We can thank Heaven for War

I always wondered about how anyone in their right mind could be a volunteer front line soldier and accept the possibility of death in exchange for money to support their family or themselves.  I guess I always — certainly selfishly — valued my own life more than any return I would get from such service.  In any case, if it was a just war and I felt like I should perform some duty to a deserving — currently, not the case — country, I would probably pick something playing to my unique strengths like drone or robot hardware designer or programmer.  It’s another story that I could not serve anyway…

If the military is the only employer who will hire you, and you absolutely need the money to live, like you’d starve otherwise, it would be a different question.  Or if the money was exorbitant and the risk of death only slightly elevated versus dying in a car crash, it would be a different question.  But in America, there are still a number of options beyond the military which seem to provide a more reasonable trade-off.  Sure, you do run into similar possibilities like policemen and to lesser extent fireman — both of whom tend to be well compensated anyway –, but there is practically everything else.

So what drives men and women to do such dangerous, mortal work when it is voluntary, and there are conceivably other safer choices?

One possibility is to impress the girls by making a name for oneself as a ferocious fighter.  This I sort of doubt because fighting today is rather a little less physically impressive.  You can be scrawny and kill lots and not be impressive to the girls, I think.

So perhaps it is some fascination with and fervent belief in honor, duty, or patriotism.  I guess these are possibilities, but I wonder if idealists having such ideas would reconcile well with the practical reality of the hard work of killing.

There is also the possibility that some people are just well suited or addicted to the hyper-adrenaline task of being a soldier.  The human race might have evolved a warrior gene.  Since I clearly don’t have that gene, I can’t begin to understand the rush one might get because I just can’t get past the permanence of the mortal animal end.  But still, for the adrenaline junkies: computer games anyone?

So I came upon another explanation.  One which is rich in irony in my view.  I think Americans have Christian Heaven to thank for all those volunteer fighters.  If your view is that you or your soul or consciousness will “live” again, not just for a little while, but forever after death and in a wonderful place of no suffering, well, then, golly, there’s really nothing stopping you from joining a mortally risky endeavor like the army for a little fun and adventure.  And so, this is how finding soldiers in America doesn’t quite break the bank as badly as I might expect.

Now, you might think this is a crazy idea and that our fighting men and women would never be so irrational about risks and mortal life.  But just think about how suicide bombers for the other side, for the terrorists, are thinking the same damn thing.  In their case, the incentive is even better.  Heaven is not only devoid of suffering, it is full of pleasure.  Tons of virgins, and it is sex day and night!

So I should thank God that this is not a country full of atheists.

American Dark Ages

I was reading ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ by Richard Dawkins, and there is a depressing part of the book which talks about the 40% or more of Americans which do not believe in evolution.  It also states that this number has been very stable since 1982.  I also read an article recently about a Pew survey of 4013 adults which says that 49% of Americans think being gay is immoral.

The disbelief, mistrust and misunderstanding of something so basic like evolution seems to me a dangerous portent.  How is that the number has not reduced in more than 25 years?  Are evangelical Christians just getting started or have they reached their peak?  My own prediction is that things will get worse.  In the near term, there will be years of unemployment and hardship (partly caused by a lag effect of the eight Bush years of mismanagement) will push many into the arms of the church for aid where they and their children will be indoctrinated in creationist belief.  Get enough of the population into those churches and this will bring what I call a Dark Age of middle America where science is mistrusted and misunderstood and more and more television news channels become variants of Fox News because companies need viewers and those will be the easiest viewers to court and influence with advertising.

Everyone says it is inevitable that generational change will happen and along with it a new liberalism about gays.  But I guess I haven’t been tracking the generational data, I’m not so sure it’s inevitable, especially in middle America.  Along with the above, it seems churches may make a strong resurgence and with it may come a reversal of the trend towards liberalism.

Men in Paris

There’s a fair amount to like about men in Paris, and a couple downsides.  Just about any non-tourist guy in ages 20-30s in Paris shares a few beneficial characteristics:

• Not overweight:  How could they be?  It’s so expensive to eat in Paris.  If you want to live economically, you’ve got to cook and go grocery shopping for at least some of your meals.  Plus, many smoke, so probably the revved up metabolism helps.
• Dress well:  I think the guys do pay attention to their clothes a little more or else the girlfriends do.  Following the latter reasoning, apparently, no self-respecting girlfriend lets her man dress like an American slob.  It is helpful of course, that European men’s clothes seem to fit better.  Whatever shirt they’re wearing, be it a t-shirt, polo or button down, they are form fitting, tight arm hole type showing slim muscular physique to the best advantage.  This is the type of shirt which I would only see on gay guys in the US.  But it is like on every guy here, like a uniform.  You can’t even buy this stuff in the US because huge percentages of guys can’t fit into them, and if they did, you’d see the beer bellies and saggy breasts and it’d be a comedy on the streets of Memphis (34% obese — talking obese here not merely overweight).
• Like to be out in the sun and get tan:  As above, generally they have the body for it, so I have no objections as I pass or stop for a break in the park.  In combination with skin damage from smoking, all this sun probably results in premature skin aging, but that’s a worry for later.
• Friendly:  As in not rude, in general.  I wouldn’t say gentlemenly because I think that’s reserved for men in London.  (In the London tube as we were stymied by the card readers, a worker gently called out to us: “Gentlemen” and kindly directed us to the correct turnstiles.  That nearly made my entire day.  I don’t think I’d ever in my life been called a gentleman by a stranger.  Ok, maybe a couple times.)  In Paris, guys are pretty friendly especially if you speak and understand some French.

Now for the downsides:

Music in the Paris Metro

There weren’t any performers in London Underground, probably because it’s so expensive to just ride the Tube or because the ever orderly British just don’t allow it.  But in the Paris Metro, there are performers galore.  Probably more than in the New York subway.  I don’t like accordion players though, and generally the aggressive musicians which get on the trains are unbearable for more than one or two stops.  But I’ve donated change to a couple more serious musicians:

1. A young to middle aged male saxophone player on solo — i.e. without the cheap sounding canned piano accompaniment other sax players had put on.  It was sad and haunting and beautiful and carried throughout the long corridor from line 1 to line 11 at Hotel de Ville.
2. A middle aged Asian woman on the liuqin (or other related plucked Chinese string instrument).  She was raking it in, but it was beautiful and unique and also carried well throughout the station even perhaps to the platforms.  She was in the correspondance corridor at Franklin D. Roosevelt station.

It occurs to me that they could be just needing practice and lacking a soundproof place in crowded Paris, the Metro was their solution which also happens to make them money.

Michael Jackson — a gay man

None of the mainstream media comes out and says it, but it seems obvious to me that Michael Jackson was a closeted gay man.

There is the fact that Michael was the youngest of five brothers.  It has been found statistically more likely that having more older brothers increases the chance of being gay.  Much has been made of his androgyny and boy-man personality.  Neither of his marriages were particularly successful or lasted very long.  He did not seem to have his children through conventional means.  He had a love of wild flamboyant costumes and dancing.  In later years, however, he seemed determined to butch it up a little more perhaps to keep up appearances, perhaps for his children.  Also, Michael’s fixation on ‘improving’ his own appearance to the extent that he had so many plastic surgeries smells like an extreme version of the common gay male affliction.

But probably of course, the strongest evidence is his fondness of sharing his bed with boys. 

10 Benefits of Being Gay

Not sure why I thought being gay needs a positive marketing message, but it just does.  Really it’s not like I’m going to convince anyone to turn gay.  As is the fashion today, I don’t believe you can choose your sexuality.  But I suppose the bisexuals out there can weigh in with their opinions in the comments section.

So what are the benefits?  I mean it used to be an argument to convince people that gay people are serious and fixed in their orientation that, gee, no one would choose to be gay.  It’s just too hard.  Well, nowadays in America it is getting to be less hard.  Don’t get me wrong, I may need to separately and clandestinely write a negatives post to provide balance, and there are some downers out there, but there some little noticed or poorly understood perks I will now highlight.

I’m going to first have to apologize to the womyn out there, because this may be a little male centric…

• Everyone likes being thought of as unique.  Being gay is a real distinction.  An elite crowd if you will.   You are instantly interesting.  I’m already starting to sound sarcastic, but seriously it can lead to interesting conversations, generally with people who aren’t gay who don’t understand a thing about it.  It can be a very intellectual and fun philosophical  exercise.
• Currently an excuse not to get married.  I say this a little quietly, ashamedly and half-jokingly, because the right to civil marriage is a serious thing, and I think many gay people at least want the option.  But commitment is a tough thing for guys.  Why buy the cow (or in my case, the bull — oh, the milk analogy doesn’t quite work, or does it?) and all that.  There is a little side benefit here for those unsure about the big step, which seems to be more and more people these days.
• Gays have their own ready-made cause which adds extra flavor and meaning to their lives.  They are still an unequal minority and underdogs in their quest for equality.  There is always work to be done, even if it is just writing another semi-coherent blog post.  I think many gays would lead very conventional boring and nihilistic lives, contributing less to society, if they were straight.  At least, I think I would.
• Lots and lots of sex, all the time!  Shit, I should just stop right here.  This is actually a big fucking deal.  I hear straight guys complain all the time.  I mean if I were on the fence, this might just be the thing to push me into the full on gay camp.
• No Venus versus Mars bullshit.  It is almost true that men and women are from different planets.  It takes effort to understand where women are coming from.  My side interest in behavioral psychology helps, but without it, I think I would be lost understanding even my mom.  Men make sense to me.  I understand how they work.  I’d probably get on, along rather, better with men even if I was straight.  Guys might just be more compatible in cohabitation, not just because of toilet seats, but also well adjusted (de-)priorities on cleaning, importance of a good sized TV (visuals are important!), talking about politics, doing stuff outdoors, and sports watching (well not in my case, but anyway).
• You get practice seeing the other side of issues.  I mean people might get this practice some other way — gays don’t have a monopoly on the school of hard knocks — , but they don’t tend to escape attending that school either.  I think you might be a little more compassionate person if you’re gay.  If you’re a Buddhist, this is treasure: like gold to a 49er.
• As a gay male, you are by definition, not a neanderthal.  This is a definite positive.  I am always surprised/appalled/amazed at guys trying to demonstrate their manliness through brute force and risk taking.  I mean I understand why: women do make mating decisions based on observed testosterone levels.   I think that sort of behavior doesn’t win over the gay guys.  I mean gay guys don’t need to find a mate to procreate with and discern suitability of 9 months investment based on his testosterone level.  Gay guys base mating choices on appearances alone, okay I’m exaggerating, but you get the picture.  So, as a gay guy, you will tend to need to take fewer stupid risks and probably live longer because of it.
• You don’t need to see Queer eye.  At least as far as looks, gay guys know what looks good on a guy, and by simple extension how they should try to look appeal to other guys (and women, in case they have one as a boss).  Of course, it’s not foolproof, but definitely handy and a time saver as far as shopping.
• Gays are great at “theory of mind”.  One of the key aspects of understanding other people is understanding what they know and that you may have different information from what they know.  From a young age until coming out to everyone — which is actually a continual process — gays have extensive practice in understanding instantly the difference in what they know versus what other people know.  Having such practice can make them great teachers, actors, negotiators, spies and even friends.
• Excuse for not having kids (grandkids).  This one is a bit male centric, may be viewed as selfish and clearly not for all, as I think the lesbians certainly will not agree at all.  A high percentage of  married women want kids.  But for guys having kids may not be as rewarding — they’re generally just not wired (or plumbed) that way.  So being gay could mean, a reprieve from the onerous aspects of parenthood: the late nights, put food on the table ladder climbing, possible career ending or at least on hold/serious doubt for at least a few years, and other soul crushing responsibilities that come with having a child.

I could mention a few more right now: locker rooms, better porn, the cool flag.  But right now I’m heading off to sleep and the awesome dreams you get when you’re gay.

Fantasy from my younger days

I had this crazy idea that I would find some hot, young, rich, famous guy who had fallen in love with me (okay, it was Matt Damon).  I would take him around and show him off, for some reason especially at work.  This was before I was sort of out at work I think (now I don’t explicitly tell people, but enough people know, I figure anyone who cares about that sort of thing knows — lame, lame, I know).  This fantasy somehow no longer has appeal for me, not just recently, but for a long time.  I guess I don’t really care anymore what people at work think.  I mean it was probably some ego or status thing I wanted.  But also, realism has set in fully for awhile now.  It’s not what you think, because I am good enough for that, but because hot, rich, famous single gay guys don’t exist (Matt Damon has gotten older and married and, there’s Lance Bass, but … well, nah).

Fix You — Coldplay

When you try your best but you don’t succeed
…
When you love someone but it goes to waste
What could be worse?
…
When you’re too in love to let it go
But if you never try you’ll never know
Just what you’re worth
…

The live version of this song (here) is cool with the crowd singing along, and the melody gets brilliantly extended.  Unfortunately, the fine original lyrics about unrequited love get squashed with some ad libs.

# # #

Lights will guide you home
And ignite your bones
And I will try to fix you

The chorus is a little more supernatural and has religious overtones.  So, of course, this is a part that I don’t quite appreciate as much, but the tune is catchy.

Why guys don’t marry their girlfriends

I had a few thoughts I had on the topic.  There are probably a lot of reasons.  Here’s what I came up with:

1. Not the marrying type of man.  A (wealthy) guy with a lot of prospects who juggles several girlfriends and doesn’t really commit to any of them.
2. Guy who lives with his girlfriend, but she’s not a slam dunk.  He’s got a stable job and income; she likes that.  But for him, why buy the cow?  Also, perhaps deep down, she’s not the one.
3. A guy who is philosophically against marriage and the conventionality of it and its restrictions on possible other relationships.  Does not believe open marriage works either.

Now if you extend the discussion to gay male couples.  There is a great excuse for not being married.  Generally most states don’t allow you to get married.  In any case, the federal government doesn’t provide similar benefits.  In order to get company benefits, you may have to be domestic partners, but this isn’t the same thing.

But actually overall, I would think that most gay guys would actually tend to be more domestic types.  I.e. the type who might be more likely to consider getting married if allowed.

The Mean Girl Whisperer

I was given this moniker by straight male co-workers, and I think at best it’s a term of admiration, in a way that one admires the foolhardy.  Mean girl in this sense is unfortunately a euphemism for very unattractive, yet aggressive female.

How did I come to be the butt of this joke?  I think it’s because in the past, I have been pretty nice to all females, no matter what their level of attractiveness.  And in doing so was able to escape the ‘mean girl’  wrath in a way that other males could only wonder at my daring (and perhaps stupidity).  Why did I do this?  Well, mostly I was pretty blind to their unattractiveness.

Most single and even some married straight guys go out of their way to avoid the attentions of aggressive and unattractive females especially in front of other males, but also in general.  To the extent that they can, they will make obviously nasty comments, ignore the woman, or physically stay away sufficiently to make their stance clear.  By treating all females roughly the same, I thus was falling unwittingly into a trap because it means that in relative terms I was treating such women extraordinarily nicely — from their perspective.  Add on top of that my not yet completely faded natural attractiveness, and, in a couple cases, this misinterpretation led to aggressive attention and even physical flirting of the kind I found extremely repulsive.  Straight guys might even have found it so as well, since I’ve been touched by unattractive gay guys and felt similarly repulsed, I’m sorry to say.  I think unfortunately, this is how some gay guys get their ‘hags’.  I.e. by ignorantly going along with the flow for awhile, letting the situation continue, until they eventually have to employ the tactic of revealing their sexual orientation as an escape mechanism.  This doesn’t always work out well, as there is a small possibility some straight guy has used this tactic before to get out of a very sticky situation with such an aggressive woman, but in any case, the woman may not want to accept or really believe the admission for some time.

And so, I reviewed my treat-all-women-equally policy recently, and I will need to take significantly more defensive stance.  Prevention is the best medicine.  I resolve to be extra mean (or proportionally mean) to unattractive and aggressive single females.  I may just need some help from the straight guys to point them out to me, or at least I will be more careful to follow their lead.

Read my tangentially related piece written some time ago on Gays and Evolution: Hemispheric Brain Dominance.  And Cougars.

Gays, Evolution: Population control

This post written just in time for Darwin’s 200th B-day Feb 12th!

There is an italian study — Fox News story — which says that female relatives of gays men tended to have more children — are more fertile — than the average female.

I would reason that it makes sense for women who carry a gene for being very fertile will also provide benefit to gene survivability by having some homosexual offspring.   This is because it is difficult to provide for families that get very large over just a couple generations which is what would tend to happen if you are very fertile.  Obviously, there is benefit for being fertile in that you would tend to propagate your genes easily from relatively fewer matings.  Perhaps even just a single furtive session with a mate with better genes would benefit offspring with increased survivability (perhaps higher testosterone for sons)[1].  On the other hand, there are difficulties in providing for an exponentially growing family.  In this case, there is a beneficial impact of a gay offspring in that they could help provide for extended family while not having many (or any) kids themselves[2].  So, it may be that the fertile gene was only able to survive difficult times such as famines by also developing at the same time a method for effectively reducing the ultimate extended family size.  So gayness came about in cooperation with this fertility gene.

My second best theory on gays and evolution here: http://bert5.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/gays-evolution-teamwork-sacrifice/

# # #

And now back to revisit the height and gayness question.  If studies of male homosexuality are to be believed, you are more likely to be gay if you have more older brothers.  This implies that if you are gay your birth order number is likely to be greater than the normal population.  Birth order used to relate slightly to height to the tune of up to 1-2 cm.  With all the cheap calories today, probably there is less impact, but still there is the idea of a slightly older mother which might provide less nourishment in the womb to second and later children.  So, if I try to summarize this, I think this might mean that gays are slightly shorter on average than others.  Not sure it’s really sufficiently visible to use for gaydar though.

# # #

[1] Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters by Kanazawa, Miller… (cuckolding)

[2] This reminds me of the 60 minutes interview of Antonio Scalia who has several kids (he’s Catholic) and he talked about how one of the boys in a family with many boys is supposed to be become a priest.  I wonder if this ‘honor’ naturally is bestowed on the statistical gay one, who as Scalia says ‘takes one for the team.’  (Which then, in turn, perhaps explains Catholic priests and their reputations…)

Gay Beer goggles found to exist

There is an article in Men’s Health and MSNBC from last year which mentions that straight men tend to rate women as more attractive after drinking, but also tend to on average rate other men as more attractive after drinking.  Similarly for women.  One might infer some sort of temporary loosening of sexual orientation due to drinking affecting brain function.  While it could be just generosity or honesty coming from reduced inhibitions, the article seems to say it’s not because of a generalized euphoria or change in mood.  The folklore is that a gay guy might be able to do it with a girl if he was pretty drunk.  And similarly, a straight guy could do it with another guy, if he’s gotten pretty drunk as well.  I think the latter is possible, depending on how drunk you’re talking about and the, uh, activity.  But for the former, the gay guy might have to get too drunk to really be able to do it effectively.

# # #

On a related topic, I could believe most guys have the aesthetic sense to see a certain amount attractiveness in other guys.  They might not be right on as far as agreeing with the specialists in this field, gay guys, but who knows whether maybe they wouldn’t be too way off.  (I thought I had acquired a slight ability as far as distinguishing attractive women — mostly a symmetry and non-male facial feature test — , but comparing notes with straight guys, I think I might be more than just slightly off in a test of finer distinctions.)