my mind didn’t want to acknowledge it was responsible for it. It was almost as if it was thoroughly convinced itself it wasn’t guilty; that the hands that attacked Tye weren’t mine.  Checking out of my own self during tough and overwhelming circumstances isn’t new to me. There’s an amnesiac wall within me that separates my two halves. It serves as some sort of coping mechanism that often helps me get through tumultuous and hectic events. Unfortunately, it also makes me lose my sense of right and wrong.

[marilynngmesalo]

TRUMP MADE U.S. ‘LOOK LIKE A PUSHOVER’: Even Republicans criticize U.S. president after summit with Putin

TRUMP MADE U.S. ‘LOOK LIKE A PUSHOVER’: Even Republicans criticize U.S. president after summit with Putin https://ift.tt/eA8V8J TRUMP MADE U.S. ‘LOOK LIKE A PUSHOVER’: Even Republicans criticize U.S. president after summit with Putin

HELSINKI — In an extraordinary embrace of a longtime U.S. enemy, President Donald Trump openly questioned his own intelligence agencies’ firm finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. election to his benefit, seeming to accept Russian President Vladimir Putin’s insistence that Moscow’s hands were clean.

The reaction back home was immediate and visceral, among fellow Republicans as well as usual Trump critics. “Shameful,” “disgraceful,” “weak,” were a few of the comments. Makes the U.S. “look like a pushover,” said GOP Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee.

//<![CDATA[ ( function() { pnLoadVideo( "videos", "lRL0oQSQ0NA", "pn_video_951442", "", "", [] ); } )(); //]]>

Trump’s meeting with Putin in Helsinki was his first time sharing the international stage with a man he has described as an important U.S. competitor — but whom he has also praised a strong, effective leader.

His remarks, siding with a foe on foreign soil over his own government, was a stark illustration of Trump’s willingness to upend decades of U.S. foreign policy and rattle Western allies in service of his political concerns. A wary and robust stance toward Russia has been a bedrock of his party’s world view. But Trump made clear he feels that any firm acknowledgement of Russia’s involvement would undermine the legitimacy of his election.

FUREY: You don't need to believe in Russian collusion to realize Trump messed up

'NO COLLUSION': I wanted Trump to win but didn't interfere, Putin says

U.S. accuses Russian gun-rights activist of spying for the Kremlin

Protester punted from Putin-Trump presser

Standing alongside Putin, Trump steered clear of any confrontation with the Russian, going so far as to question American intelligence and last week’s federal indictments that accused 12 Russians of hacking into Democratic email accounts to hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016.

“I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.

“He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be,” Trump said.

His skepticism drew a quick formal statement — almost a rebuttal — from Trump’s director of national Intelligence, Dan Coats.

“We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy, and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security,” Coats said.

//<![CDATA[ ( function() { pnLoadVideo( "videos", "zXCV0dwWnCo", "pn_video_449026", "", "", [] ); } )(); //]]>

Fellow GOP politicians have generally stuck with Trump during a year and a half of turmoil, but he was assailed as seldom before as he returned home Monday night from what he had hoped would be a proud summit with Putin.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona was most outspoken, declaring that Trump made a “conscious choice to defend a tyrant” and achieved “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.” House Speaker Paul Ryan, who rarely criticizes Trump, stressed there was “no question” that Russia had interfered.

Even staunch Trump backer Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, called Trump’s comments “the most serious mistake of his presidency” and said they “must be corrected — immediately.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan, who served under President Barack Obama, called Trump’s words “nothing short of treasonous.” Brennan tweeted: “Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???”

Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) July 16, 2018

In a Fox News Channel interview after the summit, Putin pronounced the meetings “the beginning of the path” back from the West’s past efforts to isolate Russia. “I think you see for yourself that these efforts failed, and they were never bound to succeed,” he said.

As he flew home to Washington aboard Air Force One, Trump tried to clarify his position via tweet, saying: “As I said today and many times before, ‘I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.’ However, I also recognize that in order to build a brighter future, we cannot exclusively focus on the past – as the world’s two largest nuclear powers, we must get along!”

As I said today and many times before, “I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.” However, I also recognize that in order to build a brighter future, we cannot exclusively focus on the past – as the world’s two largest nuclear powers, we must get along! #HELSINKI2018

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 16, 2018

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that aired later Monday, Trump said “it’s a shame” that he and Putin were being asked questions about the Russia probe while they were trying to discuss issues like Syria and nuclear proliferation. “We’ve had a phoney witch hunt deal drive us apart,” he said.

In their totality, Trump’s remarks amounted to an unprecedented embrace of a man who for years has been isolated by the U.S. and Western allies for actions in Ukraine, Syria and beyond. And it came at the end of an extraordinary trip to Europe in which Trump had already berated allies, questioned the value of the NATO alliance and demeaned leaders including Germany’s Angela Merkel and Britain’s Theresa May.

The two leaders’ long-awaited summit began with a private face-to-face sitdown — just the leaders and their interpreters — that lasted more than two hours, before additional meetings joined by senior aides.

The pair had held lengthy talks before — on the sidelines of world leader meetings in Germany and Vietnam last year — but this was their first official summit and was being watched closely, especially following the announcement Friday of new indictments against 12 Russian intelligence officers accused of hacking Democratic emails to help Trump’s campaign.

//<![CDATA[ ( function() { pnLoadVideo( "videos", "HoZpOQARpA0", "pn_video_329706", "", "", [] ); } )(); //]]>

Asked about the indictments, Putin suggested that Moscow and Washington could jointly conduct the investigation, inviting special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators to come to Russia to interview the 12 people — an idea Trump hailed as an “incredible offer.”

Putin said he’d expect the U.S. to return the favour and co-operate in the Russian probe against William Browder, a British investor charged with financial crimes in Russia. Browder, an outspoken Putin critic, was a driving force behind a U.S. law targeting Russian officials over human rights abuses.

The summit began just hours after Trump blamed the United States — and not Russian election meddling or its annexation of Crimea — for a low-point in U.S.-Russia relations.

“Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse,” Trump tweeted Monday morning, blaming “many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!”

Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 16, 2018

The Russian foreign ministry responded by liking Trump’s tweet and then replying, “We agree.”

Asked whether Russia was responsible at all, Trump said “we’re all to blame” for the soured relations.

However, “that changed,” he said, “as of about four hours ago.”

Putin ridiculed as “sheer nonsense” allegations that Russian intelligence agencies had collected compromising information on Trump during his visit to Moscow years before the election, saying that he had no idea Trump was even visiting.

Trump also dismissed the idea in his interview with Hannity, adding, “If they had it, it would have been out.”

Still, Putin said he had indeed wanted Trump to win the election — a revelation that might have made more headlines if not for Trump’s performance — but had taken no action to make it happen.

“Yes, I wanted him to win because he spoke of normalization of Russian-U.S. ties,” Putin said. “Isn’t it natural to feel sympathy to a person who wanted to develop relations with our country? It’s normal.”

//<![CDATA[ ( function() { pnLoadVideo( "videos", "QqtlWW3Qafw", "pn_video_555330", "", "", [] ); } )(); //]]>

At the closing press conference, Putin, riding high after hosting a successful World Cup, unveiled a gift he’d brought for Trump: a red and white soccer ball, which he tossed to Trump at the neighbouring lectern. Trump passed it over to his wife, and said they’d give it to their soccer-loving 12-year-old son, Barron.

Out on the streets, the summit attracted a grab-bag of protesters, with abortion-rights activists wearing artificially bulging bellies and Trump masks, anti-fascist protesters bearing signs with expletive-laden insults, and free traders, anti-war Ukrainians and gay rights supporters making their voices heard.

//<![CDATA[ ( function() { pnLoadVideo( "videos", "ESwP9f5VcrI", "pn_video_778554", "", "", [] ); } )(); //]]> Canoe Click for update news world news https://ift.tt/2LmkAas world news

[investmart007]

HELSINKI  | Trump returns from summit with Putin to forceful criticism

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/4M52jc

HELSINKI  | Trump returns from summit with Putin to forceful criticism

HELSINKI  — In an extraordinary embrace of a longtime U.S. enemy, President Donald Trump openly questioned his own intelligence agencies’ firm finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. election to his benefit, seeming to accept Russian President Vladimir Putin’s insistence that Moscow’s hands were clean.

The reaction back home was immediate and visceral, among fellow Republicans as well as usual Trump critics. “Shameful,” ”disgraceful,” ”weak,” were a few of the comments. Makes the U.S. “look like a pushover,” said GOP Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee.

Trump’s meeting with Putin in Helsinki was his first time sharing the international stage with a man he has described as an important U.S. competitor — but whom he has also praised a strong, effective leader.

His remarks, siding with a foe on foreign soil over his own government, was a stark illustration of Trump’s willingness to upend decades of U.S. foreign policy and rattle Western allies in service of his political concerns. A wary and robust stance toward Russia has been a bedrock of his party’s world view. But Trump made clear he feels that any firm acknowledgement of Russia’s involvement would undermine the legitimacy of his election.

Standing alongside Putin, Trump steered clear of any confrontation with the Russian, going so far as to question American intelligence and last week’s federal indictments that accused  12 Russians of hacking into Democratic email accounts to hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016.

“I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.

“He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be,” Trump said.

His skepticism drew a quick formal statement — almost a rebuttal — from Trump’s director of national Intelligence, Dan Coats.

“We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy, and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security,” Coats said.

Fellow GOP politicians have generally stuck with Trump during a year and a half of turmoil, but he was assailed as seldom before as he returned home Monday night from what he had hoped would be a proud summit with Putin.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona was most outspoken, declaring that Trump made a “conscious choice to defend a tyrant” and achieved “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.” House Speaker Paul Ryan, who rarely criticizes Trump, stressed there was “no question” that Russia had interfered.

Even staunch Trump backer Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, called Trump’s comments “the most serious mistake of his presidency” and said they “must be corrected — immediately.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan, who served under President Barack Obama, called Trump’s words “nothing short of treasonous.” Brennan tweeted: “Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???”

In a Fox News Channel interview after the summit, Putin pronounced the meetings “the beginning of the path” back from the West’s past efforts to isolate Russia. “I think you see for yourself that these efforts failed, and they were never bound to succeed,” he said.

As he flew home to Washington aboard Air Force One, Trump tried to clarify his position via tweet, saying: “As I said today and many times before, ‘I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.’ However, I also recognize that in order to build a brighter future, we cannot exclusively focus on the past – as the world’s two largest nuclear powers, we must get along!”

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that aired later Monday, Trump said “it’s a shame” that he and Putin were being asked questions about the Russia probe while they were trying to discuss issues like Syria and nuclear proliferation. “We’ve had a phony witch hunt deal drive us apart,” he said.

In their totality, Trump’s remarks amounted to an unprecedented embrace of a man who for years has been isolated by the U.S. and Western allies for actions in Ukraine, Syria and beyond. And it came at the end of an extraordinary trip to Europe in which Trump had already berated allies, questioned the value of the NATO alliance and demeaned leaders including Germany’s Angela Merkel and Britain’s Theresa May.

The two leaders’ long-awaited summit began with a private face-to-face sitdown — just the leaders and their interpreters — that lasted more than two hours, before additional meetings joined by senior aides.

The pair had held lengthy talks before — on the sidelines of world leader meetings in Germany and Vietnam last year — but this was their first official summit and was being watched closely, especially following the announcement Friday of new indictments against 12 Russian intelligence officers accused  of hacking Democratic emails to help Trump’s campaign.

Asked about the indictments, Putin suggested that Moscow and Washington could jointly conduct the investigation, inviting special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators to come to Russia to interview the 12 people — an idea Trump hailed as an “incredible offer.”

Putin said he’d expect the U.S. to return the favor and cooperate in the Russian probe against William Browder, a British investor charged with financial crimes in Russia.  Browder, an outspoken Putin critic, was a driving force behind a U.S. law targeting Russian officials over human rights abuses.

The summit began just hours after Trump blamed the United States — and not Russian election meddling or its annexation of Crimea — for a low-point in U.S.-Russia relations.

“Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse,” Trump tweeted Monday morning, blaming “many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!”

The Russian foreign ministry responded by liking Trump’s tweet and then replying, “We agree.”

Asked whether Russia was responsible at all, Trump said “we’re all to blame” for the soured relations.

However, “that changed,” he said, “as of about four hours ago.”

Putin ridiculed as “sheer nonsense” allegations that Russian intelligence agencies had collected compromising information on Trump during his visit to Moscow years before the election, saying that he had no idea Trump was even visiting.

Trump also dismissed the idea in his interview with Hannity, adding, “If they had it, it would have been out.”

Still, Putin said he had indeed wanted Trump to win the election — a revelation that might have made more headlines if not for Trump’s performance — but had taken no action to make it happen.

“Yes, I wanted him to win because he spoke of normalization of Russian-U.S. ties,” Putin said. “Isn’t it natural to feel sympathy to a person who wanted to develop relations with our country? It’s normal.”

At the closing press conference, Putin, riding high after hosting a successful World Cup, unveiled a gift he’d brought for Trump: a red and white soccer ball, which he tossed to Trump at the neighboring lectern. Trump passed it over to his wife, and said they’d give it to their soccer-loving 12-year-old son, Barron.

Out on the streets, the summit attracted a grab-bag of protesters, with abortion-rights activists wearing artificially bulging bellies and Trump masks, anti-fascist protesters bearing signs with expletive-laden insults, and free traders, anti-war Ukrainians and gay rights supporters making their voices heard.

  __

By JONATHAN LEMIRE, JILL COLVIN and VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press

[gsalv-blog1]

Think again.

Some sports are all about teamwork. On the other hand, some emphasize a strong sense of individualism. Collectively, most sports stress the importance of winning, perseverance, and determination. In fact, it turns out that sports are a major contributor to society and its values. But, many teams refuse to get political and insist that they should just stick to sports. Why is this, you may ask? Individuals feel that sports serve as a unifier. We are programmed to view sports as a distraction to what is occurring around the globe. If you actually believe this, think again. Although some like to live in a constant denial, politics and sports are widely intertwined. I argue that sports and politics deeply influence each other. When investigating sports, there is a lot of information to find out about a larger culture such as homophobia, sexism, and a fear of religion.

Traditionally, sports have been a male arena. But, there is an extremely strict idea of what a man “is”. Specifically, these men are overly masculine and do not reveal vulnerabilities. Any man that cannot live up to these expectations is labeled inferior, which can be quite damaging to an individual’s self-image. Consequently, this explains why most gay athletes do not come out until they are retired. These athletes are scared of being rejected by their teammates and fans. Whether or not we want to believe this, there remains a deep sense of homophobia in our society and its sports. For example, Ryan O’Callaghan, an NFL player, used football as a mask to hide his sexuality. O’Callaghan believed that he could cover up his true self by playing football. In fact, he said, “No one is ever going to assume the big football player is gay,” (Click here to read more). For him, football was buying him time before he was to commit suicide. After multiple injuries, O’Callaghan knew his football career was over and gradually came out to the people closest to him. Coming out actually saved his life and to his surprise, he was accepted by his former teammates and General Manager. 

Sports have always had an idealized version of a person, causing many to hold back their true selves. This occurrence is one of many, a harsh reality of our culture. Along the same lines, sports have also held women back. In all actuality, male and female sports have very few differences when it comes to rules and regulations. Typically, women are deeply underestimated. Billie Jean King is a great example of a female who overcame the myth. The Women’s Movement depended on her win in the “Battle of the Sexes”. There, she broke ground and proved many wrong. Read her story here.

In addition, sports have also attempted to steer clear of any type of religious attachment. Commonly, individuals become uncomfortable when the two mix. As a result, there are very few players who flaunt their spirituality. A primary example would be Tim Tebow, a former NFL player who is now playing minor league baseball. On multiple occasions, Tebow has been quite open and unapologetic about his faith. In fact, he is possibly the most famous Christian in sports. While some embrace this, others feel uncomfortable and mock him. A primary example of this recently occurred at a minor league Charleston baseball game. The organization decided to poke fun at Tebow and took national heat for it. The mascot was spotted wearing eye black that said “John 3:16” just as Tebow did in college. If that wasn’t enough, the mascot also “Tebowed”, a contrived term that, in a sense, mocks Tebow praying on one knee.

This was a major jab at Tebow, an incident that should not have been permitted. Many adamantly believe that sports and religion should not interfere with each other. In an article slamming Tebow it stated, “Does an NFL franchise owner answering questions about the v-card status of his backup quarterback on CNBC really do anything to forward the club? No, it’s just weird” (Here is a direct link to the article). Further, this perfectly displayed my point of the public being uncomfortable or against the fusion of sports and religion.

Although various teams and team members avoid discussing political issues, they are widely intertwined. Most sports put a glorified version of what a man “is” on a pedestal. In reality, many find it difficult to live up to these false expectations. Sports also do not like to associate with particular religions. We live in a very strange conundrum: we are told to express who we really are but are constantly held back. In reality, sports are highly political and there is no denying that. Next time, think again.