Daily Archives: January 16, 2015

Differences Between Spanish and Ladino

Judaeo Spanish or Ladino is the language of the Sephardic Jews of Europe. It is dying out now, but it still has tens of thousands of speakers. It was created when Spanish Jews left Spain around the time of the Inquisition to find refuge in various areas of the Mediterranean, particularly in Turkey.

It is 1492 Spanish mixed with 4% Hebrew, about 20% Turkish and Arabic, 60% Old Spanish and Portuguese and 7% other. Spanish has 60% intelligibility of Ladino and 95% when written. This is a language frozen in time, the Spanish spoken when they were expelled from Spain in the 1400’s.

Ladino:

Shalom (or Bonjur ) Komo estash vozotros? Yo esto muy bien, gracias. Esto es lo ke me paso oy: Primeiro, yo me levanto i entonses desayuno. Me visto i pongo mi chapeo i salgo de la kaza. Yo vo al trabasho i kuando regreso, dayaneo. Despues ke yo me levanto miro de la bentana i veo ke mis amigos van a Bet Knesset . Esto tarde, tyengo menester de darme prisa porke tyengo la avtaha de avlar kon el rabi. Despues ya es ora de acostarme. Shalom!

Spanish:

¡Hola! ¿Como estais (estan)? Estoy muy bien gracias. Esto es lo que me paso hoy: Primero, me levanto y entonces desayuno. Pongo la ropa  (Me visto , only in Spain) y pongo mi sombrero y salgo de la casa. Voy al trabajo y cuando regreso, descanso. Despues que me levanto, miro de la ventana y veo que mis amigos van a la sinagoga. Estoy tarde, necesito de darme prisa proque tengo la esperanza de hablar con el rabi. Despues, ya es hora de acostarme.

English:

Hello! How are you (all)? I am very well thanks. This is what happened to me today: First, I get up and then I eat breakfast. I get dressed and I put on my hat and I leave the house. I go to work and when I return, I rest. After I get up I look out of the window and I see that my friends are going to the synagogue. I am late, I need to hurry because I have the hope to speak with the rabbi. Afterward, it is already time to go to bed.

List of languages from which each Ladino word is:

Shalom– Hebrew (hello, goodbye)
Bonjur – French (hello)
estash – Old Spanish (you pl. are)
chapeo – Old Portuguese
vo – old form of voy in Old Spanish (I go)
trabasho – Spanish (modern= trabajo)
dayaneo – Turkish – (I rest). It is conjugated like all Spanish verbs. It is slightly adapted from Turkish so you can conjugate it like Spanish.
Bet Knesset – Hebrew – synagogue
menester – Old Spanish and Portuguese (to need)
avtaha – Turkish (hope)

3 Comments

Filed under Afroasiatic, Altaic, Arabic, European, Europeans, Hebrew, History, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Italic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Jews, Language Families, Linguistics, Oghuz, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Romance, Semitic, Spanish, Turkic, Turkish

“Kill the Indian First”

Here.

From an Indian expat who has lived in Bangkok and Nairobi, talking about why nobody likes Indian people wherever on Earth they go. It’s because of how they act. In a word, they act terrible. Why? Is it in their genes? Of course not. It is culture, culture, culture, culture. It’s not racist to criticize cultures.

No one one is forcing them to act like insufferable pricks. People can change their culture anytime they want to, like tomorrow. Or today. Or yesterday! They just don’t want to. The only thing they know is how to act awful and make enemies and negatively influence people everywhere they go. If someone gets thrown out of every bar in town in every one of the twenty cities he has lived in the last decade, would you say that the bar owners are racist? Are they mean? Are they picking on some poor innocent guy who never does anything wrong? If you get the same negative reception and reputation everywhere you go, maybe you should look in the mirror. Eh?

14 Comments

Filed under Culture, East Indians, Race/Ethnicity, South Asians

Racism and the Republican Party

From here.

Not every Republican is racist, but every racist that I personally know votes Republican.

This sums up precisely the relationship between the Republican Party, racism and its base.

When did this sordid strategy start?

The rot started during Nixon’s Southern Strategy and Agnew’s Creative Polarization, when some high-ranking Republicans began using racism as a tool. During the Reagan Administration , most Republicans were using bigotry as a tool. Now, bigotry is using Republicans as tools…

Let us not forget the late Lee Atwater’s role in all of this.

That pretty much sums up the sleazy history of the transformation of the Party of Lincoln to the Party of Willie Horton.

Yuck.

7 Comments

Filed under Politics, Racism, Republicans, US Politics, White Racism

The Reality of “I Am a Man and I Got HIV from a Woman”

From the Internet:

I cannot tell you how many heterosexual-identifying married men I tested and counseled for HIV in the past. Can you guess their primary reason for taking an HIV antibody test? Men who have (and secretly act on) same-sex attraction yet are married to women and refuse to identify as bisexual or gay. This is precisely why the CDC has the category, “men who have sex with men”…Your lips to God’s ears Joe. In my AIDS/HIV work with the MSM community and hearing the stories of sex workers, the vast majority of their clientele are married men.

In other words, a very large number of the men in the US who say they got HIV from a woman actually got it from a man. That’s right. They’re lying.

I remember early in the epidemic back in the 1980’s a man who had some sort of high office in public health in New York said that they had had several hundred men in New York so far who said they got HIV from a woman. However, via careful and long-term questioning of these men, their partners and their friends and associates, it was discovered that every single one of these men was lying. They had all gotten HIV from via gay sex with a man.

A prominent public health official some time ago described HIV transmission in the US this way:

HIV goes from men to women, and then it stops.

This is the main reason why the “heterosexual HIV epidemic” never took in the US.

That is not to say a man cannot get HIV from a woman in the US, but it is definitely a difficult way to transmit the virus.

8 Comments

Filed under Health, Homosexuality, Illness, Public Health, Sex

The Rarity of Female-to-Male HIV Infection

I am re-posting this from Mark Graybill’s excellent blog. Mark is also a frequent commenter on this site and he is smart as a whip. I have written a number of posts on this topic, but I never bothered to chase down the references.

I would like to add that I have looked at the vaginal HIV titers of the HIV subtype in the US, and the levels are so low that I am wondering how it can even transmit. However, there is a virus subtype in Thailand that is much more easily transmitted female to male, and the vaginal titers are quite a bit higher with that subtype, so that may explain higher rates of female to male HIV transmission in Thailand.

Although it’s not something commonly discussed, people have claimed that HIV transmission is primarily homosexual rather than heterosexual, because heterosexual men only rarely contract HIV from their sexual partners. The idea is a controversial one, so I thought I would look into it for today. If it is true, the reason would probably be mechanical, a simple consequence of the inefficiency of the female-to-male transmission route. Although female secretions do come into contact with the male’s external urethral orifice in heterosexual sex, male ejaculate introduces seminal fluid directly into the female reproductive tract; the male’s very act of orgasm may even wash female fluids out of the male urethra.

This is, of course, a rational argument but not an empirical one. Do observations support expectations? One 1991 study, Female-to-Male Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus, reported on data from 379 couples:

The majority of couples were monogamous since 1978, white, and in their 30s. Most partners did not know their serostatus at entry into the study.

We observed one probable instance (1%) of female-to-male transmission compared with 20% transmission rates in the female partners of infected men. All couples were sampled in the same way. Male index cases were more likely to be symptomatic than female index cases.

The odds of male-to-female transmission were significantly greater than female-to-male transmission. The one case of female-to-male transmission was unique in that the couple reported numerous unprotected sexual contacts and noted several instances of vaginal and penile bleeding during intercourse. (Padian, Shiboski, & Jewell, 1991)

A follow-up study replicated these findings:

Participants were recruited from health care providers, research studies, and health departments throughout Northern California, and they were interviewed and examined at various study clinic sites. A total of 82 infected women and their male partners and 360 infected men and their female partners were enrolled. Over 90% of the couples were monogamous for the year prior to entry into the study; <3% had a current sexually transmitted disease (STD). The median age of participants was 34 years, and the majority were white.

…Overall, 68 (19%) of the 360 female partners of HIV-infected men (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.0–23.3%) and two (2.4%) of the 82 male partners of HIV-infected women (95% CI 0.3–8.57%) were infected. History of sexually transmitted diseases was most strongly associated with transmission.

Male-to-female transmission was approximately eight times more efficient than female-to-male transmission and male-to-female per contact infectivity was estimated to be 0.0009 (95% CI 0.0005–0.001). Over time, the authors observed increased condom use (p < 0.001) and no new infections. Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low, and STD’s may be the most important co-factor for transmission. (Padian et al., 1997)

Studies carried out by other research teams returned similar results:

To compare the efficiency of male-to-female and female-to-male sexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), we studied 524 female partners of HIV-infected men and 206 male partners of HIV-infected women in 16 Italian clinical centers. All of the partners had had a sexual relationship with the index case lasting for at least 6 months and presented no other risk factor than sexual exposure to the HIV-infected partner…

[T]he efficiency of male-to-female transmission was 2.3 (95% confidence interval = 1.1-4.8) times greater than that of female-to-male transmission. Between-gender differences in the contact surfaces and the intensity of exposure to HIV during sexual intercourse are possible reasons for the difference in efficiency of transmission. (Nicolosi et al., 1994)

The chance for contracting HIV from any single sexual act is actually quite low, but the highest probability for transmission appears to be for a homosexual man having receptive anal sex with another man. Considering the per-act risk of contracting HIV from unprotected sex with a partner of unknown HIV status, it appears that the chance for contracting HIV as a receptive female during penile-vaginal sex is approximately 0.0001%, while for a receptive man during penile-anal sex, the chance is roughly 0.003%, and thirty-fold difference. (Varghese, 2002)

Does this mean that AIDS is a gay disease? No, particularly since people are not always consistent in their sexual patterns. It does, however, help to explain why HIV disproportionately affects the homosexual community, and it sheds some light on the epidemiology of HIV and possibly other sexually transmitted diseases as well. If the primary mechanism for HIV infection is reception of infected seminal fluid, it seems inevitable that HIV would have trouble spreading.

HIV would either need a significant proportion of homosexuals who regularly play both insertive and receptive roles during sex, or it would need to create lesions through which fluids or blood could pass from females to males, or lastly, it would need to be able to survive externally on the male genitals for a significant period of time. Although I’ve previously discussed the downsides to circumcision, the practice may have arisen as a means of combating this route of infection; a circumcised penis is likely to be inhospitable to pathogens.

References

Nicolosi, A., Leite, M. L. C., Musicco, M., Arid, C., Gavazzeni, G., & Lazzarin, A. (1994). The Efficiency of Male-to Female and Female-to-Male Sexual Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Study of 730 Stable Couples. Epidemiology, 5(6), 570-575.

Padian, N. S., Shiboski, S. C., & Jewell, N. P. (1991). Female-to-male transmission of human immunodeficiency virus. JAMA, 266(12), 1664-1667.

Padian, N. S., Shiboski, S. C., Glass, S. O., & Vittinghoff, E. (1997). Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in northern California: results from a ten-year study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 146(4), 350-357.

Varghese, B., Maher, J. E., Peterman, T. A., Branson, B. M., & Steketee, R. W. (2002). Reducing the risk of sexual HIV transmission: quantifying the per-act risk for HIV on the basis of choice of partner, sex act, and condom use. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 29(1), 38-43.

2 Comments

Filed under Biology, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Medicine, Public Health, Science, Sex

Support Housing for the Political Homeless

Mark Graybill writes:

Hey Robert, are you really politically more left than right? I ask because reading your blog the last few days, you sound more conservative than I do. I know you’re economically left-wing, but given your conservative social attitudes, maybe really what you are is anti-libertarian, rather than liberal. Have you ever taken a political inventory?

Yes I have. I came out standard super-liberal on social and economic stuff. My chart is below.

I am not sure how to interpret this chart, but it looks like I am a standard hardcore libtard.

I am not sure how to interpret this chart, but it looks like I am a standard hardcore libtard.

I am very leftwing on economics, but I am also rather conservative on social issues. Most liberals and Leftists really hate my guts. The Leftists all say I am a conservative, a reactionary, a fascist, a Nazi, a KKK member, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and an anti-Semite. A number of Left sites have active bans on linking to me and others have been me from their site as a “reactionary.”

For a while there, I was thinking, “Ok these idiots all say I am a conservative, so let’s go to some conservative sites and see if I am one.” I went to some, but as soon as I started commenting, they started tearing into me like rabid wolves. Most of these sites banned me too under monikers like “liberal” and “anti-American.” Also I am absolutely horrified by conservative websites. I agree with them on almost nothing, and the politicians, the commenters and the authors all seem like monsters. I have nothing in common with them at all, and frankly I hate them and their whole ideology.

I also went to Libertarian sites. Some like Reason Magazine I can actually resonate with on a lot of things. They are very anti-authoritarian. They hate cops, hate the military, hate belligerent imperial foreign policy. But their economics is horrifying.

Everyone keeps telling me I am a racist, so I used to go hang out on White Nationalist sites. They do not like me one bit, and they all call me “liberal, anti-White, nigger-lover, anti-racist, antifa,” etc. Also those racist sites are just horrifying. They are so full of hate. I am on the mailing list of a number of more or less antiracist groups such as Color of Change and I do participate in their campaigns sometimes.

People keep telling me that I am sexist, so I go to misogynistic Manosphere sites a lot. While there is a quite a bit of truth to be read there sadly, I always find the level of misogyny there to be terrifying. I almost want to smash the screen when I read that stuff. Also I am a former member of NOW and I participate in a lot of feminist campaigns as I am on their mailing lists. I mostly participate in campaigns around abortion as the rest of the feminist project seems wacky.

I am politically homeless. There is no place in US politics for people like me. It is a lonely place to be. I have a feeling there are a lot of people like me though.

6 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, US Politics, White Nationalism

Are Homophobes Gay?

Matt writes:

I think the whole idea that many or most homophobes are actually gay comes from a certain study that found that men who expressed extremely homophobic views tended to become sexually aroused when exposed to gay stimuli as compared to less homophobic men. How good the study was, I can’t say. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence of extreme public homophobes getting caught doing gay things, but scientifically that is worthless.

I guess some people find it emotionally satisfying to believe that homophobes are hypocrites, just as many low information thinkers continue to insist that Hitler was a Jew.

There is such a thing as reaction formation, and the extreme homophobes being caught doing gay stuff are an example of that.

However, I have some serious issues with this “homophobes are gay” theory.

We know that in Europe prior to 1800, the death penalty was enforced for male homosexuality. Men caught in the act were typically hung. This law was apparently very popular with most of the population who found such acts abhorrent. So in other words, prior to 1800 in Europe, the vast majority of European men were extreme, even homicidal homophobes. So according to this theory, during this time, the vast majority of European men were a bunch of faggots. Yeah right. I do not think so.

According to this theory, the most homophobic societies should have the highest rate of homosexuality and the least homophobic societies should have the lowest rate.

In Latin America, the males are extremely homophobic, and in a lot of countries, gay men are often beaten up, arrested or even murdered. I know Latin America pretty well, and one thing I know about Latin American men is there seems to be a low rate of opportunistic male homosexuality. There is just not a lot of male homosexuality in those countries. There is far more of it in the vastly less homophobic West.

There are plenty of other extremely homophobic countries out there, but one thing you notice about them is that they seem to have low rates of homosexuality in a lot of cases, though the Arab World is an odd case.

Also we would expect I suppose the least homophobic countries to have the lowest rates of homosexuality, but that’s not the case. The more accepting the society is of homosexuality, the more of it there is. This even works on a micro level all the way down to individual cities.

I lived, worked and played around Hollywood for years, and the rate of homosexuality there was very high. What I mean by that is that while there are many gay men, a lot of the purportedly straight men did not seem to be all that straight. I met quite a few men with wives and girlfriends seemed to have a suspiciously gay side, often closeted. The rates of what seemed to be opportunistic bisexuality in men were very high.

I finally concluded that this was because in LA, male homosexuality and bisexuality are “hip.” It is cool to be queer or bi. In other words, bisexuality is a fad in these places. I concluded based on that that when a society completely accepts homosexuality, a lot more people are going to not only accept it but also start doing it. So that is of the opposite of the “homophobes are fags” theory.

Think of all of the teenagers and young men who get thrown out of the house by their conservative parents after they find out the kid is gay. All of the fathers who throw out their son when they discover he’s gay are a bunch of secret queers? Give it up.

The “Homophobes Are Gay” Study

Yes, I have heard of the study the commenter is talking about. It appeared recently. They exposed two groups of self-described heterosexual men to probably hardcore gay porn. About 1/3 of the nonhomophobic men reacted to the stimuli, and about 2/3 of the homophobic men did. So more of the homophobic men reacted to the gay stuff. But a very high percentage of the nonhomophobic men did too.

I believe that all of men who reacted did so at a low level though.

100-0: Maximum heterosexual, minimum homosexual
90-10: Maximum heterosexual, incidental homosexual
80-20: Maximum heterosexual, significant homosexual
70-30: Maximum heterosexual, strong homosexual
60-40: Maximum heterosexual, very strong strong homosexual
50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual
40-60: Maximum homosexual, very strong heterosexual
30-70: Maximum homosexual, strong heterosexual
20-80: Maximum homosexual, significant heterosexual
10-90: Maximum homosexual, incidental heterosexual
0-100: Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual

Looking at that chart, all of the men were first tested on straight porn and all of them reacted maximally to it, and were then tested on gay porn.

I believe that all of the men in the study who reacted were reacting at a fairly low level, and most if not all were probably 90-10’s or 80-20’s, which would make sense, since most men who have bisexual interest are mostly heterosexual with a maximal attraction to females and a substantially lower attraction to males. It is also important to note that fully 50% of self-described straight men in the study were aroused, albeit at a low level, by gay porn. That’s a pretty shocking figure, but it goes along with other research showing a high percentage of albeit low level gay attraction in straight men.

The headlines said, Homophobes Are Really Gay, Study Finds. I didn’t get that at all from the study. Anyway, even if you are going to say that, keep in mind that according to this theory, the study found that 1/3 of non-homophobic men were “gay” too.

Are Homophobes Gay? My Experience

I have known a number of homophobes, including some violent ones. One of the most violent ones I have ever known was basically heterosexual. However, I knew the guy’s mother, and his Mom said she once found gay porn under his bed. But she said he also had a huge stash of straight porn too that he seemed to be a lot more interested in. I knew this idiot pretty well, and I honestly think that he was a 90-10, if that. I have no idea why he had that gay porn, but he may have had a small interest in gay stuff like so many guys. But the main thrust of his sexuality was obviously directed towards women.

I have known quite a few other guys who were strongly opposed to homosexuality. It seemed to be correlated with machismo or machoness. Most of the guys I knew who were really against homosexuality were hardcore extreme macho guys. It seemed that the more macho the guy was, the more homophobic he was.

It worked the other way too. I have known quite a few straight guys who said that homosexuality was quite all right, and they were 100% ok with it. This was correlated with being a lot less macho.

I also noticed something about a fair number of the guys who said, “Hey homosexuality is totally ok,” associated, worked with and even partied with gay men. After I had known these guys a while, they often made weird, suspicious statements like, “I do not think completely heterosexual men are normal.” Or they came onto me sexually. In the case of one guy who lived, associated and partied with gay men, he later got into bisexuality in a pretty heavy-duty way.

So I think that extreme acceptance of homosexuality in a straight man is a rather risky as a lot of them seem to go from, “Hey it’s 100% ok for other guys,” to “Why don’t I try it myself?” or “If it’s ok for other guys, then it’s ok for me too,” pretty easily.

20 Comments

Filed under California, Europe, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Latin America, Man World, Middle East, Psychology, Regional, Sex, USA, West

If You are Homophobic, Are You Really Gay?

Lisa FOS writes:

Robert you obviously have some issues over this, because you keep bringing it up. get over it. Either forget it, or go and have a root with a guy.

I have no issues about this whatsoever in the way you are thinking. I have been a 100-0 all my life since the time I was 13, and of course that has never changed for even one second. I have never had the slightest desire to have sex with any man. I never fantasize about men. I never look at men. Of course I have masturbated a trillion times in my life, but never once did I think of a man. If I would engage in sex with a man, it would probably be a catastrophe as I would probably want to kill myself every day I looked in the mirror for the next four months and I am not interested in such things anyway.

I do have some hangups because some people think I am gay. I do not like that one bit and can’t figure out how to stop people from reacting that way, but my idea of resolving the matter certainly isn’t to go out and suck a cock.

One of my main interests is sexual orientation. Also this is a sexology blog among other things, and I am very interested in sexology. Homosexuality and bisexuality are part of sexology, so we will discuss them sometimes here. Also I have noticed that there is a vast taboo in straight society against discussing sexual orientation things and especially homosexuality which is completely banned from any discussion ever, and one of the purposes of this site is to move beyond that hangup.

I am actually very progressive on homosexuality as I realize sex is non-binary. I am on the mailing list of many gay organizations and I support most of their political campaigns with my time, signatures and emails.I just dislike male homosexual behaviors and frankly I am not wild about a lot of gay men. I have mad many very negative experiences with them, and that’s at the root of this.

I am extremely interested in the whole topic of sexuality in all of its forms. I have an anthropological interest in homosexuality and bisexuality as it is part of sexual orientation, and also I am interested in anything weird, bizarre, freakish or crazy. If you want to know, I am also very interested in serial killers, torturers, rapists, child molesters, pedophilia, shit-eaters, piss-drinkers, BD/SM types, gay male diseases and behaviors, every kink you could possibly imagine, transsexuals, transvestites, exhibitionists, all fetishes, necrophilia, bestiality, anal prolapses and extreme anal play. I have little to no interest to engage in any of these things and none of them turn me on in the slightest.

I absolutely do not believe, “If you hate homosexuality/homosexuals, then you are gay yourself.” It’s nonsense. Sure there is reaction formation in a few folks (I believe them), but I have met many people strongly homophobic men in my life, and most of them were fanatically heterosexual and also they were extremely macho.

I also do not believe “If you talk/write about it homosexuality a lot, then you gay.”

These are just lies that Political Homosexuality has made up. There’s no truth to any of it.

If a gay guy dislikes straight people (a lot of them do), that means he’s straight? If a gay guy hates women (a lot of them do), that means he really wants to fuck them? If a gay guy talks/writes about heterosexuality all the time, then that means he is straight? Forget it. It’s nonsense.

7 Comments

Filed under Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Politics, Psychology, Sex