Letters to the Editor
domini
Published Letters: 1157 Editor's Choice: 79
-
Clarification: on the Junkie comment
[Read the article: Should I tell his wife he's gay?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm NOT the one who wrote the "junkie" comment. I wrote the earlier post, signed by me, on the down low.
SOmeone else wrote the post titled "Black and Hispanic WOmen get AIDs from their "straight" boyfriends." It was ambiguous. That person needs to clarify their comment. ALthough I think I understand, and they were not trolling.
-
The down low is not associated only with black men
[Read the article: Should I tell his wife he's gay?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Which is why I've been using it here. I assume the LW is white. There's a lot of current literature out there about how down low/closet affects women, and the LW does not seem to have sufficient understanding, empathy, or education on how this cheating behavior endangered the wife, and why she's upset. The "Down low" phenomena is characterized by that kind of lack of empathy.
I understand the closet, but my students, white and black, use the "down low" term, not "closet". The problem is the cheating, not the homosexuality, to me. I used that site because it discusses the issue of the cheating, the dangers to women, and the other things that caused the spike.
I don't care whether the man identifies straight or gay. I know that people who cheat and get away with it tend to cheat again.
This discussion mainly has focused on identity, sexual manners, and sexual freedom versus responsibility. I'm trying to point out to the people who defend the cheater, who think it isn't their business, that there are very real repercussions to that attitude..
Thank you for the respectful tone, KStone. This discussion has often lacked it.
-
This is beyond black and white
[Read the article: Should I tell his wife he's gay?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think it is easier to think about without the AIDs angle. But for the students who find out that their partners have had uprotected sex with someone else, the thought of disease is devastating. It add insult to the injury. It also takes cheating beyond the couple's private business, and into the community. For individualistic Americans, that's a hard thing to swallow. For those who came of age in the 70s and 80s, it's especially hard, given the "gratification" focus much of the culture had at that time. Balancing community needs against individual autonomy is one of the hardest things a democracy has to do. I wish we did it better.
-
Don't believe the hype
[Read the article: Do loose chicks sink dicks?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Statistical evidence is difficult to assess because surveys are few and vary in definition, from the occasional problem to the long-term condition."
This is an article in search of a problem. While more young men have diabetes (from sedentary lifestyles), this article dismisses it out of hand. Yet the few reports that are actually out there link diabetes and alcohol consumptiom to a statistically INSIGNIFICANT rise in temporary reversable dysfunction. There's nothing out on ERIC or any other database about any rise in permanent dysfunction for younger men linked to female pursuit.
The reality is that the Post needs to sell papers, and how better to do so than by scaring people? They made up a problem, and people are falling for it. If they can cause gender conflict, so much the better. That sells more papers! Given the political cravenness it's chosen, how better can they distract us from the lousy job they are doing on politics than by hitting male and female sexual insecurities?
This is marketing masquerading as news. Don't believe the hype!
-
There's no evidence men can't get it up
[Read the article: Do loose chicks sink dicks?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just like they want men to do "skin care regimes" and fashion to expand the profit base, they are trying to make men feel insecure to market the drugs to a new demographic. Most men are just fine. In every sense of the word!
-
My handles are anonymous
[Read the article: Do you hide your gender online?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I usually reference Latin or religious themes. It's not to hide my gender, it's because I like them. When I posted in the SYA forum for a while, some people thought I was a guy. On beliefnet, one person actually attacked me for having a neutral religious handle! They wanted to know my gender to try to bond.
I've been attacked for my profession and my race. I've never been attacked for my gender per se. I don't go to chat rooms, and I only frequent a few boards. I read more boards than I ever post on, and I only post in moderated/semi-moderated environments.
I think my posts tend towards moderate, and sometimes they are harsh (usually in the SYA area for letters), although I try not to be rude. I tend to avoid the trolls and the overly sensitive, so I'm not usually on the business end of an attack. I did get attacked for my religion on a slate.com board, but I still used religiously themed handles.
I do assume a lot of posters with female names are men. The thought of two guys pretending to be girls having cybersex just cracks me up! I also don't necessarily take racial self-identification at face value, because jokers masquerade as black a lot to make racist trolls and get fights going at boards like slate.com, democratic underground, and fox (Dancing With the Stars was ugly with young white boys trolling as black until Master P was eliminated. Then they revealed their actual race and snickered about the racists they had pulled out of the woodwork, and the black anger they had roiled. I won't post there because so many people on those boards lie about themselves.
It's ironic. I'm never propositioned online, but I was propositioned at a gas station yesterday.