Saturday, July 29, 2006

Advocate Sex Survey Results

I want to comment just a bit on the results of the Advocate's sex survey. The reason I'm commenting just a bit is because, well, they're exactly what one might expect. No real surprised. The only surprise, I'd say, is their choice to emphasize the total answers on each question instead of answers for men and women. For each response, they give the total number of people who checked the box, then how many men did, how many women, and the percentage of all people who gave that response, irrespective of sex. That gives some pretty skewed percentages.

For an example, let's look at question 9: During your lifetime, how many different same-sex partners have you had sex with? These are the percentages:

None: 5.60%
1: 6.95%
2-5: 20.24%
6-10: 12.72%
11-20: 12.18%
21-50: 14.44%
51-100: 9.92%
101-300: 9.58%
More than 300: 8.40%

Aw, how...conservative! The most popular category is 2-5 sex partners. That's not unreasonable at all! I have straight male friends who've had sex with more parters than that. Nearly a third are less-than-fivers. And people say that gay men are promiscuous...

But look at the percentages (they show you raw data, but not the percent) for gay men alone:

None: 4.51%
1: 3.42%
2-5: 14.32%
6-10: 11.46%
11-20: 13.28%
21-50: 17.32%
51-100: 12.50%
101-300: 11.98%
More than 300: 10.76%

The numbers themselves aren't THAT different, but there's a clear skew upwards. The most populated category now is 21-50 (I can only think of two friends who may fall in this category or above, and they ain't straight). Not even a third are less-than-teners. Over 10% have had more than 300 partners! Crazy mo-fos.

I actually wonder what these answers look like for straight people. I mean, given this isn't a scientific survey, but I think the Advocate's readership is probably fairly representative of the gay community. Stick this survey in Maxim, and what are the results? As I mentioned in a recent entry, I have a bit of a Jesus/Solomon complex (the male version of the Madonna/whore complex), and I want to know how Solomony these straight boys actually are.

One more weird result: Over 40% of male respondents said they had their first same-sex sexual experience before they turned 15. 18.75% had their first experience before they turned 12. I don't really know what to make of that. Hmph. Brain dead today.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Starchild Gets Earthly Medicine

A few days ago, a judge ordered that Starchild Abraham Cherrix receive traditional chemotherapy against his will and the will of his parents. Abraham is a 16 year old from Virginia with Hodgkin's. He wishes to receive alternative treatment in a Mexican clinic, because the first round of chemo he endured was too painful and draining. He believes the alternative treatment will cure him. Right.

The judge has received a lot of shit for his decision to force Abraham into conventional therapy against his will. The only guy who seems to be in favor of the decision is Orac. In his post responding to the blogger response to the ruling, he poses a few questions for those who oppose the decision. As my instinct says the decision is wrong, I want to look at those questions (and probably, in the end, concede that the ruling was the right one):

1. If Abraham and his parents chose crystal therapy or, like Christian Scientists, decided that they would use prayer alone to "cure" Abraham's lymphoma, would you be as adamant in your belief that the state should not intervene. If not, why not?

Yes, I see no difference between the alternative treatment he plans to use and truly bizarre forms of treatment. As far as I'm concerned, this is about the right of an underage patient and his parents to refuse treatmet. I'm assuming he's not using public funds for his alternative treatment, because in that case the ruling would be much more obvious.

2. If Abraham were 14 years old would you still think that the state has no business intervening in his care? (Consider the case of Katie Wernecke, which is often mentioned in the same discussions as Abraham's.) What about if Abraham were 12 years old? 10 years old? 8 years old? In other words, is the right of parents to decide medical care for their children absolute, and, if it is not, what are the specific situations in which the state is justified in intervening to overrule the decision of the parents?

This is really the key question here. It's also why I think, in the end, Orac is right. I do think Abraham is old enough to make his own decisions. If he wants to slowly kill himself (really, why is suicide illegal?) that should be his perogative. Unfortunately, whereas I think the age of consent for pretty much everything should be 15 or 16, the law thinks it should be 18. They err on the side of caution/dickishness. I disagree with our cutoff, but we need a cutoff. We can't evaluate every case on an individual basis and decide whether the candidate is mature enough to sign his own permission slips. So, before he's 18, we can't assume Abraham is giving consent to be killed. In that case, the parents are guilty of neglect, abuse, whatever. So, with annoyance at the age of consent, I concede that this means the judge was probably right.

3. Are there any circumstances you can envision in which the state should intervene to direct the medical care of a child against the parents' will? Please give a specific hypothetical example of such a case and explain how that is different from that of Abraham Cherrix.

This is another good question. The obvious issue is the child's consent. I'm sure many of the same people who are objecting to the decision would be equally upset if the judge ruled the other way, but Abraham did not agree with his parents' wishes. In other words, if the child desperately wants to live, but his parents are forcing him into slow suicide, this would be pretty bad. But, as discussed in post 3, the child can't actually consent. Therefore, any case that could be considered abuse--anything that's bad for the kid, independed of whether he wants it, because his wants have no legal standing--is cause for government intervention.

4. For those who think that the Hoxsey treatment is a valid medical option for the treatment of relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma, please provide valid scientific and/or clinical evidence that it is any better than doing nothing. Testimonials do not count.

N/A, as is the case with #5.

So there it is. It's a boring answer perhaps: Kids should be able to sign off earlier, but since they can't the judge was justified. All right, Abraham. It's going to hurt. I'm sorry, but maybe because of it you'll live to see a day when you can legally kill yourself slowly.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

What's the Big Deal?

So, Bush vetoed the embryonic stem cell bill. What's everyone so worked up about? It's just a piece of legislation that would have increased the size of government and OH MY GOD, I CAN'T BELIEVE HE VETOED THE STEM CELL BILL. It's possibly the most worthwhile piece of legislation that's passed through Congress in Bush's six years. It's true, I don't think the bill went nearly far enough—we really need therapeutic cloning to achieve the greatest promise of stem cells—but it would have allowed for much expanded research that could eventually create therapies and perhaps even cures for some of the most widespread and horrible diseases we face. Sure, those therapies are a ways away, which is exactly why we need to get cracking now. So by the time my parents are old enough to be at serious risk for a lot of these illnesses, and if not then, by the time my friends and I are, we will have some embryonic stem cell-related options.

I'm truly horrified by this veto. I'm horrified that the government won't fund research that could help and save so many people.

On to the self-centered part: Why am I so much more pissed off by this than I am by anti-abortion legislation? The basic reasoning is the same: A life is sacred as soon as it is conceived. I wholly disagree with that, but that's the argument, so why does it piss me off much more in one circumstance than in another? There are a few reasons I can pinpoint, some of which I'm OK with, and some of which I'm less proud of:

The Stakes are So Much Higher
According to the senators, therapies developed from embryonic stem cell research could help 100,000,000 Americans. That's a third of the country. I doubt that means now...I assume that means over the course of life. But in order to get those numbers for abortion, two-thirds of American women would get an abortion at some point in their lives. I don't know the exact stats, but I doubt the number is THAT high. Also, while not being able to get an abortion can ruin your life, hey, it's not Alzheimer's. Your ambitions could be shot, you can end up in the poorhouse, and you can be totally emotionally drained (I can't find the study, but research shows even people who want children are less happy after they've had kids. Seriously.) but you can control your limbs. You can remember who your parents are. You probably won't die. I'm cool with this reasoning...this isn't one I feel too guilty about.

Abortion's Currently Legal
So the threat doesn't seem THAT real. On the other hand, embryonic stem cell research really, really isn't happening. There's not a fight against it; there's a fight FOR it, and the burden's on us to save people. Great. This doesn't sound like reasoning I should feel bad about except for one thing: Abortion is illegal in South Dakota. In fact, embryonic stem cell research isn't illegal per se, it's just crappily funded. So there's really some parallel. And I just don't care that much about people in South Dakota, because I don't know them. I know that's not very good reasoning, but it's how I feel, because I'm only human. And on that note...

Madonna/Whore? Aren't We So Over That?
Why, yes, we are. But "if you have sex, what do you expect?" isn't the same thing as a Madonna/whore complex. OK, I should definitely back up a little: I believe—firmly, mentally, but perhaps not quite internally—that people deserve no less sympathy because they "brought something on themselves." I'm just as sad that you died because you stuck a fork in a socket as I am that you died because a stray bullet hit you. If you have a heart attack, I don't care whether you weigh 500 pounds or you run five miles every morning and eat naught but health food. I'm really sorry you had the heart attack. At least that's how I'd like to believe I feel. But there are some aspects of being human that suck—the need to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups is a biggie—and this impulse toward desert is one of them. Another study I can't find shows that people are much less likely to give charity to someone with an STD than they are to give charity to someone with a genetic disorder.

This is the reason I'm ashamed of. In the vast majority of cases, a person who got pregnant had some hand in that. On the one extreme, she very willingly slept with someone without any birth control while she was obviously ovulating. On the other extreme, she was raped. Most cases probably fall somewhere in the middle, with people being slightly negligent about their birth control...either not using it, possibly because they were drunk or misjudged timing, or being spotty with it or using condoms that were kept at the wrong temperature or moisture level or something. Should this matter that a woman had a hand in getting pregnant? No, it shouldn't at all. Once she has an unwanted pregnancy, she is a woman in need of a medical procedure. No questions about the past. But does this mitigate my anger relative to babies with type I diabetes, teenagers with MS, and 50-year-old with early onset Alzheimer's? Sadly, it kind of does. Ugh. I need to wash myself; I feel dirty.

The point is: This bill should have gone through. Blastocysts are not people. Not even close. And Sam Brownback insulted the intelligence of every member of the Senate. You go find the clip on YouTube. I can't bear to watch it again.

As a sidenote on the Madonna/whore complex thing. I've realized I actually kind of have one, but for men. Let's call it a Jesus/Solomon complex. I only deal in Jesi. And there aren't many of those. You know that. You've met men.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

On Barres On Women in Science

Stanford professor Ben Barres has an editorial in Nature this week arguing against what he terms the "Larry Summers Hypothesis:" Women don't make as strong a showing in science because of innate ability.

First of all, I think it's more than a little unfair to term this the Larry Summers Hypothesis. Summers said in his notorious speech, "different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search" is the third most important factor in why women aren't achieving. He also said the most important factor was the "high-powered job hypothesis:" Men are prepared to commit more hours to their jobs, at least partially because women have to choose between high-commitment jobs and family life. The middle factor was intrinsic aptitude, and he frames the difference in aptitude as a difference in standard deviation, which only affects the extremes to a severe extent. He doesn't deal with average differences. So that's why I think the name of this hypothesis is unfair.

Briefly, dwelling on Summers, Barres indirectly acknowledges that Summers is on target with his MOST important reason why women aren't achieving: "Women faculty, in particular, need help from their institutions in balancing career and family responsibilities." This means there is a real effect of women not being able to commit time. Great. You two boys are in agreement.

Barres spends relatively little his space actually arguing that the data say intrinsic aptitude is not a factor, although some of his numbers are compelling. A third of top Putnam scorers are women, and a study of 20,000 kids showed no difference in math scores between the genders. I'm a little suspicious of that because, again, we're not looking at means, just extremes, and there are about 5 kids in that 20,000 who fit our definition of extreme. Finding no difference there is still not really significant. (Someone tell me if this is flawed statistical reasoning) [Update: I realize in the morning light that this is, indeed, horrible reasoning. With 20,000 subjects you can easily determine a curve and a standard deviation and extrapolate this to the extremes, even if your extreme data doesn't match this perfectly. Still, I would like to see that these curves and not just their averages are identical.]

Most of Barres's essay is showing evidence that there is real, real discrimination. This is nicely underscored by his personal story. Ben Barres was Barbara Barres until only about 10 years ago, and so he is a unique (read: rare) position to compare how people treat men and how people treat women. Admittedly, it's not a scientific comparison...the difference between Barbara and Ben isn't PURELY gender; how a personality and set of mannerisms interact with one's gender is a strong, strong factor in how a person is perceived. Still, his position is special and should be considered. So after he transition, people treated him and his research with an obscene increase in respect. The money quote from the editorial is from a professor who saw him give a talk right after he transitioned, "Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but then his work is much better than his sister's." Ooh. Zing.

The most persuasive part of the essay, I'd say, is the evidence that women face discrimination, "one study found that women applying for a research grant
needed to be 2.5 times more productive than men in order to be considered equally competent." There is perhaps too little statistical evidence in the editorial, but there is some.

And some of his studies are a little shaky, "A 2002 study did find a gender gap in competitiveness in financial tournaments, but the authors suggested that this was due to differences in self confidence rather than ability." Suggested? I don't yet know why to take his word on it. Even if the problem is self-esteem, I don't want to take anyone's word that this is caused by discouragement and not by nature. Gimme more info.

In sum, he convinces me that there is legitimate discrimination, but I am not totally convinced that both ability at the extremes and willingness to forsake family to commit are not equally important factors. If that study on productivity is totally legit, that would strengthen his claim a lot. I'm just initially wary. It's a decidedly important editorial, and I think this conversation should be ongoing. I'm glad he's kicked it up again.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

I NY

Judge R.S. Smith, your ass is mine.

(No, NSA, I don't mean that literally. More to the point, I don't mean that seriously. I very clearly don't mean it literally. Anyway...)

Today the highest court in my favorite state in the land ruled against gay marriage. Now, when I saw the verdict, I was only minorly pissed. I'm not intimately familiar with our state constitution (heck, I could barely tell you how a bill becomes a law...or how a bill becomes a bill, for that matter). It was entirely possible that sending the issue to the states was the best step. That is, it was entirely possible, until I started reading the decision. Motherfucker! What a douche. I really just disagree with most of his premises, his methods, and his conclusions. I'll go through them until I feel like stopping, which will probably be after the "can rationally believe..." section.

OK, Domestic Relations Law implies clearly that marirages are to be between members of the opposite sex because of terms like "husband" and "wife." I buy that. Moving on to the Constitution...

The plaintiffs want to say the law goes against both the Equal Protection Clause ("No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this State or any subdivision thereof") and the Due Process Clause ("No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"). Judge Smith (hereafter Jud Smee) acknowledges the many benefits of marriage.

He writes, "The critical question is whether a rational legislature could decide that these benefits should be given to members of opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples." So this is what he wants to figure out. Is there any possible rational reason for denying these benefits to same-sex couples--or, to phrase it in the way he seems to think of it, to grant them only to opposite-sex couples. First of all, I think that's a major distinction. He really seems to see marriage not as a fundamental right at all, but as something the state can choose to grant to someone if it foresees state benefit. I don't really think this is the right way to look at it...marriage, as the conservatives tell us, is an institution that has been around for a very long time. We expect marriage. It's not a privilege the state decides to grant...it is an expected part of adult life. Moving on...he concludes that there are two rational reasons why the state would support marriage for one kind of couple but not the other.

"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships." What's his reasoning for this? The "vast majority of children" are born in heterosexual relationships. It's true. But since when do we oppress the minority of children? There are children regularly, if not frequently, being born into gay relationships. He says that the legislature could find that the unions that bring about children (straight ones) are too unstable, and it is to the benefit of children to stabilize them via the tool of marriage. Since gay couples don't have kids by accident, this doesn't apply to them. I suppose this could be rational...if we were just coming up with the idea of marriage today. "Hey, there are too many babies without fathers. Maybe if we provide an incentive for them to stay, they will!" Does he really think any rational person TODAY thinks of marriage solely as an institution to give love children stable homes? To protect kids born as a "result of accident or impulse?" Because people can't control their genitals, when they fuck and fuck up and have kids, we need to bribe the parents into taking care of them. Is it just me, or is this part of the reasoning astoundingly odd?

"There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father." Oh, this old saw. I need to let Jud Smee continue here, for just another sentence: "Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like." Oh, well, if intuition and experience say so, then it must be rational to believe it. First of all...intuition? Aren't we sure intuition is frequently mistaken. I'm sure I intuit many wrong things...first impressions of people, physical laws, etc. The only way intuition gets any credit is if it's based on experience or research, so let's turn to that. What experience does he mean? He talks about a "general rule" that this is so. Where does this come from? Has he really compared and contrasted living situations? Does he think most people have? The experience that YOU benefited from both of your parents doesn't count. One example is not enough to base a rational decision on. And just because many people make irrational conclusions, doesn't make those conclusions rational. (Plus, every adult I know is messed up. Every day, living models are most likely mediocre if not downright bad every day, living models.)

He goes on to talk about social science studies: "[T]he studies on their face do not
establish beyond doubt that children fare equally well in samesex and opposite-sex households. What they show, at most, is that rather limited observation has detected no marked differences." I've looked at these studies and, yeah, they're based on small samples. But they're based on statistically significant samples and they do show no marked differences. While this may not be totally conclusive, it does mean there's no scientific reason to think kids will do worse. Jud Smee acknowledges this but says the lawmakers could proceed "on the common-sense premise that children will do best with a mother and father in the home." It's not common sense...it's totally unbased! Since these studies show kids do as well, if people had any experience with kids raised by two moms or two dads, they'd know (collectively) that those kids do just as well. Intuition or "common-sense" without this experience is meaningless and not a basis for a rational decision.

OK, that's all the Jud Smee I can take for now. His decision just irked me. I'm not editing this, so there may be random errors...sorry for those. And, yeah, it's annoying how he talks about "sexual preference." That's poor form, Jud Smee. Poor form, indeed. Well, hopefully if/when Spitzer's in charge of this state he'll push gay marriage through the legislature. It's time we realize we're fucking people over and not helping anyone. No, legally it's not a PERFECT parallel to Loving v. Virginia and all the interracial marriage stuff, but I'm convinced the emotions behind it are the same. Gay people are a convenient "other." Come on, kids. Gay people aren't the other...they're not exactly like straight people, but I think if the crazy right people got to know a few, they'd realize they're just people...as fucked up as straight folks, but just as great, too. (And occasionally, just a little bit greater. Shh.)

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

A Weekend in the Country

BEST WEEKEND EVER. No, I really mean it. I actually don't think I've ever had a better weekend, both in terms of actual happenings and my spirits throughout the three and a half days. I mean, I wound up on all fours in the dirt vomiting into the side of a mountain and it was STILL the best weekend ever. I don't recommend that particular activity—I recommend drinking lots of water before the hike and avoiding the migraine—but I do recommend going to your friend's family's place in the Adirondacks with a bunch of your favorite college pals for a long, July 4th weekend. And while I'm recommending, I recommend keeping sexuality out of the whole thing and concentrating on fresh air, great scenery, physical activity and amazing friends. Rock the fuck ON.

Friday after work I took the PATH to Hoboken to meet Vijay at Stevens, where he's currently post-docing. I definitely heart the PATH...cheaper than the subway and just as fast. We met up with Emily and Haninah and hit the road with some shockingly good Greek food. When we got to the cabin in bustling Keene, NY, it seemed like nobody was there. We walked in, dropped our stuff on beds and followed faint laugher to the bunkhouse where lots of wonderful people (I believe at that point it was Becky, Dave, Brad, Casandra, and Sarah) were finishing up a highly competitive game of Monopoly. We grabbed beers and just a few minutes later, Jen and Lee walked in, bringing our number to a respectable 11. We chatted and joked until about 3 am and all crashed for the eve.

Saturday morning we all convened outside for breakfast. Whereas the night before we were stunned by the stars, then we were stunned by the mountain view. I played a mean game of Bocce with Jen and Dave, who then had to leave for his grandfather's funeral. Yeah, not the highlight there. We also got introduced to the awesome dog, Lulu, pictured with Brad at right (I really like that shot). We, now Daveless and Leeless due to the funeral and general exhaustion, respectively, took a short hike. The top of the mountain was just about the windiest place ever, so we didn't spend too long up there, just long enough to let Cas celebrate Canadia Day (that's that weird moose-ish country, right?), as you can see below. Saturday evening we stopped at the deliciously neighborhoody Noon Mark Diner before a great fireworks display. The friends devised a firework rating system that eventually had to be normalized. We said the newly rated fireworks must feel like people from our grade who got 1600s on their SATs and will now be thought less-than-brilliant students when they attempt to boast. Poor newly marked 7s on the firework scale. Woe to the firework of moderate size with only one explosion.

On Sunday more people arrived. Woo! Alexandria showed up, Hannah in tow, and Brad went to grab Daniel Effon and came back with both him and Noa Wheeler: two great surprises in the "people I've always really liked but never spent quite enough time with" category. I went with Jen, Lee and Alexandria to ice skate at the Olympic arena, where there were four rinks, none of them open to the public. GREAT. So we went to the lake next to Lake Placid and played word games with Daniel and Noa. Much fun. We headed to a great place called Caribbean Cowboy where I had a totally rockin' blue cheese burger and sat with Brad, Cas and Daniel (who has one of the world's winninger smiles). Good table. Good times. That night was hanging out in the pavilion, a wood gazebo about 50 yards from the cabin. Alexandria did some mad fiddling to Hannah's guitar background and we roasted s'mores in the fire.

Monday was a mad rush to get crepes for Jen, who'd been wanting them bad since two years ago when she visited the same place. We made it by noon, when they'd told us they stopped serving the day before, but it turned out that on Mondays it was 11:30. Well fuck you, too, crepe place! So Lee, Sarah and I headed back to go hiking (Jen kindly drove us), while Alexandria stayed with Brad's car, which dropped off Cas on her 18 mile run (training much?). We hiked up Cascade, one of the 46 Adirondacks over 4000 feet. Things got so sweaty Dave and the other guys had to take their shirts off. What a shame. Can't you feel my salty, wet tears? Right. The climb was harsh, and on the way up, I realized my head started throbbing every time we stopped, but I didn't think much of it...heads will throb. Besides, we were playing some serious Botticelli. Apparently Sarah Gustafson is the most cultured person in the world. We spent an hour getting her down to "Renaissance Italian man involved in music, but not mainly a composer, player or commissioner, starts with S ends in US." She kept fending off our stumpers! But really, can you get that? It wasn't until Becky said "maybe an instrument maker?" that we all simultaneously turned around and screamed "STRADIVARIUS!" By that point we were victoriously on the glorious summit. Woohoo! And that's when the headache started to kick into gear. About halfway down the mountain I told them I needed to stop: My stomach was NOT doing well. After a few minutes, I told them to head up a few yards, I'd be there soon. Which is how I wound up on my hands and knees in the dirt, vomiting in the woods. My entire body buzzed afterwards. My limbs felt ridiculously light, like I could hardly control their movement. I did the vomiting thing once more, but we made it down, and when we got back into the house, despite being as sweaty and dirty as I've ever been, I crashed on my bed and slept for an hour.

When I got up and showered, the bbq in the pavilion was ready. The food was great and the migraine proved to be excellent X-treme catharsis. I felt buzzy but totally calm. After dinner we gathered round the fire (of doom!) and sang folk songs, including my new favorite, "The MTA Song," a political ditty about a man who gets stuck on the Boston subway for life due to a sudden fare increase. The only way to prevent yourself from ending up like poor Charlie is to "Vote for George O'Brien!" It's pretty hilarious. The other song I'm obsessed with post-trip is Silvia Nott's "Til Hamingju Island," the Icelandic entry in Eurovision 2006 that Vijay played in the car. Totally awesome. After dinner it was to bed, Alexandria now next to me, thanks to Haninah's unexpected (HA) absence.

The following morning was all about waffles, packing up and heading back. And that's all there is to tell for now folks. The best weekend ever concludes. Now to make it the best week ever: Hey, NY Supreme Court...want to rule for gay marriages? That'd be good.