.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} Note: This website has no control over the ads placed on it. Caveat emptor.

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

 
Cannot Cope. I haven't updated this occasional blog in quite some time. It's not that I don't have topics. I have plenty of topics, but they are almost all unpleasant to me, and I'm at a point in my life when I neither seek out unpleasantness nor overestimate my ability to change things. I'm also very busy with other things. But if the topics I note to address afforded me more hope of accomplishing something with commentary, I would endeavor to comment.
+
Being homosexual is, in itself, wonderful. Dealing with the insanity of other people about homosexuality, however, can be unbearable.
+
I live in Newark, New Jersey, one of the finest cities you might imagine, if you were not already poisoned in your attitudes by preposterous things you may have heard thru media, about how crime-ridden and dangerous Newark is. Reality and media-induced delusion are often opposed, but rarely so very FAR opposed as in the reality of the city of Newark vs. its media reputation.
+
I am 66 years old, and incapable of running to safety, due to a very serious injury suffered when I fell off a ladder / jumped off a falling ladder in September 2001. I walk around many parts of Newark, not just the tourist areas of the Arts District, Downtown, at all hours of the day and nite, and have never once encountered a problem. Another fotografer of my acquaintance, also gay, and also elderly, has had the same experience over the course of YEARS. But outsiders continue to think Newark dangerous, esp. to white people. Both I and my friend are white.
+
Newark is NOT a gay city. That does not mean it is hostile to gay men, but only that there is very little specifically FOR gay men. But the Newark I move within, the arts community — which most people outside Newark would find astonishing in its size and vitality — is so accepting of homosexuality and lesbianism (and there are a LOT of lesbians in Newark arts) that even tho I mention, very prominently at the top of my fotoblog about Newark, that I am the guy who in 1970 first offered the term "Gay Pride" as it is now used, NOBODY makes a big deal about that. I am very well known in the Newark arts community, but nobody has, as far as I have been able to detect — and remember that I am accustomed to detecting antihomosexual bias — been so horrified or indignant about my being 'queer' (a word I detest, and insist is the exact equivalent of "nigger") that they have refused to shake my hand or otherwise indicated disgust or disapproval when they meet me.
+
I love Newark, and just wish it were a gayer location. I don't want Newark to be degenerate, and filled with sado-masochism and "bisexual" swingers. No-thank-you-very-much!
+
I imagine there are millions of gay men who have a predicament like mine: they love the city/town they live in, but are extremely distressed by the utter lack of sexual opportunities. I am, as I mentioned, 66 years old, but still sexual. I do not assert that I look younger than I am, but only that I have always been a little better-looking than other men my age. For gay men, however, getting laid in Newark is a major difficulty. It shouldn't be, but is.
+
Surely there are a great many gay men in Newark, but not necessarily in the arts community, even if you might think that that would be an ideal place to look.
+
I am in a place, or situation, that I was equally in, early in life, before I moved to Manhattan from the exurb Middletown Township, New Jersey, after high school. My father had a business I might have joined, then inherited, but I didn't want to be in Monmouth County, because I saw no possibility of sexual and emotional fulfilment there. So I moved to Manhattan when I was 20 years old — to the far West Side, so I could always SEE New Jersey if only I stepped out of my building. But part of me was sad that I had to give up on where I was born and raised in order to be actively homosexual.
+
I was homosexually militant very early on. I moved to Manhattan in mid-1965. Within a fairly short time, I had joined the Mattachine Society, which I had heard about in a documentary on Channel 13, the PBS television station WNET. (Only many years later did I discover that WNET, tho publicized as a New York station, was actually a Newark station stolen by New Yorkers but still, to this day, assigned to Newark, NJ rather than NYC.)
+
By August 1968 I was arrested by the NYPD for refusing to "break it up and move on" when talking to gay friends on Christopher Street, Greenwich Village. I was handcuffed, behind my back, and carted off to jail in a commandeered taxicab. I spent the nite in a little cell, to myself, being disturbed only by the heavy breathing/snoring of another man in a nearby cell. Weeks later, I went to court, challenged the interference by police in every citizen's right of peaceable assembly, and was acquitted on that ground by a New York City judge. I then reported that acquittal to Mattachine, which publicized it in its newsletter. Fortunately, we did not thereafter have to trust the police department to accept that court ruling, because Mayor Lindsay around that time ordered an end to harassment of homosexuals.
+
So, did my personal act of civil disobedience accomplish one damn thing, or not? We may never know, given the action of Mayor Lindsay. Did HE know of my defiance? Maybe not. But then again, maybe he did, and knew that in view of the court's ruling, he had to act to keep his police force from being repeatedly rebuked, if only in fact, not in specific rhetoric, for harassing homosexuals. (The man was stunningly beautiful. I never saw him in person, but he was gorgeous on TV.)
+
I'm proud of my defiance, and of the fact that the court's ruling in itself might have had some effect. I do not dare claim credit for a drastic change in NYPD policy.
+
Gay NYC was, in those days, very sexual but not much concerned about legality. I suspect, tho I don't know how a researcher would go about quantifying this, that there was MUCH more sex among gay men in the 1960s and 70s than there is now. Between then and now, of course, gay men were attacked with the HIV-AIDS fraud, which told us endlessly that (gay) sex equaled death. So even if there were less sex now than then, the role of forbidden activity in raising defiance as against intimidation over sex = death is impossible to determine. Suffice it to say that gay men in New York City had a LOT of sex in the 1960s and '70s, and almost certainly far more than gay men of the 1980s and afterward have had. I feel sorry for the younger men who didn't have the enormous amounts of sex in multitudinous situations and locations that we did.
+
Newark is a largely homo-desexualized place. But so is New York City, due to the malicious, and knowingly false assertion of governmental entities that homosexual sex kills. I suspect that young gay men in NYC have but a fraction the sex we had when I was their age. I am no longer on constant look-out for sex, so don't know if I could 'score' now in Newark; nor if no one scores now in Newark; nor if no one ever much scored in Newark, or always had to travel into Manhattan to get laid.
+
I could never have bought a house in far-western Newark, where I now live, even tho I can get into Manhattan within a half hour by car or hour by bus and then train, when I was younger, even into my late 40s, for fear of giving up access to sexual possibilities. I moved to semi-suburban Newark when I was 55 years old, and could accept that I wasn't getting laid much even when living in Midtown Manhattan. I got older, and less driven sexually.
+
Have I now consigned myself to sexlessness for the rest of my life, which could, given my family's longevity, mean another 25 years or so? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I'm not about to cruise Riverside Drive or the Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Manhattan — which have, in any case, apparently ceased to be gay cruising areas, given the de(homo)sexualization of New York City. Have straight people become as fearfully controlled as gay men? Or do straight people think themselves immune to AIDS, so continue to be promiscuous? Gay men as well as straight should consider themselves immune from AIDS-as-STD, since AIDS has nothing to do with sex, but is wholly and solely a condition that each AIDS patient in the First World develops from his or her own extremely unwise choices as regards DRUGS, not sex. Unfortunately, most people are not geniuses (as, thankfully, I am; perhaps not a major genius, but certainly a genius by most definitions in regard to IQ tests). So they don't understand when scientific impossibilities are presented to them as realities.
+
I have followed what came to be known as GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) and then AIDS (Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome), since the first reports I heard in about 1980. Thus do I know that everything Government says about AIDS is false. Government says that AIDS manifested itself in the United States in 1981. I know it was 1980. Why does Government lie about even the most obvious statistical realities? Discover Magazine in January 1982 (page 12) said that what became known as AIDS started to appear a year and a half earlier — that is, mid-1980, not mid-1981. But Government keeps saying AIDS appeared in the United States in 1981. Why does Government lie about what you would think a trivial matter? Well, Government lies about EVERYTHING regarding AIDS. A full year's earlier head-start might have meant higher figures for the incidence of AIDS, so the Government suppressed the actual start date at the time, then was stuck with its lie, even when the statistical difference between mid-1980 and mid-1981 became insignificant. But I really don't know why Government would insist that AIDS started in 1981 even tho Discover Magazine said plainly in January 1982 that it started a year and a half earlier. What I do know with certainty, however, is that I have in my filing cabinet a little story at the bottom of page 12 of the January 1982 issue of Discover Magazine that says that what came to be known as "AIDS" started to appear a year and a half earlier, i.e., mid-1980.
+
In 1985, the Federal Government of the United States declared that "HIV" was the cause of AIDS, and that a vaccination against HIV should be available within five years. Right. It is now 21 years after that vaccine should have been available, and there is still no vaccine against AIDS, nor even "HIV". I put HIV (which stands for "Human Immunodeficiency Virus") in quotes because it is a misnomer, in that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the development of immunodeficiency in human beings. The epidemiological patterns just aren't there. People who SHOULD have developed AIDS and died from it, such as the wives of hemophiliacs who are said to have died from AIDS, and the lovers (partners who had multititudinous sexual encounters) of men who died from AIDS, have in myriad cases never so much as gotten sick. It's all lies, all sham, all Governmental attempts to control disapproved sexual behavior.
+
I won't go further into the argumentation as to why HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. If you are willing to know the truth, you can go to www.virusmyth.com on your own. My point here is that there has been, for a very long time, a coordinated effort by Government and media to suppress homosexual activity with the pretense that it is for gay men's "own good". The people who have always hated us, now want desperately to "save us from ourselves". SURE they do. They LOVE us. They don't hate us, and never have. If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. You'll make a FORTUNE!
+
Perhaps you live in a place like Newark, which would be considered a big city and regional center, were it not close in to a major metropolis. Perhaps there is lots of homosexual sex in your own metropolis. Perhaps not. It may be that the liars about AIDS in the Federal Government have succeeded in terrorizing gay men all over the country out of full sexual intimacy, into the imitation intimacy of rubber between each other. But society has given us Internet porn! Isn't that great?! No, it's not great at all. It just makes living into tomorrow vaguely, dull-ly bearable.
+
There is no substitute for real sex with a real man, for giving and getting full intimacy, and a full exchange of "bodily fluids".
+
Are today's gay men less courageous than we were? Maybe.
+
We had to fear police entrapment, arrest, humiliation in court. But Government realized at some point that that wasn't doing what Government wanted to do: suppress homosexual activity, caught or uncaught, completely.
+
So Government invented an "invariably fatal STD", and loosed that imaginary disease upon society. They pretended that it could kill everyone who encountered it, but winkingly told straight people that they weren't about to catch it, because it was 'a gay thing'. Yes, of course it was. All STD's stay neatly compartmentalized for 30 YEARS. Of course they do ... not.
+
It was like shooting ducks in a barrel. Gay men were already shot-thru with guilts. They would RUSH to believe that there was an STD that targeted only gay men! Naturally, the Government's liars knew that disinterested and honest people in the scientific community would say that there is no such thing as a gay STD that does not equally infect straight people. So Government invented a "global pandemic", centered on sub-Saharan Africa, where almost nobody could do studies to disprove its assertion.
+
Centering AIDS on Africa achieved another wondrous in-terrorem effect, or so they hoped, terrifying straight black people into using condoms for every sexual encounter, thus to reduce the black population in the United States.
+
Never mind that straight people never did buy into the AIDS terror, and never did adopt universal "safe(r) sex" practices. Heterosexuals were only a tangential target of the AIDS fraud. Tens of millions of cases of STD's each year show plainly that straight people accepted the notion that AIDS was a "gay plague", so they could continue to whore around without fear. All those tens — no: hundreds — of millions of cases of STD's among straight people in the past 30 years produced NO discernible AIDS population in the straight world, but we were all still to believe that AIDS does not discriminate, anyone can get AIDS from anyone, and that each time we have sex with anyone, we are, epidemiologically speaking, having sex with every single person each of them has ever had sex with, and all those other people's sex partners, and their partners, out and out and out in a huge interconnected mass of chains of contacts, involving thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, MILLIONS of other people. Curiously, however, only gay men were supposed to get AIDS from all those uncountable and undeterminable hundreds of thousands of sexually linked individuals.
+
And so, for the past 30 years of our lives, gay men have had Government actively and effectively interfering with their sexual happiness. And they don't even know to be indignant, indeed violently FURIOUS about the conspiracy of lies that has actively oppressed them. The bulk of gay men have, astonishingly, chosen to believe that the people they know in their heart HATE them, really want to SAVE them — from themselves! Of COURSE they do. They LOVE us. They don't hate us. They want to SAVE us. They don't want to kill us!
+
How did gay men persuade themselves that the antihomosexual bigots who have told us innumerable times that we deserve to die and are going to hell if we do not repent our "sins", desperately care about saving us from ourselves? How did we persuade ourselves that the people who hate us and call us horrible names really LOVE us? I don't understand how anyone could be so deluded.
+
In any case, a number of issues arise from time to time that I would like to comment on, here. But I am very pressed for time, and it often seems that there is no point to trying to appeal to the rational mind of gay men, in that the irrational heart controls. I am, I repeat, 66 years old, and I have only so much energy and time to write for my various audiences and potential audiences. Should I try to change the minds of people who are so guilt-ridden that they will not listen? Or should I try to reach people who are not terrified out of the truth? You see my problem.
+
I want to reach gay men who either already value themselves and love being homosexual, or who WANT to value themselves and love homosexuality. There is, alas, almost certainly nothing I or anyone else can say to talk people out of self-hatred. I have learned that in the course of my long life. Write them off, isolate yourself from negative people, and move on.



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?