Graeme

Thanks, Tomas! You've reminded me of something that's important. After I came out to my wife, I changed. I was more relaxed - I was happier with myself. It was noticeable enough that my brothers and sisters commented on it in a positive way (they didn't know the reason and still don't - I'm not out to them). Being honest with yourself has positive benefits. There is a lot of justified caution being expressed in this thread, but I thought the benefits should also be pointed out.

James gave some excellent advice, but I want to pick up on one point: Dark Princess has their location listed as South Africa. James's comments about the two APAs highlights the fact that there are also cultural/national differences for different people. As an example, I would just flat out say NO to anyone living in Iran if they asked about coming out. To show some of the range of possibilities, I'll use myself as an example. I've known I'm gay since probably about 14. I knew earlier, but I didn't have a word to assign to it. However, I didn't accept it until I was 40. I knew it, I didn't deny it, but I told myself it was only a small part of who I am (true) and didn't matter (false). It was only when I was able to reach out safely to others via the Internet that I learnt to accept myself. Prior to that I couldn't come out because there was no way to 'try it beforehand'. As has been said above, there's no going back. Being a naturally cautious and introverted person, I couldn't come out - it was too big a step for me. The Internet, however, allowed me to 'come out' without a significant risk. I could 'try it' and slowly accept myself. This lead up to the time just before my 41st birthday when I finally came out to my wife. In hindsight, I didn't know what I was doing. I'm lucky - after several months of pain, my wife and I sorted out our problems and our marriage is still strong. I learnt the statistics afterwards - 80% of marriages fail almost immediately, and half the rest don't last more than two years. That's what I was risking when I came out. If I had known then what they were, I probably wouldn't have come out - I was lucky. Even now, I'm only out to a handful of people, and that's because I'm putting my family first. Until my two young boys are old enough to be able to cope with any taunts, etc, that come their way, I'm staying in the closet for most people. I would like to be out, but other priorities dictate I stay in the closet. The risk of harm to my family (not to me) is what's keeping me in the closet. That's very different to other people, but that's the point in posting this - there is a lot of variation in situations and there's no 'one-size-fits-all' solution.

Guards helped gay man survive Nazi concentration camp A piece of gay history that I thought was worth bringing to people's attention.

Cerest, that's an interesting theory and certainly plausible, but I think the first thing that would have to done is to find evidence that human sexuality has a Gaussian distribution. Gaussian distributions tend to occur when there is an equal probability between the primary selection options (such as a heads or tails toss, or a dice throw), but do not occur when there is not an equal probability (eg. using a weighted dice). It's quite possible that human sexuality does not have a Gaussian distribution because of the rather obvious fact that homosexuals are less likely to procreate than heterosexuals. That means that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality (highly likely, given the twins studies that have shown a higher degree of correlation on sexual orientation between identical vs non-identical twins), then there will be a distorting factor that will increase the probability of heterosexual genes. Of course, the opposing argument is that there is a theory that male homosexuality is linked to female fertility, so the same genes that produce homosexuality amongst men also produces more children in females which is definitely a survival trait. But would it be enough to produce a Gaussian distribution? Indeed, if this were the case, could the distribution be truly called Gaussian even if it happened to fit the classic bell curve? As an aside, while the original post called the 1-in-10 a theory, no one really considers it to be a theory. It's a rough rule-of-thumb that has been proposed based on data received to date. The UK government says it's 1-in-16, but that's not a theory - it's an estimate based on the best available data.

I'm not saying it's one in ten, either, but you've managed to confuse me (not that difficult to do ) What study are you talking about? The only thing approaching a study that's been linked in this thread is survey I linked to that reported 1.5% of Britons are gay, and I asked the question why that was only about a quarter of the estimate the UK government made when they legalised civil unions. If you're talking about Kinsey's study, I don't have any details, but I seem to recall that he's also the researcher that reported that one-in-three adult American males had had a male-male sexual experience. So, given the data he had, a one-in-ten estimate for the gay population wasn't unreasonable. I think it's well recognised that survey's asking about sexuality aren't going to be accurate, because closeted gays aren't going to say they're gay. That's why there's so much uncertainty as to the percentage of homosexuals in the community. As for your last statement I've quote above, can I ask how reliably you believe you can pick out a gay person from a crowd? I can certainly accept that based on your experiences that you've detected a gay-to-straight ratio of less than 1 in 10, but I doubt you're able to say more than that. After all, almost everyone who's met me believes or believed I'm straight (my wife's family certainly got a rude shock when she told them I'm gay). By all subjective evidence, I'm straight (happily married with two kids)... except that I'm not. Yes, but... All you've done is give us a reason why the 'out' gay population in your area is virtually non-existent. What evidence do you have that there aren't closeted gays in your community - people like me who to the outside world appear straight? This is what I meant about confusing gay and openly gay (or even just out to a few people). You can't look at a community and say there is virtually no gays in that community. All you can really say is that there is virtually no people who say they're gay in that community. 100% agree there. Look at the caveat on the UK government's estimate of the gay population I also suspect it's less than 1 in 10. But it's extremely difficult to figure because the information sort is actively being hidden by some of the people being questioned. I'd personally guess it's closer to 1 in 20, which is why I found the 1 in 16 (roughly) that the UK government came up with sounds reasonable to me.

I think you're confusing gay with openly gay. We're talking about what percentage of the population is gay... and I really don't think that living in the country is going to change that percentage. That is, unless there's something in the country environment that decreases the chance of someone being gay Now, I can happily accept that the environment can influence what percentage is openly gay, but that's a completely different issue. The percentage of openly gay people is very much cultural - it's much higher in places like Australia, the UK and USA, than it is in places like Iran, for example It's also different in different parts of each country. That doesn't mean the percentage of homosexuals is any different - just that those homosexuals are less likely to be willing to admit that they are homosexuals. That's why any estimates on the number of gays in the population based on who SAYS they're gay is in my opinion a lower limit. The upper limit is determined by how likely a gay person is to have come out. There are many reasons why a gay person may choose not to come out openly, and they're not all obvious. For example, my reason for not being openly gay is that I want to protect my two young boys from abuse, as well as considering the impact it would have on people's perception of my wife. It would great if I didn't have to be concerned about the impact on my family, but I do, and I'm placing their safety above my wish to come out.

In 2005, the UK government tried to give an 'official' answer to the question of how many people are gay as part of their analysis on the impact of introducing civil unions. Some articles on the subject from that time: 3.6m people in Britain are gay Six per cent of the population are gay Interestingly, last year there was the following article: 1.5% of Britons say they are gay or bisexual To summarise, the UK government estimated the number as one in 16.66, or roughly 6% of the population. However, as the Telegraph article said: That last article implies that either the original estimates were too high, or only a quarter of gay/bisexual people are comfortable enough with their sexuality to admit it in a survey, or maybe a bit of both

This is just to let everyone know that a thread is now open to take suggestions for the anthology themes for 2012. Anthology Themes - Suggestions Wanted Just so there's no confusion, I'm locking this thread so the suggestions don't go here. Please use the link above to add your suggestions, or, if you prefer, send them to me via PM. If you've got any questions about the process, please feel free to post your questions at the link above The suggestion thread will be closed around the 5th August, so please get your suggestions in before then. Graeme GA Anthology Coordinator

From many years of experience, I can say that most of the time when there's such a fundamental disagreement, it almost always comes down to definitions. In this particular case, what is "gay"? The 'clinical' definition is 'homosexual', which in turn means 'sexually attracted to the same sex'. However, 'gay' is also used to mean 'effeminate', as well as a synonym for 'gay lifestyle' - with the latter meaning gay clubs, etc. If you start looking at the different definitions, you can see: 1. It's not a choice to be a homosexual. 2. It's not a choice to be effeminate (which may or may not also mean that you're homosexual - the two, while correlated, are not synonymous). 3. It is a choice as to how you live your life - including how you act on your homosexuality. I'm gay, but I don't live a gay lifestyle (eg. married with two kids is not typically considered to be part of the 'gay lifestyle'). To be honest, that's not really a choice I made, but more an product of the environment in which I grew up in. I could, if I wanted to, choose to become part of the 'gay lifestyle', but I'm unlikely to do so because my family is too important to me, and at my age I don't see how I could have both. It's possible that Jamie's friend is talking about the way a person lives, with some nebulous concept of a 'gay lifestyle' (I've never really heard a decent definition of what a 'gay lifestyle' is - more a case of 'I know it when I see it' response), and not about sexual attraction. I'm not saying that that is the case - just presenting it as a possibility.

Not that it's needed, but here are my views on the various subjects touched on in this thread Genres Genres are a subject in their own right, because you can usually drill down into them to find other genres. As an example, the genres of gay fiction and science fiction have one big thing in common - they both encompass all the other commonly considered genres. There are gay westerns, gay historical stories, gay romances (lots of those ), gay dramas, gay comedies, gay mysteries, gay horror, gay action-adventures, even gay science fiction. Authors Most of the authors on the Internet are beginning authors. As such, they will often start with something that they feel they have a degree of confidence in, and the vast majority find that to be romance. It's a very popular genre, and, to a degree, an easy one for someone who likes the genre to write in. It is therefore not surprising that there is a lot of gay romance stories available. It's also not surprising that they vary considerably in quality, since, as I've said, a lot of them are the first attempts of those authors. Similarly, as the authors become more experienced, they can either consolidate their skills in their chosen genre, or try to expand. Both are natural outcomes, but neither should be 'forced' onto the authors. It's their choice based on what they feel they want to do. As a personal example, I have several times tried to expand the range of genres I write in but I find that there are lots of genres that I'm just not capable of writing in. I can do romance, sometimes comedy, and drama. I've tried horror and it didn't come out as horrifying. I've tried mystery and I was woeful. I've consider historical, but I'm too scared that I'll get the historical facts wrong (history has never been a passion of mine). I've touched on science fiction and fantasy a couple of times, but I recognise that that's not where my skills lie. So I tend to concentrate on my strengths and consolidate those, rather than expanding my range of writings. Now, looking at the hosted authors here at GA, I see a range of genres that reflect the range of available genres. Yes, a lot are romance/drama authors, but even there they range from escapism to realism. But there's adventure (C James), Science fiction (dkstories and Myr), dark fantasy (Kyle Aarons and Nephylim), lighter fantasy (Myr, Lugh and TheZot), historical fiction (Mark Arbour), and horror (vlista20). I'll admit that there is a huge number of stories by the above authors that I haven't written (partly due to lack of time, and partly because not all of those genres appeal to me), so the above categorisations are based on information I've heard. But you can certainly see that even just amongst the hosted authors there a very wide range of genres of good quality. There is an equally wide range of genres amongst the other authors here and elsewhere on the Internet. Yes, romance is a very, very common genre, but the other genres have their authors and their readers. Not as numerous as romance, but they're still there. And I'm still a sucker for a good romance Formulaic or not, as long as the writing is good and the plot is interesting, I'll enjoy it

Sorry, but there are too many great stories for me to pick a 'best'. Then I thought I'd select a 'best anthology', but even that's difficult. But I'll give that one a go and nominate the 2007 The Rainy Day anthology -- though I've got a real soft spot for both the Fairy Tales anthology and the Anniversary anthology, too...

One of my favourites from the Internet: The limerick packs laughs anatomical Into space that is quite economical. But the good ones I've seen So seldom are clean - And the clean ones so seldom are comical.

The 2011 Summer Anthology - Walk on the Wild Side - is now live! Please check out the stories at the above link, and please don't forget to leave the authors a comment in the discussion threads (there's a link at the end of each story to take you to those threads). The quarterly anthologies are provided free of charge by our authors - giving them feedback is the only payment they receive. Archangel by Quonus10 Brothers of the Flames by Rilbur Dare by Kingdom by the Sea Flying Without Wings by Frostina Hold32 by CarlHoliday It Was A School Day by Lugh Joyride_fantasy_sex.com by Marzipan Leather Bar by Renee Stevens Rachel Wells by Bugeye Runway by Nephylim Stetson Boy by Johnathan Colourfield Strange Family, Unusual Lovers, and Other Jobs by comicfan The Break In by Jwolf The Midnight Hour by Mark92 The Wild Forest by Michael9344 Thereafter by jian_sierra What Matters Anymore? by W_L Why? by Dolores Esteban With Open Arms by Cia

"What's the most extreme thing you've ever done?"

:king: :king: :king: Happy Birthday! :king: :king: :king:

We're moving a little off topic, but I suppose it relates to the prevailing thoughts back in the 70s/80s.... I remember back in the 70s my elder sister being encouraged to use her right hand, rather than her left. I don't think there was a intense effort to change her, but she was encouraged to change. Clearly, if my memories are correct, then at that time lefthandedness was considered something undesirable. Is it really that surprising that homosexuality was, too, and that parents would consult with medical specialists for an appropriate treatment?

Why now? Because the incident with Reker and the rent-boy is recent. Because the ex-gay movement is still active, and there are those that have never stopped trying to disprove the scientific basis for their 'treatments'. If this article is true, it appears that the original papers that formed the basis of gender behaviour modification have been exaggerated. That's not an insignificant thing. As Matthew has pointed out, the papers were mainstream for the day, but if they weren't accurate then that's important - for science, if not for removing support for ex-gay 'therapies'. The real question in my mind is why the family came forward now, but it's quite possible that it's because of the Reker incident that they've become aware of the queries about 'Kraig/Kyle'. Certainly, the timing is right (since it appears they contacted the journalist some time ago). W_L, the code of conduct you mentioned is one that's evolved over time. Forty years ago, there was more 'faith' put in doctors than today, and they wouldn't have explained things to the same degree. As a simple example, I visited an oral surgeon today to organised the removal of my last two wisdom teeth. What I was told was very different and much more comprehensive that 28 years ago when I had my other two wisdom teeth taken out. The code of conduct has evolved.

With today's understanding of the issues, you're correct. However, given the understanding in the 70s, when homosexuality was still listed as a mental illness, and was illegal in most of the USA, it's not surprising that they took their child to a psychologist. After all, what parent would want their child to grow up to be a criminal and to suffer from a mental health condition when they could do something about it? Please, please consider the events in their historical context. Yes, it was wrong. We all accept that. We all know that... NOW. I'm not excusing Dr. Green or Reker - though even there I'm assuming their research and treatment was approved by the university's ethics committee - but I can't find it in me to blame the parents for following the advice of the 'medical experts'. And I do agree with you regarding any parents who are still doing the same today should be held responsible. But back then we didn't know what we know now and so I can't assign the parents more blame than the 'medical experts'. EDIT TO ADD: The author of the article I linked to says it better than I have: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/what-are-little-boys-made-of7 And on the subject of remorse (from that page): Please read all of that first link I gave. It gives a comprehensive account of what happened, and places it all in context with the papers from Dr's Green and Reker.

The link I gave definitely had the mother expressing regret. It came over quite clear to me. It's seven pages - maybe you only looked at the first page. That article, written by someone from the GLBT community, went the extra mile to explain what happened in the context of the times. As a parent myself, I know how it is if you're concerned about your child, you will take action. You also tend to trust medical staff, especially after seeing them on the TV expressing concern (that TV show appearance is what appears to have been the trigger for her to take her son to see Dr. Green). From what I read, the mother is already suffering from enough guilty. The author of the article didn't need to dump any more on her, and he didn't do so (which I think is the right thing to do, based on what's been written). It's less clear about the father, since he left the family while Kirk was still a teenager. We don't really know if he felt remorse or not.

A link with a more comprehensive story: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/what-are-little-boys-made-of-main

You are aware, I hope, that the USA did better in the last soccer World Cup than Australia (the world's leading sporting nation, not that I'm biased - and we don't play ice hockey, at least not seriously)? I don't really get what you mean by calling soccer the 'anti-North American sport'. Seriously, though - are you trying to say that sport needs violence? What about sports such as swimming and tennis (two sports where both Australia and the USA tend to do well). Are they whimpy sports because they don't have fights? Gymnastics? Baseball? Cricket? (just threw that last one in to see if you're still reading ). I can agree that the efforts to stamp-out excessive violence in some sports can go too far. I was told by many players when I was a basketball referee that the game I was ref'ing wasn't netball (no offence intended to the netball players - I'm just quoting what they told me ) because they thought I was being too quick to call fouls. But to imply that sports have to be violent (and potentially extremely violent) or otherwise they're considered to be whimpy - that seems a bit of a stretch to me. Hopefully I've misinterpreted what you've said

How did a conversation about fighting in ice hockey devolve into the physicality of soccer vs basketball? Having said that, I still remember the section of the basketball rule book (I was a referee for many years) that said that while basketball was theoretically a non-contact sport, it's not possible for ten players to move rapidly over a confined area without making contact. It was up to the referees to determine what contact was incidental and what wasn't. Now... can someone tell me what this has to do with fighting in hockey?

I wondered whether this was happening. If it's part of the 'rules', teams will try to use it to gain an advantage. We have a situation in Aussie Rules football where a team will sometimes deliberately score a point for the other team... because it gives them controlled possession, and reduces the risk of a goal (worth six points) from being scored by the opposing team. It's a case of using the rules to maximise the benefit to the team. I don't know where you get your 128 timeouts per game of basketball from, though, unless you're counting every time where a player doesn't have to be actively involved in the game. If you count it that way, then I suspect hockey has more than one timeout per game

From a complete outsider's point of view (I've never even seen an ice hockey match, though I've seen field hockey - which doesn't have fights), I've got a few comments: 1. The comment that professional sport is about making money is 100% correct. 2. A corollary of the first point is that rule changes are made to help with making money. An example is that the Australian Football League (AFL) has experimented with rule changes to speed up the game, because that's what they believe the fans want - and it's the fans attending games that makes them money. Similar, various rule changes in basketball (the sport I was heavily involved with when I was younger), such as the 3-second rule, the shot clock, and the centre line violation rule were all introduced to increase the pace of the game, and to try to maintain a balance between offence and defence (with a slight imbalance towards offence, as scoring goals is 'exciting'). 3. Fights in hockey have nothing to do with the sport itself. Everything said previously in this thread to explain why fights occur will apply equally to other sports. The fact that fights occur in other sports is enough to demonstrate the point. 4. Fights in hockey are tolerated because the professional bodies (the ones out to make money) believe that the fans want them to stay. The fact that so many people here are supporting them is evidence towards saying that the professional bodies are right. 5. Until or unless there is a significant public outcry against the fights, nothing will change because it's not in the best interest of those making the money. Having said all of that, I personally don't think condoning fighting is a good idea, long term. Condoning aggression - that's fine. Condoning limited violence - also fine. The key word in that is 'limited'. Other sports have drawn that line to excluding fighting. Hockey hasn't. That's the choice of the people in charge of the sport... which is driven by what they believe the fans want.

I believe it's the guesthouse phone that's bugged. They wouldn't (couldn't?) have bugged Joel's cellphone, which is what Trevor would have called.