Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Male Hookers Not a Threat says the Star News ......

According to the Star News today December 28th the story is a follow up to a previous one carried on the 17th where the so called

Homo Hookers Out and Bad brought attention to a now longstanding issue of gays out on the streets be they homeless or not. The majority of them to my certain knowledge either were homeless due to the whole set of past problems of a closed temporary shelter albeit due to "bad behaviour" an excuse not accepted by many including myself while others in the population just idle the time away as they see fit into the late hours of the morning just making the situation untenable now. They also have been joined by other MSMs who are said to be involved in other illegal activities thus making the mix very potent. Let us not forget the alleged August 24th shooting incident of some of the homeless men in the upper New Kingston area which is unrelated to the involvement of those in alleged illegal activities and more so homo hate gone haywire.

Today's piece as authored below seeks to bring some idea of what the female commercial sex workers located further on the strip have to say on the issue albeit again loaded with embellishments to sell papers as is typical of the Star News.

Crystal Harrison, Star Writer

Even in the face of stiff competition from their cross-dressing male counterparts, female prostitutes in New Kingston say they are not under threat, as they still have their clientele.

Recently, THE STAR carried a story about cross-dressing gay men who have taken over a section of New Kingston prostituting themselves and offering 'services' to other men. The men say they have been at the location for a while now and have never had a problem with anyone.

Last week, female sex workers in New Knigston admitted knowing about the men but said they had no problem with them being there. "Dem nuh give mi nuh competition," one woman said, "a mi friend dem."

offer oral sex

The women say the only thing their flamboyant competitors have over them is the fact that they are willing to offer some services which they do not offer as freely.

"Dem a offer oral sex hard and mi hear man seh dem offer di best oral sex, but because dem dress up like woman nuff a di man dem nuh know," one prostitute told THE STAR.

Another prostitute told THE STAR that sometimes the men behave too badly. "Mi nuh really have nuh problem with them, mi have gay friend weh have dem little lover but di bwoy dem a go hard. The other day one a dem get stab up, di young little bwoy inna pink panty and black brassiere and di bwoy wrap up him (private part) between him leg, mi hear seh dem stab him up".

The ladies told THE STAR that the men often brag that they offer the best services in town, and often taunt them saying they do better business because they have "di good up good up."

They also said that they have warned the gays to stop dressing like women as the men who are unaware that they are having sexual relations with men might harm them when they find out.

The women who spoke freely about their trade were between 30 and 40 years old and at least one had been involved in the profession for 10 years. The women told THE STAR that they always use protection and said their prices range from upwards of $1,000.

When asked if she is not scared while being on the road at nights, one woman said, "Mi walk wid my protection and my head sick mi no play." She also said that she wants to stop as soon as "mi get my house, car and veranda".

Meanwhile on Facebook's On The Ground News Report page the comments speak for themselves as to the ignorance and homo negativity pervading our land. Some had been flagged before I previewed the page but here are a few of the remaining ones:

wtf...male hookers??.....dem all a cross dress too, pmz free so mi nuh kno how man can spend pon dem ugly ting deh

dwl...common a salt..they asses going to hell...lol

lmao... ths story is funny... wonder who mek di most money out dey the crossdressers or born women?? whoii... according to earlier reports a nuff married men goin to these cross dressers n they knowingly kno they r men... sad... cant trust ppl these dys... too many Down low bros in ths world..

police patrol new kgn at night to harass & extort men who stop on the road talking to the
female whores, dem nuh trouble di battyman dem, dem in the OPEN

Fire pon them, thats why jamaica under so much demonic attact and blood shed because them open the door and let satan in, the blood a jesus is against them. Where are the mothers of zion.

A long time dem tings de a gwaan roun a Holborn Rd/ Dominica Drv side kaw mi use to live inna dat area fi yrs. What appalls me is the fact that they take their 'beds' with them & carry out their bizniz with men of good repute right under the open skies. Mi nuh blame di whore dem - a fi dem trade dat. Nuh buyer - nuh sella; so mi seet!!!

Yep, some a unno man who a mek some frequent trip inna New Kingston and a go buy you know what, read and learn, and some a unno probably a weep or a fret if unno did go buy one of these male hookers!!! whooiiiiiii !!!

Thats why mi not looking to jump in the panty of no girl me just meet. We have to get to know each other first, we can make up for lost time when mi sure bout you.

Where do we go from here readers?

Peace and tolerance


Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Jamaica could get its own final court of appeal

Prime Minister, the Hon. Bruce Golding speaking in the House of Representatives on December 21.

Prime Minister, the Hon. Bruce Golding has suggested the possibility of Jamaica establishing its own final Court of Appeal as an option to the United Kingdom based Privy Council or the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

"We have to dispense with the Privy Council. We are not yet satisfied that in doing so, we must take out a final court which is an external entity, over which we do not have final control as a State," Mr. Golding said, during the debate on the Charter of Rights in the House of Representatives on December 21.

"We wish to consider this in great detail, and in earnest, we believe that we have the judicial experience to do it.

We believe that we have the maturity to do it. We wish to consider establishing our final court of appeal in Jamaica.

We would respectfully wish that this is something for which consideration ought to be given," he said.

Mr. Golding further noted that the adoption of a final court should be "put to Jamaicans in a referendum."

"I don't think any of us in here must ever make the mistake of presuming that there is any consensus among the people of Jamaica on this, nor must we ever seek to assume that the majority of those people will vote in a particular way," the Prime Minister said.

He pointed out that there are members of both the Government and Opposition in favour of the Caribbean Court of Justice as the final court of appeal for Jamaicans.

"We want to give the people something more than what they have, because what they have is something that is not even in their hands. We have given them rights, but we have to ensure that those rights remain in our hands," he added.

Meanwhile, Leader of the Opposition, the Most Hon. Portia Simpson Miller noted that the Opposition was in support of the CCJ as the country's final court of appeal.

The CCJ is the regional judicial entity established nine years ago, to be the final appellate court for member states of the Caribbean Community. While Jamaica is a signatory to the establishment of the CCJ, the country has yet to utilise the court, as cases from the island are still referred to the Privy Council.

Critics however say the only way to get the court is through a referendum and that the Prime Minister was not clear while on his feet in Parliament on December 21, 2010 wherein there was a war of words with the Opposition leader Portia Simpson Miller who warned that if the administration didn't leave and adopt the CCJ then her party if they regained power would. They also issued a statement this afternoon that the PM was confusing, the PM should have also consulted the opposition before announcing the move in parliament.

Frank Phipps asked do we need a further appeal from the Jamaican court in a case? he referred to a 2004 earlier today in a case where the same UK based Privy Council suggested whether what the Jamaican people wanted to leave them as the final appellate or adopt the Caribbean Court of Justice. He continued that there needs sufficient time to inform the people of Jamaica about what rights, freedoms and practices before the very referendum. There must be no political interference all political parties must not seek to win hearts and possible votes in this sensitive issue.

Ronnie Thwaites Opposition Member of Parliament suggests the issue may get cluttered as were previous Caribbean issues such as the Federation where political foot dragging impeded the decisions processes required.

Peace and tolerance


Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Are you a top or a bottom?

Seba's Space wrote this interesting take on role play in MSM sexual relationships, have a read:

Yes, it is an all too common question, one that can make the questioner seem sadistic and which sends shivers of embarrassment down the spine of the one asked.

Are you a top or bottom?

And the reason why this is a dreadful question to ask or answer is simple. Men, be they straight or gay, carry a certain machismo (call it ego) that they don't want publicly punctured by being shown up to be lesser men than they want to be seen as. That is why short, little men buy big cars and talk about them as though the size of their cars makes up for their lack of stature. It is exactly the same reason why men who marry women who are bigger than they are tend to be the most abusive. A small man will beat up his bigger woman just to prove to himself that even though he is smaller, he is more powerful. Small(er) men usually feel that they have more to prove and it is no accident, therefore, that the most successful, richest and most prominent men outside of the bedroom are men 5ft7" or shorter. Taller men take their looks for granted, and usually assume that their size will speak for itself so they have less need to shove, push and muscle their way into being respected.

But this is about sexual tops and bottoms. For a man to admit that they like to bottom takes a certain amount of confidence that only a tiny minority of men have. This is true even for straight men who like to be 'woman-handled.' Many men like to be tied up and thrown around like rag dolls by their women but are usually too timid to say it and so they will act out these fantasies with dominatrix prostitutes while they keep sex with their wives orthodox. When you put it in a gay perspective, it becomes even more fraught to admit (even to oneself) that one enjoys being buggered at all. It is bad enough having to admit to homo-sodomy, but also to admit to being the one sodomized? That is a bridge too far for most men since it denotes an admission of loss of power and control; it is an admission of weakness that few men will ever voice.

Yet, it need not be. The problem with the public's perception about gay lives is that everything gay men (but not gay women) do is reduced to a sexual act. Take away the sex and what remains is not very interesting to observers. But the moment you learn that Jonathan is dating Henry, the first question that usually comes to mind is "Who is the top?" even though you might not actually articulate it. Since there is nothing we can do about how the human mind works, this column will not attempt to dissuade anyone from thinking about gay men in terms of tops and bottoms. It is impossible to change that mindset.

What can be changed is the misconception that being gay is just about having sex, or that it is merely about homo-sodomy. Odd as it might seem, gay men (and women) are capable of having very deep feelings for each other that transcend sexual activity. They are capable of acts of kindness, thoughtfulness, and deep care that have nothing to do with taking any clothes off. When we speak about same gender loving, we are usually talking about companionship, sharing experiences, enjoying the company of a fellow man with whom you are bonded by a commitment and, yes, deep love. It doesn't matter that you might not even have any kind of sex with that man - indeed the test should be the strength of feeling(s) when you are not having sex with the man or woman you love. Once any bystanders understand that gay men and women are capable of loving like that, our relationships become a little less pigeon-holed into the top/bottom/homo-sodomy caricatures.

Obviously, the sexual dynamics are important and it is not realistic not to consider who is the stronger personality in a gay relationship. The reason why that is important is that, like in straight relationships where there has to be a focal point of strength in order to give the relationship direction, gay relationships, too, need a source of strength. The strength might come from physical size or prowess, financial clout, practicality, intellectual superiority or social versatility. Unless there is a demarcation of roles according to the strengths of the partners involved, any relationship, and especially any gay relationship, is doomed. But those attributes usually have nothing to do with who does what sexually behind closed doors.

But when it comes to who is buggering who, the truth is that there are very few gay men who will forever have no inclination to being buggered if they find someone they are truly, madly in love with. And the reason is that once you are in love, sex is sharing and so whatever you do with your partner ceases to be about a power struggle or a dominance test. The question of being a bottom ceases to be an indication of weakness because the love you have for each other transcends all that. Equally, men who absolutely will not accept being buggered, perhaps because of a previous experience that was traumatic, will find themselves succumbing to advances of someone they are in love with.

So, when a man says that he is absolutely and utterly a top, chances are that he has not found a loving relationship with anyone and all he has is sex for kicks. And men who plead to being explicitly bottom are likely closing their minds to the possibility of sharing more than a sex act with their partners. Generally, once love takes the place of raw sex, who is taking it in the behind (if at all) ceases to matter and those who dwell on top and bottom roles are thus missing the beauty of same gender loving, and are instead going for the raw, lust-filled and frantic sex that one can have with anyone once the sex johns hit one.

If there is nothing more than animal instinct involved, who is top or bottom matters infinitely. It is in such raw situations that even the pain and horror of being buggered is amplified. For, if it is all about sex, unless both of those involved are in the same place mentally, chances are that one of the players is likely to be more ready than the other and if, as is usually the case, it is the one who is topping who is more ready, there will be limited consideration for the one who is being torn into, making for a very uncomfortable experience to say the least. But where two people become one mentally, the issue of pain becomes immaterial and you can see that the physical body language of both partners is in sync. That is when whoever is top or bottom becomes secondary to the sexual union, and both the giver and receiver actually enjoy the physicality of the moment. You don't have to be a total top or bottom to achieve that kind of heavenly transportation but it certainly helps if, should you choose to, your mind is transported to that area in order to enjoy what should be the ultimate icing on the cake of same gender loving.

UN Votes To RESTORE “Sexual Orientation” To Anti-Execution Resolution

Thanks to TANYA DOMI for being on the ball

Five weeks ago today, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people were subjected to homophobia and religious and cultural extremism, thanks to a United Nations vote that removed “sexual orientation” from an ongoing resolution that protects people from arbitrary executions. Yes, the UN General Assembly on November 16 had in fact voted to allow LGBT people to be executed without cause.

Today, after a reported gas-leak forced evacuation of the building, a vote to restore the term “sexual orientation” to the UN General Assembly resolution on extra judicial executions is taking place, with U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice leading the effort.

Today, the UN voted in favor of restoring “sexual orientation” to the UN General Assembly resolution on extra judicial executions, by a margin of 109-41, with 35 abstentions.

The UN General Assembly’s Third Committee vote to remove the term “sexual orientation” from a draft resolution on extrajudicial killings last month won by a slim seven vote margin, 79 to 70, (17 abstentions and 26 absent,) but support for the final version of the resolution won with a lopsided victory at 165 votes in support and 10 absentions, one of which included the United States.

South African political leaders wielding religious fundamentalism, aided by Mormon and Christian Fundamentalists, including “The Family,” were behind the UN Vote allowing gays to be executed without cause.

“We are going to fight to restore the reference to sexual orientation,” Ambassador Rice said. ”We’re going to stand firm on this basic principle. And we intend to win.”

Rice delivered a passionate statement about the UN General Assembly (UNGA) vote that stripped out “sexual orientation” for the first time in 10 years, to a UN LGBT group on Dec. 10, commemorating International Human Rights Day.

“Here at the United Nations, like many of you, I was incensed by the recent vote in the General Assembly’s Third Committee, which eliminated any mention of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals from a resolution condemning extrajudicial killing of vulnerable people around the world. We fought hard for that reference when it came to the Committee vote, and we lost. But we’re not done yet. The resolution now goes to the full General Assembly. For countries that voted in the Commitee to keep the reference to sexual orientation, we thank you. For countries that haven’t yet done so, we urge you to join us. And for countries that have supported this reference in the past but charged course this year, we urge you to stand again with us and with all vulnerable people around the world at risk of violence.”

Last month, U.K. gay rights and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell called it “a shameful day in United Nations history.”

A winning outcome was not assured, according to Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality. Bromley also had said the “vote count is looking better, but it is going to be very, very, very close.”

During today’s vote, Belgium, representing the European Union said the restoration “significantly improves” the text of the resolution. The Nordic countries representative said they were “deeply disappointed” by the removal of the term “sexual orientation,” and added, “No one should be killed because of their sexual orientation.” Canada added a request to include “gender identity” to the text. Argentina and Mexico spoke in support of adding the term back into the resolution also, saying, “We’re not demanding that this group enjoy greater protections,” but, “every year there are people executed for reasons of their sexual orientation.”

Suggesting LGBT peoples are weak and invited discrimination, the United Arab Emirates spoke at length, and said it “rejects firmly” the “controversial” statement that has “no legal foundation.”

The African Group representative said they were “gravely alarmed” with the “undefined notion of sexual orientation,” and called the attempt to restore the term a “systematic attempt to create new rights,” and said it would “jeopardize the entire human rights framework… to achieve narrow political gain.”

In a major switch, South Africa voted for the resolution, after having voted to remove sexual orientation from the resolution last month. Rowanda also spoke very eloquently. But Zimbabwe, calling the text “adventurism,” also likened homosexuality to bestiality and said “individual proclivities should be just that.”

A significant effort had been launched by the Unitarian Universalist United Nations OfficeLGBT Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity project, who hosted its second UN consultation meeting on Dec. 13, in concert with the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), the St. Paul’s Foundation for International Reconciliation and the Union Theological Seminary and 40 leaders of faith, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and LGBT activists to discuss the UNGA vote and the increasingly hostile environment for LGBT people in Eastern Africa.

According to Ryan Ubuntu Olson, the Unitarian’s LGBT-SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) director, there has been a lot of concern at the UN about how a negative vote by the UNGA that would not restore “sexual orientation” to the resolution would affect other efforts to advance LGBT rights at the UN.

“Many people are worried and it is not clear how the votes are going to go,” Olson said.

In response and support of Ambassador Rice’s efforts, the UN Faith Coalition for LGBT Human Rights issued a resolution on Dec. 18th which “fully affirms and supports the proposed actions of Ambassador Rice … to restore the prohibition of the violent targeting and extrajudicial killing of people who are vulnerable because of their sexual orientation.” The resolution also urges UN member states to abstain from the vote to restore “sexual orientation” if they can not support it.

ARC International and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commissionhave also been organizing NGO activists who have been working the vote to restore “sexual orientation” to the UNGA resolution. For more information on the UN vote and to learn more about organizing for UN LGBT related issues go to the ARC website.

here is more on the activities:


Sunday, December 19, 2010

Major lobbying effort underway to reverse UN vote OK'ing killing of LGBT

By Paul Canning

Various international bodies have joined the American initiative to reverse last month's UN vote to remove sexual orientation from a resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

Arc International has singled out the following countries for lobbying:
Latin American and Caribbean: Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname.

Africa: States which might be approached for support include South Africa, as well as the six African States that endorsed the UN joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity: Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Mauritius, Cape Verde, Sao Tome & Principe.

Other States might be encouraged to abstain or refrain from voting, rather than opposing human rights, eg: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, United Republic of Tanzania.

Asia/Pacific: Fiji, Kazakhstan, Nauru, Palau, Philippines, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Japan, South Korea, India, Nepal, Timor-Leste

Central/Eastern Europe: Albania, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Turkey
The vote will take place 20 December. Arc have called for people to urgetheir government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to support the text of the resolution calling on states to protect lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people from unlawful killings. They note that it is "also useful to send a copy of any message to the ambassador of your country in New York."

Arc's historical note containing more information on this resolution follows "and you can share it with your government."

They say:
You better know your country. Feel free to adapt these data to the context of your country or region, while maintaining a constructive approach.

It's a good idea to ask a specific answer to your query. If time permits, you can request an urgent meeting to discuss the matter further.

If your government has failed on the inclusion of sexual orientation was the last time, encourage them to support the reference Monday. If your government objected to the reference, encourage them to support the model - or at least to refrain from or avoid voting against human rights. If your government has supported the reference, encourage them to vote accordingly on Monday and ask them to urge other states to vote in favor of inclusion.
Arc have also provided a record of votes on the amendment last month, "so you can see if your government has supported the reference to sexual orientation, opposed, abstained or has not voted (DNV)."

You can keep Arc informed of the response of your government by emailing coordination@arc-international.net

Resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions: Some points to consider

Resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions: Some points to consider

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Cuba may have same sex marriage legalized by July 2011

(right) Mariela Castro Espín, daughter of Cuban leader Raúl Castro

Reports indicate that the Cuban Parliament will seek approval of legislation legalizing same-sex in July of next year. So reported Dr. Alberto Roque, speaking on behalf of Cuba’s National Center for Sexual Education ( CENESEX) during a lecture at the XXV International Conference ILGA in Sao Paulo (Brazil). He was participating in a panel on public policy and sexual diversity with members of the Ministry of Health of Brazil, Germany and Cuba.

Roque spoke about the advancement of LGBT rights in Cuba during the last decade, as opposed "to is believed by the collective imagination." This progress comes from the implementation of an Education Strategy for Self-Respect Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, led by CENESEX (which is headed by Mariela Castro Espín, daughter of Cuban leader Raúl Castro) and other institutions.

He cited the work of the Cuban Conference Against Homophobia during the last three years, the creation of networks for lesbian health throughout the country, and the reinstatement of sex-change operations and support for transgendered individuals.

Roque said that in the legislative framework, discussion by the Cuban parliament of its new Family Code, which recognizes same-sex domestic partnerships and respect for transgendered people is pending the start of the new session. Despite resistance from some policymakers, it is reported that this debate is scheduled to go on in July 2011.

Finally, the activist said that after the Cuban vote in favor of the amendment that eliminated sexual orientation from the items listed in the resolution condemning extrajudicial killings, the Cuban authorities regretted being the only Latin American country taking this position, noting that it thus joined countries that legally condemn homosexuality.

In an unprecedented move, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla met with LGBT representatives to explain that this vote had not meant a change in policy on these issues but had responded to important matters at stake in Cuba’s solidarity with some African nations.

As a result, activists succeeded in pushing for an official statement from Cuba’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations where the Cuban Government expresses its rejection of extrajudicial killings, including those committed on the grounds of sexual orientation.

One wonders what the Jamaica Labour Party and the "Not in My Cabinet" Prime Minister will say to this after justifying their stance against homosexuality in general by using a farcical gay marriage debate in 2009. He said in essence that gay marriage would destroy the family as we know it and let's not forget the previous Peoples National Party administration through its then Attorney General A.J. Nicholson issued a statement towards the same effect.

see also: Opposition sides with Government against same sex marriage check out the audio by scrolling to the relevant post that matches the title.

and Gay Marriage, an invented issue by the Christian right, Gay Parenting: A view from the ground

In his presentation in parliament at the time Bruce Golding lamented that he was surprised that even South Africa granted rights to same sex partners and that his administration was not going to follow everyone else, now that it may hit so close to home let's see how it plays out and if our limp-wristed advocates will do something or even say anything on the issue. Gay marriage was only hinted to by way of a discussion in the early nineties in a newspaper article but was never really pushed as the buggery law and homophobic violence issues far out weigh the need for same sex marriage recognition by the state then and even to this day. The ceremonial and romantic aspects are unique to each couple what persons are asking for is the state to grant the same benefits such as pension etc as heterosexual couples.

Peace and tolerance.


Monday, December 13, 2010

US study examines effect of water-based and silicon-based lubricant for vaginal & anal intercourse

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A new study by sexual health researchers at Indiana University found that women who used lubricant during sex reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction and pleasure.

The study, involving 2,453 women, is the largest systematic study of this kind, despite the widespread commercial availability of lubricant and the gaps in knowledge concerning its role in alleviating pain or contributing to other health issues.

"In spite of the widespread availability of lubricants in stores and on the Internet, it is striking how little research addresses basic questions of how personal lubricants contribute to the sexual experience," said Debby Herbenick, associate director of the Center for Sexual Health Promotion. "These data clearly show that use of the lubricants in our study was associated with higher ratings of sexual pleasure and satisfaction and low rates of genital symptoms."

While these findings, reported in the November issue of the "Journal of Sexual Medicine," involve the use of water-based and silicone-based lubricant, researchers also found that study participants reported fewer genital symptoms -- and, in particular, fewer reports of genital pain -- when they used a water-based lubricant.

Michael Reece, director of the Center for Sexual Health Promotion and co-author of the study, said public health professionals have long recommended the use of lubricants as an important safer sex tool, particularly when used with latex condoms.

"These findings help us to reinforce to sexually active individuals that not only are lubricants important to safer sex but that they also contribute to the overall quality of one's sexual experiences," he said.

Here are some of the findings:

  • More than 70 percent of the time that lubricant was used for vaginal or anal intercourse, study participants indicated that they did so in order to make sex more pleasurable; more than 60 percent of women indicated this was the case during masturbation.
  • More than one third of the time that lubricant was used for vaginal sex, anal sex or masturbation, women indicated that they used lubricant because it was fun to do so.
  • Sizable proportions of women also indicated that they chose to use lubricant in order to reduce the risk of tearing, particularly for anal intercourse.

For the study, "Association of Lubricant Use with Women's Sexual Pleasure, Sexual Satisfaction, and Genital Symptoms: A Prospective Daily Diary Study," 2,453 women ages 18-68 participated in an Internet-based, double-blind assessment of the use of six lubricants during solo masturbation and partnered sexual activities. Women were randomly assigned to use one of six lubricants, four of which were water-based lubricants and two of which were silicone-based lubricants, during two weeks of a five-week study period.

Analyses of more than 10,000 acts of penile-vaginal intercourse, and more than 3,000 masturbation experiences, showed that participants' ratings of sexual pleasure and sexual satisfaction were significantly higher when a water-based lubricant or silicone-based lubricant was used compared to sex without a lubricant. Far fewer penile-anal intercourse events occurred; however, ratings of sexual pleasure and satisfaction were significantly higher when water-based lubricant was used during anal intercourse as compared to sex without a lubricant.

For all types of sex, genital symptoms were rarely reported and were generally less likely to occur when lubricant was used. More than half of the time that women used lubricant, they applied it to their own or their partner's genitals, or directly to their fingers and in about 10 percent of instances of vaginal intercourse, lubricant was applied directly to a sex toy.

"These findings demonstrate how lubricant can be used during foreplay or sex play with a partner, and incorporated into a couple's sexual experience," Herbenick said.


The water-based lubricants were, in alphabetical order, Astroglide® (Biolm, Inc.), Just Like Me® (Pure Romance), K-Y Liquid® (Johnson & Johnson) and Sweet Seduction® (Pure Romance). The silicone-based lubricants were Pure Pleasure® (Pure Romance) and Wet Platinum® (Trigg Laboratories).

In addition to Reece and Herbenick, co-authors include Devon Hensel, assistant professor, IU School of Medicine; Stephanie Sanders, The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction and the Department of Gender Studies at IU; Dennis Fortenberry, professor of pediatrics, IU School of Medicine; and Kristen Jozkowski, doctoral student at the Center for Sexual Health Promotion. Pure Romance, which also distributes three of the six lubricants used in the study, provided in-kind support for the study.

To speak with the researchers, contact Tracy James, IU Office of University Communications, at 812-855-0084 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 812-855-0084 end_of_the_skype_highlighting and traljame@indiana.edu. To speak with a representative of Pure Romance, contact Genine Fallon at genine@pureromance.com.


John Maxwell's "The Abomination of Cowardice" (Flashback 2004)

MAXWELL... was a fearless and passionate defender of land reform and environmental causes. He also was one of the few Jamaican journalists who spoke openly to tolerance and looking at homosexuality squarely on the table in the hay days of journalism in the seventies through to now.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Jamaicans-in-US-hail-John-Maxwell#ixzz180LdpuG6

John Maxwell passed on December 10th, Human Rights Day ironically he championed environmental rights with such vigor it got folks to wake up, probably the most memorable stint was the housing project slated to replace a major section of Hope Gardens which by his public protest and influence got it moved to Long Mountain yet still under controversial circumstances while attracting unprecedented media attention to this kind of issue as we knew then politics was more the order of the day for talk radio. In fact he is responsible for current talk radio formats as he was the first to host "The Public Eye" on JBC AM then now known as radio 2, a move resisted by other stations at the time as music formats were more popular and uptown downtown culture clash kept certain things quiet. He was vilified for carrying issues of rights for household helpers as they and other marginalized groups never had a voice on the public airwaves.
Here is a piece published in Jamaica Observer (now unlinked) but republished on his personal blog Maxwell House. Rest in peace John Maxwell he certainly taught us how to vent and tackle issues well.

Abomination of Cowardice
A decade ago, when Buju Banton electrified the dancehall community with his paean to murder - Boom! Bye-Bye - I was the replacement for Trevor Monroe at the Annual Awards of the Public Relations Society of Jamaica.
In my short address to them I questioned whether in tolerating 'songs' such as Banton's, we were not aligning ourselves on the side of violence and outlawry and on the way to creating classes of people entirely without human rights.
My message appeared to be well received; some people came up afterwards to thank me for speaking out and the television cameramen and reporters even asked for copies of my speech.
Nothing was reported anywhere, as far as I can remember.
And nobody, anywhere else, made any comment about this barbarous piece of incitement to the murder of homosexuals and police informers.
Since then, the prime minister and his then minister of national security both set themselves against any reform of the laws against "sodomy". According to Mr Patterson, a Queen's Counsel, he was not going to "legalise homosexuality".
Mr Seaga, the leader of the Opposition, has an even more squalid history. It was he who implied in a public speech that the prime minister was homosexual, which, as I have said before, is in this country, the most obvious incitement to murder that can be imagined. It was also a guarantee that our brave PM would do nothing to suggest that Mr Seaga could possibly be right.
Now, in answer to a report by Human Rights Watch, the Government has told them to mind their own business, stop bullying Jamaica and, effectively, not pay too much attention to our propensity for killing each other. Especially not if the murdered are homosexuals or suspected to be.

Which is why I am troubled by my friend Burchell Whiteman's agreeing to be the official spokesman for the Government's response to the Human Rights Watch report. "We find the approach of the organisation unacceptably insensitive," he said.
Meanwhile vigilante posses of gardeners are busy hunting down suspected gays in upscale Norbrook, no doubt with the approval of their employers.

Several years ago, various media outlets carried a rumour that homosexuals were planning a march on Jamaica House. I don't remember anyone believing the story, but the media ran with it anyway.
On the day appointed, dozens of idiots armed with cutlasses descended on Half-Way-Tree Square prepared to teach the homosexuals a lesson.
None, of course, appeared. As I have said in an earlier column, it was a uniquely Jamaican occasion, because I don't believe that anywhere else in the world would the press have been so willing to spread such a plainly ridiculous and dangerous story, given the homophobic environment; nor would there be, anywhere else in the world, people idle enough to assemble for a sporting massacre, as it were.

It was a low point in Jamaican civilisation and none of our leaders said a word.

Unfortunately, on the question of homophobia and homosexuality, the press is at least as backward as the majority of fundamentalist Jamaica. Reading the advice columns demonstrates just how ignorant and illiterate people - including some counsellors - are about anything concerning sex.
Betty Ann Blaine, a very nice lady who is also a well-known social worker, delivered herself of the dictum that homosexuality is 'learned behaviour', and my colleague Mark Wignall is as terrified of homosexuals as some Jamaicans are of lizards.

To deal with Ms Blaine first: there is no authority anywhere for anyone to say that homosexual behaviour is learned. On the contrary, controlled experiments with rats under environmental stress produced 'homosexual' intercourse - which surprised the investigators because that was not what they were looking for. And homosexual pairing is well established among certain birds.
There is also some evidence that there may be genetic predispositions which may or may not be reinforced by nurture. The fact is that no one really knows, which, I suppose, is as good a reason as any for murder.

Mark Wignall has never been shy to expose his super-macho side in his columns, and last week's column was vintage stuff. In it, Mark described how alarmed he became when some men he suspected were homosexuals began to take notice of him in a bank.

"It was very obvious from their style of dress and their effeminate gesticulations that they were homosexual. I could not help but be amazed at how open they were with their 'antics'.

"Other males in the line were either unconcerned or smiling, while a few of the women were staring at them open-mouthed. In my mind I named the talkative two Daisy and Buttercup."
[Strange that men were unconcerned! There must be something wrong here.]

"At one stage Daisy playfully slapped Buttercup on a forearm then did a quick pirouette. Buttercup responded by saying, 'Lorks, yu gwan yah, mind yu pap yu line'. They were touching each other but the body contacts were just short of being considered intimate."
Holy Cats! Dalliance in a BANK !!! This is depravity of the first order.
"As I watched them keenly, searching for a column (sic!), Buttercup grabbed Daisy's hand. Oh, my God, I thought, they are going to kiss. [Ever the dispassionate reporter] But it was even worse. Buttercup was staring at me and pointing."
Luckily, not panting.
At that stage, Mark did what any red-blooded Jamaican stud would do: he drew his cellphone and dialled his girlfriend, who was sitting a few yards away. Poor 'Chupski'! She was no help at all, laughing at Mark's embarrassment and teasing him: "'It's you he likes, baby,' she said in jest as I saw him alternating between staring at me and playfully touching his friend. Then horror of horrors, he locked his eyes on me, broke out of the line then came towards me smiling. 'Is you name Mark Wignall?' he asked.

"I was still on the phone and Chupski was straining to keep from exploding in uncontrolled laughter. I hung up the phone and half-turned to him. 'Yes,' I said. He turned away from me and said, 'Ah him, Sidney, ah him.'"
The idea of Mark hiding behind a cellphone is worthy of Groucho Marx imitating "September Morn".

" Everyone was now staring at us and my girlfriend was on the verge of hysterics. She was certainly enjoying herself."
[In a serious crisis like this, women are utterly undependable]
"Under my breath I was saying, make him go away, make him go away."
[When threatened by wasps, Jamaicans repeat at top speed 'Our Father, Our Father']
"Then, in a surprising language transformation he said, 'Mr Wignall, I buy the Observer just to read you.'"
[If you're looking for an anti-climax, look elsewhere.]
"Someone needed to have written a book titled 'How heterosexuals should respond kindly to homosexuals without making it seem that heterosexuals like them."

I obviously have a problem. Several of my friends are homosexual - or at least I believe they are - but none of them has ever made even the slightest pass at me. Or perhaps I wasn't looking hard enough.
What Mark really needs is the sexual equivalent of mosquito repellent.
He is obviously convinced that homosexuality is contagious. It is easy to laugh, but homophobia in Jamaica, and elsewhere, carries death in its wake.
Long, long ago, I was in a bar when somehow the topic of oral sex came up. One particular fossil, an otherwise likeable fellow, declared at the top of his voice that if he knew that anyone in the bar had ever engaged in such an 'act' he would cease to speak to or drink with him, forever. When one of my more adventurous friends confessed to this abomination, our fossil raised his glass on high, smashed it to the ground and stalked out.
Religion has become THE growth industry in Jamaica. Thirty years ago, returning from Montego Bay with David Coore in his car, one of us ventured the opinion that Jamaica seemed to have as many churches as bars; the other suggested that we submit an estimate to the Guinness Book of World Records.

Today, structural adjustment has drastically reduced the number of bars, but there has been an exponential growth in the number of churches. If you can't sell hairpins and shoe polish on the sidewalk it seems the next most popular enterprises are driving a taxi or renting a tent to start a church and sell damnation.
None of these takes any particular skill. And you need no licence to preach. The result has been a flood, some would say a plethora, of preachers, all up to speed with the Ten Commandments and the rest of the book of Leviticus. For these characters the Bible is - they say - the literal word of God.
Which makes me wonder how so many of them appear to survive sexual adventures with their parishioners when it says in Leviticus 22.22 that if a man be caught in bed with another's wife, both shall be put to death.

Death, usually by stoning, is decreed for all sorts of abominations, including homosexual behaviour, and for fornication when the woman is engaged to be married to someone else. A woman lacking a provable maidenhead should be stoned to death, regardless of the fact that even then it must have been known that maidenheads can be absent for any number of non-sexual reasons.
Some are born without. Bastards shall not be allowed into the priesthood, even unto the 10th generation, although some preachers clearly defy that rule. Re Wignall, it seems particularly hard that Chupski was obviously obeying the Biblical injunction that she should not aid her man in a fight by grabbing the testicles of his opponent. To do that would merit her losing her hand. And of course, "every one that curseth a father or mother shall surely be put to death" Lev. 20 v 9.

The problem with the Bible is that it was written by men and transcribed and translated by men and the language of King James is not the same as we use today, nor are our prejudices. Besides which, Leviticus is obviously a survival manual for nomads living off the land on which they were trespassers and subject to attack by the owners of that land.

A fierce and brutal discipline was necessary and an overwhelming esprit de corps, to persuade the people to ignore their own hardships and continue to travel for what must have seemed like eternity in pursuit of milk and honey. No one knows if its strictures were actually obeyed.

We are not faced with quite the same problems today. Instead, through the triumph of the free market, the disappearance of what used to be called the Public Interest and a general reversion to Survival of the Greediest, we will seek any authority to behave badly toward our neighbours. As Antonio, the Merchant of Venice said: the Devil can quote scripture to his purpose, obviously aware that in his temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, the Devil quoted the Psalms.
If Jamaicans were really serious, we would listen to the messengers before stoning them, just in case they made sense, and/or, as in this case, they spoke the truth. We know that. But most of us are too intimidated by the hooligans to say so.
And the hooligans have on their side the media, sections of the church and people like the prime minister, the leader of the opposition and the former minister of national security who have done nothing to lead their people out of the darkness into which they have latterly fallen. Norman Manley should be alive at this hour!

Thanks again Mr. Maxwell

Peace and tolerance


Sunday, December 12, 2010

USA to Introduce LGBTI Rights Resolution to UN General Assembly

United States Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice (in photo above) announced on December 10th International Human Rights Day that the United States will introduce an amendment in the General Assembly to prohibit the violent targeting of people based on their sexual orientation.

The move comes in response to an amendment last month at the General Assembly’s Third Committee on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Executions, which eliminated any mention of sexual orientation from aresolution condemning the extrajudicial killing of vulnerable people around the world. A coalition of conservative states, mostly from Africa and the Middle East, successfully blocked “sexual orientation” from being included among a list of fifteen groups that are particularly vulnerable to extrajudicial killings. Typically, “sexual orientation” would be included among other groups like religious minorities, refugees, members of indigenous communities, street children, etc. But not this time.

Ambassador Rice said:

"First of all, I am particularly proud to say that the United States is the newest member of the LGBT Core Group here at the United Nations. That decision was long overdue, and it gives me great personal satisfaction to sit before you representing the United States today.
I’m also particularly proud that one of the very first decisions our new Administration made at the United Nations was to join the General Assembly’s Statement on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, which condemns violence, harassment, and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

This past July, the United States, working with other delegations, won NGO consultative status for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. That made it the first LGBT group from the United States to secure this status—and one of only a few LGBT groups worldwide. Some didn’t want to see LGBT rights recognized at the United Nations. But with others, we rolled up our sleeves and we got it done.

The State Department’s annual Human Rights Report now includes a section on how LGBT persons are treated in every country. And last summer, the State Department announced a new grant to provide emergency aid to some human rights defenders, either because they work on LGBT issues or because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender themselves.
Even as we work to support LGBT persons abroad, we are leading by example and pushing to ensure that their rights are fully realized here at home.

Last year, President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which made it a federal crime to violently attack someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Law enforcement officials in this country now have the tools to respond to gay-bashing and related violent acts wherever they occur in the United States. And for the first time, the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” became part of U.S. law to provide explicit protection to LGBT individuals.

Last summer, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum extending, to the extent permissible under current law, federal benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of U.S. government employees. Secretary of State Clinton extended benefits for overseas State Department employees, and this act, I’m proud to say, has served as a model for similar changes for LGBT Americans working for the UN Secretariat.

The Administration renewed the Ryan White CARE Act, which provides lifesaving medical services and support to Americans living with HIV/AIDS. We’ve eliminated the discriminatory ban that kept people out of the United States based on their HIV status. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is opening core housing programs to all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. And President Obama has appointed more LGBT officials to his government than the previous two Administrations combined.

But we have got a great deal more work to do.
Around the world, laws that criminalize gay relationships don’t just violate human rights. They hinder social cohesion, economic development, and public health. They reduce trust and cooperation among nations. So the United States will work together with our fellow Core Group members to urge countries that still have such laws to repeal them. And I hope we will all work together to develop a sustained, serious plan of action to decriminalize homosexuality around this world that we share.

Here at the United Nations, like many of you, I was incensed by the recent vote in the General Assembly’s Third Committee, which eliminated any mention of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals from a resolution condemning extrajudicial killing of vulnerable people around the world. We fought hard for that reference when it came to a Committee vote, and we lost. But we’re not done yet. The resolution now goes to the full General Assembly. For countries that voted in the Committee to keep the reference to sexual orientation, we thank you. For countries that haven’t yet done so, we urge you to join us. And for countries that have supported this reference in the past but changed course this year, we urge you to stand again with us and with all vulnerable people around the world at risk of violence. We are going to fight to restore the reference to sexual orientation. We’re going to stand firm on this basic principle. And we intend to win.

At home, President Obama continues to support repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, so that committed gay couples can have the same rights and responsibilities as any married couple. We must protect the rights of all families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination, and ensuring that federal LGBT employees receive equal benefits.
And then, of course, there’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” That law violates fundamental American principles of fairness, integrity, and equality—and President Obama remains fully committed to working with Congress to repeal it. Like the President, I was extremely disappointed that yesterday, yet another filibuster prevented the Senate from moving forward with the National Defense Authorization Act.

That important legislation had the bipartisan support of a clear majority of Senators, but it was blocked by a minority of Senators. This erodes our security, as well as our principles. In this time of war and challenge, all brave and patriotic Americans who are gay or lesbian and want to serve in their country’s armed forces should be able to do so openly. We only weaken our national security and diminish our military readiness by depriving ourselves of the service of patriots determined to defend the country they love. Yesterday’s disappointing vote is by no means the end of our efforts, and our Administration is urging the Senate to revisit this important issue during the ongoing lame-duck session. President Obama strongly believes that it’s time for this discriminatory policy to finally end."

Thursday, December 9, 2010

"Tell Me Pastor" inconsistencies

Find it, retrieve it and call it … as we look at discusions in the public domain about matters relating to GLBTQI issues. Here the supposed female letter writer says she basically found out her husband is same sex attracted as well. On December 6th however a similar letter appeared in the Star as well about a woman who found out her man is supposedly having same sex relations while with her, coincidence or just the continued sensationalism from the Jamaica Star so as to sell papers?

The December 6th piece is available here from GLBTQ Jamaica Wordpress edition entitled "Tell Me Pastor" on bisexuality. Although we have gotten used to the pattern I think it is important to continue to track and point out these infractions coupled with the glaring inconsistencies at times as there are some folks who read Pastor Dumas's columns, blogs and follow his radio show ardently.

Pastor Dumas the regular radio talk show host, Psychologist and Star News Tell Me Pastor columnist for once asks some sensible questions in the beginning of his response and also suggests the letter writer must decide whether she wants to continue the relationship. Ironically the December 6th letter which was similar in nature and his subsequent response Pastor was noticeably terse with his response and referred as usual to the abomination clauses of the Bible to justify his opinion that homosexuality is wrong, I guess his justification maybe that the December 6th letter writer was not in a marriage and was more a common law union without children while this writer has been married and has three children for him and her late knowledge of his same sex attractions.

Why the two different responses, why throw the good book at one and then a more clinical and politically correct suggestions for counseling for the other?

Here is todays entry and his response, please view both pieces and compare the two, don't just take my word for it.

Peace and tolerance


Letter writer:

Dear Pastor,

I have heard stories about women becoming lesbians, but how would you counsel a wife who has found out her husband was homosexual - after she had three children for him?


Pastor's response:

Dear A.G.,

In counselling, there is a direct and indirect approach to problems. There are times when the counsellor should say, "This is what you ought to do." But there are times when the counsellor should allow the 'counselee' to arrive at his or her decision. But the counsellor should give guidance.

If you and your husband have had three children together and you have recently found out he is a homosexual, he has been living a lie and perhaps putting your health at risk. Evidently, he has a preference. What is his preference? Is it you as his wife or his male partner(s)?

Both of you should go to see a psychologist after you have discussed the matter between yourselves. You have to decide whether you are willing to tolerate this man and to share him with another man. How will you relate to your husband for the rest of your life? Should you have him as a lover or a friend or just the father of your children? Is divorce a good alternative? Can your life ever be normal again?

If the children are young and do not understand what is happening between both of you, can both of you live in the same house and don't cohabit? Would he be allowed to bring his male partner in the house? If you believe you should divorce this man, can you pay your own bills? Your life will never be the same. Because this man has disrespected you, the only way you can keep your sanity is to pray for him every day. But even if you were to forgive him, it does not mean you would have to remain with him as his wife. You will need all the professional help you can get.

I wish you well, and you have my prayers.