Gay Men and Their Unrequited Love for Hillary Clinton
At the outset, I should state that I am a gay man. That may serve to immunize me against the charge that I am anti-gay. However, given the reflexive, overwhelming support Hillary commands in the gay community, it is quite possible that some of these supporters have already decided to stop reading this essay.
First and foremost, my objection to Hillary stems from one thing she did. It might seem excessive or rash of me to get so upset about one offensive act, but the act she committed was so heinous, and so potentially damaging to gay people, that it can never be forgiven.
According to an article in the New York Times, which appeared late in 2007 or early in 2008, this is what happened: She was giving a speech before a predominantly black audience, no doubt to garner support for her presidential bid. She spoke about AIDS. And what she said amounted to demagoguery.
She lamanted that attention to AIDS had waned. She speculated as to why this had happened. And this is what the bitch had to say: She said that attention to AIDS had declined (Yeah, as if it really ever got a lot of attention) because in earlier years it was predominantly a disease which afflicted wealthy white people (Read: Faggots) and that now the affliction had turned its wrath on a group of people much less favored than gay men – blacks. She encouraged her listeners to believe that they were being threatened with AIDS because black people were hated and that gay people got so much more attention because they were so deeply beloved. (I must concede that she never said “gay people” in the course of discussing that allegedly favored group. She kept talking about “rich, white men.” That of course made the prejudicial effect of her talk, against gay people, all that more potentially devastating.)
Of course, anyone brighter than an ornament at Bloomies knows that attention to AIDS had declined because it was NO LONGER A DEATH SENTENCE. In the bad old says, medicine’s anti-retroviral armaments – or just plain anti viral drugs for that matter – was nil. For bacterial illnesses, there were antibiotics, but for viruses – with the exception of the Herpes virus (sometime in the 1980’s, or early in the AIDS era, Acyclovir came on the market to treat Herpes simplex and Zoster) – there was nothing. AIDS meant that one would almost surely drop dead. (A very, very small proportion of the population remain immune-competent despite having been infected)
Of course, this salient FACT was conveniently ignored by Queen Hillary. Hillary had a message to convey: AIDS was given its due when Faggots got sick, and the malady was forgotten when blacks got sick.
Her arguments and insinuations increased the risk that black animosity toward homosexuals would increase, and increased animosity carries with it the risk of increased bigotry, prejudice and, most importantly, out and out physical violence. The urban centers of America are not the most tranquil places to live, even if the crime rate has declined dramatically since the days of David Dinkins, and Hillary’s poisonous talk created the possibility of frank and blatant violence against gay people.
But to Hillary none of this really mattered. Her eminence will do anything, say anything and lie till her nose makes it appear as if Pinnochio got a nose job from the best plastic surgeon. She will do anything for her own political advancement. Her proclivity toward prevarication is just as bad as Mitt Romney’s, or any other republican’s, penchant for talking bullshit. But, then again, the Clintons were always crypto Republicans. It was, after all, Bill Clinton who presided over the repeal of Glass-Steagall, decided not to regulate derivatives, and set the stage for the financial crisis of late 2008 – that crisis was chiefly a product of derivative trading run amok, but I suspect most Americans don’t know what I am talking about.
And when I say most Americans, I am not only referring to people in places like Kansas or the deep South where the slowness of their speech and the vacancy of their eyes can create the appearance of feeble-mindedness. I am also referring to queens in New York who can get the New York Times at a kiosk a couple of blocks from their apartment. (After all when New Yorkers get the Times they do it chiefly to do the crosswords, or read the arts and leisure or sports sections (depending on their orientation) and a scant number of seconds are spent scrutinizing the news. Very simply, Hillary’s grave transgression got almost no coverage with the exception of the New York Times, and if news stories are not reported on CNN or CBS they are politically inconsequential.
Of course, this essay is not likely to correct the dismal state of affairs. Perhaps about twenty-five people will read this. But I will do whatever I can to tell gay people to GET OVER YOUR LOVE AFFAIR WITH HILLARY.
Copyright, David Gottfried, 2012
.Testosterone Displacement and Variations in Male Sexuality
I am a gay man, and, as one might suspect, I have seen many men in states of undress and sexual excitation. What I have seen leads me believe that many differences in sexual behavior, penile size, physique and body hair are the consequence of varying uses of testosterone by the body.
I have seen quite a few men with a huge amount of body hair who have markedly small penises. I once encountered a man who had a veritable carpet of hair on his body whose penis was so small that he felt compelled to sit down when he urinated. What is going on here. I humbly submit (I am not a doctor but given the abundance of cerebral shrimps I have seen in medicine perhaps I should have gone into the “healing profession”) that too much testosterone is going into the production of hair and not enough testosterone is devoted toward the elongation of the penis.
Also, I have known quite a few drag queens and markedly effeminate men with enormous penises and profoundly, almost gravely and austerely, masculine features. I know one drag queen, for example, who has a chiseled angularity about him that would have made him ideal for playing very macho roles in film and theatre – his stern and severe face makes John Wayne look like the quintessential sissy. (By the way: I am not referring to myself. I have a stern face, but I am short; he is over six feet tall, and I have never found drag appealing – I think it’s all terribly boring and decidedly unattractive.) What is going on here: Again, I humbly submit that the matter is one of testosterone displacement or application. I think that so much testosterone is directed toward penile growth and the development of angular, macho features that there is only a scant amount of testosterone left over to masculinize the mind.
Yes, this is a short essay. But I always placed great stock in Nietzsche’s dictum about writing: Say in ten sentences what other people fail to say in a book. That said, adios amigos.
Copyright, David Gottfried, 2012
At what age do most boys first start to experience erections. I have a hunch that many gay men experienced their first erections at a very early age, often at ages 5 through 7. I think this may be the case because I have distinct memories of strong erections at ages 5 and 6; indeed, I used to plan sexual play times when I would lock myself in my room, surround myself with the objects which incited penile pleasure, and masturbate myself. Also, quite a few gay men whom I have known recount a very precocious onset of sexual feeling, and by sexual feeling I mean feeling in the genitals; I am not using the term in the expansive sense that Freud used in which all sorts of pulls or affections between people were deemed in some way or another to be libidinous. Of course, it might seem a bit presumptuous to extrapolate from myself and a few friends to homosexuals in general, but then again Freud, after deciding that Little Hans suffered from castration fear from his Father, extrapolated to all little boys all over the world and said that they too feared that their Fathers would destroy their manhood.
My conversations with my straight friends lead me to believe that very few of them had conscious sexual feelings, and erections, toward females, prior to the age of eight.
If I am correct, and if gay men tend to experience their first erections at an earlier age, this might teach us to reconsider some of the ascendant or at least contemporary notions regarding the etiology of male homosexuality, i.e., the notion that the phenomenon is inborn. If it is inborn, we might infer that the biological or genetic difference, if there is such a thing, between gay men and straight men cannot be ascribed to the belief that gay men have an inborn deficit of masculinity since they are getting hard-ons before straight men. The ability to get hard-ons is inextricably linked to manhood and if gay men are getting hardons before straight men than they are more manly than straight men.
In any event, I think that some homosexuals might be gay because they first found stimulation at a very early age. At tender ages, such as 5 and 6, a boy is in no way a man, or a forceful, virile figure, and as such it is dubious that he will think of himself in such a way. At that age, the experience of having his anus wiped, after he has defecated, is still fresh in his mind. And so if a 5 or 6 year old were to experience erections, it is dubious that he will associate it with commanding fantasies congruent with mounting and penetrating a woman; such ideation would be preposterous. Instead, he is more apt to think of receiving pleasure in a manner in which he is coddled, cossetted and babied. This in and of itself has nothing to do with effeminacy, or is at least qualitatively different from effeminacy, and is all about the yearning to be passive and unpressured.
Ironically, gay men may be gay because they are, at the very beginning, more virile, at least in a biological sense, than straight men.
Copyright, David Gottfried, 2012