“How did I miss this book” & other wishlist conundrums

You Have the Power : How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America by Howard Dean. I’m amazed that I wasn’t inundated with press on this one, particularly from my multitudinous email lists. I’m thinking of starting an amazon wishlist. It’d be practice for saying what I want. =)

Even more interesting to me is Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate–The Essential Guide for Progressives by George Lakoff.

And here’s one I saw a talk on in september that I almost forgot about: Run the Other Way: Fixing the Two-Party System, One Campaign at a Time by Bill Hillsman

More bujold books, more george r r martin books, an ipod. Hmmmm. a lemon zester, a muffin pan. A nonsucky laptop, RAM for the desktop. A video card to make ffxi go zoom. I suppose a real bed wouldn’t hurt either. =)

Anyone have other recommendations? Video games, books, and other such high value per unit volume items particularly appreciated.

“controversial” ad

Here’s the ad that NBC and CBS deem “too controversial” to air.

I had to go through it three times before I spotted the initial “gay male couple” if that’s what they’re supposed to be. Two guys walk up, and are denied entrance. They don’t even seem to notice one another. They have nothing to signify homosexuality about them. Later in the ad, as it flashes through various pictures of people, it fades in and out on a potentially lesbian couple, or they could be sisters, hard to tell really. And yet, this is too controversial for the network that airs Will & Grace.

Riiiight. Crackwhores.

Sexual statistics and cultural identification

Inspired by some comments on an earlier entry.

So, I actually do believe that we’re talking roughly chi-squared curves here (see graphic below) with the number of sex partners on the x-axis), kind of like income distributions. And I think there is a significant bias towards gay guys having more partners. Which is not to say that there are not monogamous or celibate gay guys out there, and that they’re aren’t incredibly promiscuous heteros, but on average, median, etc, I bet that gay guys get more bootay.

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. =) I’m basing my conclusions on a few things: Most prominently, gabriel rotello’s Sexual Ecology, in which he discusses the epidemiology of HIV, and (late in the book) how it corresponds to the sorts of answers hetero’s give, and homo’s give when asked about the number of partners they’ve had. Hetero’s self-reported fewer partners per unit time than homo’s self-reported. And the transmission rates supported their claims. Additionally, gay guys can have a situation where two of one’s former partners can themselves partner up (happened to me). In strictly heterosexual interactions, that’s just plain ol’ not possible.

But, I think it’s nuts to pretend that there’s gay men, and everything else. For starters, there’s bi folk. And the sexual politics of lesbians are to my [limited] understanding, quite different from gay guy or hetero norms. And grouping all heteros together as though they had the same norms is equally ridiculous. Most heteros don’t have a strong (conscious) cultural identity based on their sexuality.

Kind of like the thing I noted in statistics last week. The white population’s attitude to the courts showed much more variability by things like income, education, and even attitude towards marijuana than the black population’s. I attributed this to a greater cultural unity among blacks. Not saying that all blacks (or all homos, or all males, etc) belong to a unified culture, but that the “white identity” and the “heterosexual identity” is no one’s primary cultural self-identification. I suspect white heteros are more likely to define themselves by profession, religion, class, or other such ideas.

Giving up on failed strategies

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”. –Albert Einstein

Meeting a great guy online is possible. People do it. But, based on my own experience, online fora are a terrible way to meet quality guys. (note: livejournal is not primarily about meeting guys for me, and yet, somehow, I’ve had a better signal to noise ratio from it. Anyway…).

After a spectacularly dishonest fellow I met last night, I’m inclined to recognize that my various online meeting mechanisms are unproductive, time wasting habits that I’m better off without. I’ll retain the friends I’ve made from them and find better ways of wasting time.

And just to raise the barrier to entry a bit on getting back in to bad habits, I’ll delete all the relevant accounts, including gay.com, and the various personals services (yahoo, salon, planetout, gaydar, etc). I guess this leaves real life, face to face fora. Maybe I can find one or two that will work for me. Hmmmm.

politics of HIV

In part the whole ugandan aids thing got me thinking again on the US approach to AIDS. And I posted my thoughts in some journal that I can no longer find (temporarily can’t access the right email account. Cursed umn mail system).

But I thought I’d repeat them here, briefly, to see what others think.

The information provided is largely technical in nature, and, if anything, emphasizes condoms as the road to salvation. Further, there’s a rather nasty sort of blame-the-victim logic. Basically, if you didn’t use a condom, you were stupid, and therefore deserve what you got. Anyone attempting to discuss anyone’s responsibility, other than to use a condom (and tell the truth), is essentially shouted down as being anti-sex.

Look, sex still happens, and condoms aren’t the only effective way to slow the spread of HIV. And telling people the dry, clinical facts, while providing a modestly inconvenient technical solution will provide little in the way of behavior change, even towards the use of that technical solution.

Glorifying waiting for sex, sexual fidelity, less contagion provoking forms of sexual activity (mutual masturbation, frottage, oral sex, etc), and maybe even villifying the insane barebacking, crystal users a bit would be a good thing. Note, not explaining, I’m talking about going for emotions, glorifying and villifying. Turn it into an unabashed morality play, and you reach alot more people.

Also, the notion of thinking of the welfare of not just your own damn selfish ass, but the welfare of something a bit larger than ourselves. Of our sex partners, of our community, and of humanity as a whole might actually go somewhere towards reducing the impact of the problem on society as a whole. Call me crazy.