Graeme

ARGH! How could I forget My Own Private Idaho!!! Thanks, Marty, for the reminder

I'm a 3rd son (and fifth of six children).

There are a lot of wild statements made at times. Often they flow from one statement like "gay men are more likely to be ...." which may be accurate (eg. the percentage in gay men may be 10% while in the wider community it may only be 5%), but then someone misinterprets it to mean a majority of gay men. It is why I'm always curious about the raw data for some of the claims. One that I'm interested in is the claim that second and subsequent sons are more likely to be gay. This one caused a lot of questions when it was first raised, because it didn't fit most peoples anecdotal evidence. For example, there are several gay guys here at GA who are first sons. Now, if the percentages were something like (I have no idea what the real percentages are): 1st son: 4% 2nd son: 6% 3rd son: 8% 4th son: 10% You can see that, yes, there is an increased probability, but those probabilities are still so low that a small random sampling won't show it. A first son can still be gay, and a 4th son still has a good chance of not being gay. But you need to see these raw figures to put the original statement (that subsequent sons are more likely to be gay) into context.

LOL -- Another one! I like this one -- it makes a real statement about tolerance and diversity

There is a sizeable percentage of the community in some countries that already accept gay as normal. I would say that in New York State, California, and in the main population centres of Australia, the majority of the community would say gay is normal (I don't know much about other USA states or other countries). That doesn't mean everyone says it is normal, but I believe the majority do. Don't confuse this with "gay rights", though. Most will say that discrimination is wrong, for example, but when it comes to a hot-button issue like marriage, there is a sizeable percentage that effectively says that marriage is a privilege, not a right.

I'm sure your anthology entry will be great, Nick As for including anthology characters, I don't see a problem. I have an objection to authors that "force" their stories into a single "world" because often they don't fit together well (Isaac Asimov's attempts to merge his Robot's work and his Galactic Empire universe being a good example. He got them together, but I've never been comfortable that they fitted well -- it came over as too forced). In the genre you're writing, I don't see that as being a problem, so go for it! It just enriches the tapestry of the world that they live in.

You're right. Just like there is a spectrum in sexuality, there's a spectrum from effeminate to masculine. Where you fall down is that most effeminate/masculine behaviour shows in non-verbal ways, and hence doesn't communicate itself via the internet. There is a group of teenagers that I communicate with via email. I have been told that some of them are effeminate in nature, but it doesn't show in the emails -- they come over exactly the same as the jocks in their group. Now, you could say that this provides a more true picture of the person, because I'm seeing what they think (as expressed via email), but I don't accept that. A person is collection of parts, and it is the complete collection that is the person -- not one part or another. As one author wrote in a novel once, you can't have a Jelly donut without the jelly. And then you let yourself down... As a general rule, I don't believe fems "flaunt" their mannerisms -- it is a natural part of them and it is just the way they are. The fact that it tends to be obvious, and that because it is different to the "norm" it stands out, that doesn't make it "flaunting". In way too many cases, communities are defined or created by what they exclude. It could be argued that the exclusion is just the flip side of inclusion ("we include all gays in our community!") because by saying what you include, you implicitly define what you exclude. Even here at GA, while we include non-gay members, if you look at the topics that are discussed, most exclude lesbians. We tend to concentrate on male homosexuality with very little focus on female homosexuality. Someone will probably point out that this is the "GAY" Authors site, not the Lesbian Authors site, or that the members are more interest here in male homosexuality than female, but that just proving the point -- we are implicitly excluding one part of the homosexual community. A gay hotel in Melbourne recently gained the legal right to exclude straights if they wanted to. I can understand the reasons why they wanted to do it (there had been some incidents where hens nights had gone in there because they believed that they wouldn't be hassled -- which was fine -- and then some straight guys came in because of the women, and ...) but it is again defining things by exclusion. Oh, and the hotel also gained the right to exclude lesbians. Apparently they only want gay males as patrons on some nights.

I concentrated on the ones for "wife" and while there are a number of items that I thought might be wrong, and others that were missing, it was overall compatible with what I believe my wife went through. What is important is that the responses listed are only a subset of the options available, and many are not appropriate in individual cases. In some of the examples, I found them inappropriate for the category (eg. in denial, the wife response of ""You're not the man I married" I believe should be in the anger stage, not denial. She's not denying it, but is expressing anger at having a false image of her husband) but the idea of what the stage means was still valid (to me). Also, while there are stages listed, it is quite possible to pass some (as has already been indicated) OR to get to stuck in a particular stage.

Cute I initially thought it was an old man, but then I worked it out. As for why it didn't appear to work, you probably had the old avatar in your browser cache. If you cleared your cache, the new avatar would appear (I've had this happen to me, too).

Happy 23rd Birthday! Wishing you a great day and an even better year ahead.

I can't comment in general, because I'm not part of the gay community except online. My impression is that the non-fem gay guys dislike the stereotype that all gays are effeminate. Some effeminate guys feel that the rejection of that stereotype is a slur against them. Apart from that, it gets down to personal taste. Both the effeminate and masculine gay guys tend to be attracted to similar types, though there are many exceptions to that observation. Personally, if I was looking, I'm more likely to want a masculine guy, but as that is only one part of a persons personality, I can't say that I'm only attracted to masculine guys. As I'm not looking, the whole subject tends to be academic for me

I've done some Google searches and I found this article in the Washington Blade I am hoping that the reporters for the blade did their checks and that there actually exists a police affidavit, as stated in the article, because this has, to me, all the hallmarks of an Internet hoax. It wouldn't be the first time that something is reported that didn't actually exist -- there was the recent one picked up by lots of newspapers about a scam in Japan that sold sheep as poodles. It was reported in mainstream newspapers, but it turned out to be completely false. If this actually occurred, I think it's horrendeous. As I live in Australia, I am unable to verify the authenticity of the newspapers that are claimed to have run the original story. If there are any members who live in that area of Indiana, confirming that the websites of the newspapers concerned are valid will go a long way towards confirming the events. Sorry if I sound like a cynic, but for mainstream newspapers to refuse to cover the story doesn't ring true. It is too sensational for them to reject the story.

Happy Birthday! I hope you have a great day. Thank you for all your thoughtful posts. I always enjoy reading them.

I understand what you are saying. However, in Billy Elliot, I would say the sub-theme is to do with masculinity/femininity, rather than homosexuality. Is "dancing" a proper masculine activity? There is a link in that a boy who does what society considers to be "effeminate" activities is often considered to be homosexual (and that is the case in the movie), but I would say that is minor. I still enjoy the movie and I'm very happy to have a discussion on it. It just doesn't spring to mind for me when talking about gay-themed movies, that's all I'm happy to concede that you have a different (and perfectly valid) opinion on the subject.

I didn't think most people would agree with me. I'll concede that it is not a clear case of manipulation. It's a matter of opinion, and different people have different opinions. I wouldn't have it any other way

I'll agree that Philadelphia is gay-themed, though the era in which it was produced made the gay-theme more subtle than it could have been. A good and thought-provoking movie, though.

I wouldn't call Billy Elliot "gay-themed". A good movie and it has a gay character in it, but it's not gay-themed in my opinion.

I just read this article: AIDS survivor Tommy intent on inspiring others

I haven't seen that many gay-themed films. The most memorable for me would be The Sum of Us, which happens to be Australian as well as staring a very young (and cute) Russell Crowe (he plays gay son, looking for someone while putting up with his dad's interference). I didn't like Brokeback Mountain but that was for purely personal reasons. I thought it was a good film, but it disturbed me too much because of my personal situation. I wanted to see Head On but I was still in the closet at the time it came out and I couldn't make myself go see it.

I met my wife at work. I used to be the main programmer, and I was an absolute bastard. I had little in the way of social skills and I had a tendency to bite people's heads off if they asked what I considered to be a stupid question, or if they asked the same question twice. My wife worked in the support department, and as the new girl, was the one they sent in to see me when they needed to asked a question She eventually decided that she had to either make me her friend, or to quit and find another job. She decided to try the former... and I think she went a little overboard She's also taught me some social skills and I now know how to be nice to people... most of the time

I've had a read of what you put up in the sneak peaks and I noticed that you have the younger character as a pre-teen, not a teen. As Jack said, you haven't described a plot -- you've described a setting. One piece of advise that seems to be solid is to have a good idea of where the story will end before you start. That will help keep you focused on where the story is going. Good luck! Graeme

Some churches won't change, but I believe some would. Not all of them are extreme.

I'm smiling now, because I think I've been to Fashion Island at Newport Beach, too.... And there aren't that many places in the greater L.A. area I've been to I had a couple of smiles during the day. I was in meetings all day in Sydney, and there were a few quick quips that everyone laughing. Otherwise, it was a boring day (I'm sitting at Sydney arirport, waiting for them to call my flight).

That's one of the dangers that has been identified. However, if they ever do find a gene (and I doubt they will -- I suspect it is a combination of genes, or that it is a gene that is quite common but needs to be triggered to become active), there is the possibility from the research that the gene is linked to female fertility. Eliminating the gene would have a detrimental impact on female fertililty (ie. it wouldn't be able to be inherited from the male side anymore) -- and there are too many groups that would object to that.

Sorry to be away for the day. I tried to post something quickly before I got on the plane, but I got an error. 1. I noticed that someone else has brought up the issue of the boys going to Hawaii. As that is where the porn site was located, there is the potential for problems for them as a consequence. A lot depends on how much time until they fly out. If it's not too long, they'll be gone before anything can happen. Otherwise there is the risk of Thaddeus or the Piedmont sheriff finding out and making some trouble by linking the two. 2. I have never accused Steve of doing anything maliciously. He's been consistent in his playful endeavours to get Chris to wear speedos as much as possible. What I was objecting to was that level of those endeavours was approaching manipulation. especially considering Chris's dislike in being seen in public like that (swim meets excepted -- Chris noted that exception in an early chapter) AND especially after the issue with the web cams. By setting up the situation so that Chris had little choice, Steve was pushing the boundaries of what I would consider to be healthy. I don't think he crossed that line (just), but he certainly didn't make me like him for what he was doing. It is only because he's been consistent with earlier behaviour and the fact that they love each other so much that I don't actually hate him -- he's been unthinking, not uncaring. 3. Antipodean means the other side of the world. It's usually used by the English to refer to the Australian cousins, as Australia is almost diametrically opposite England on the globe. Maritius doesn't qualify as the Antipodes....