If you’re a gay or bisexual man, a study at the University of Pittsburgh proves what LGBT advocates have been preaching for years: It does get better. In fact, researchers discovered that within the study, the majority of men who have sex with men (MSM) overcame internalized homophobia — or self-loathing because of external homophobia or negative societal stereotypes — over time. And it didn’t really matter during which decade they realized a same-sex attraction.

In the study, led by Dr. Amy Herrick, a post-doctoral associate in Pitt’s Graduate School of Public Health, researchers also discovered that even though some MSM experienced bullying or homophobia, they didn’t experience negative health affects like sexually transmitted diseases or depression. It’s one of the first studies to focus on positive health outcomes for gay men.

Herrick recently spoke to City Paper about the results. For a link to the complete study, which was published last month, visit http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23283578.

Since most studies on gay men focus on what often goes wrong for gay men and health, why study the opposite?

The pragmatic answer is looking at just risk and deficits [hasn’t] gotten us very far in terms of behavior prevention, especially among men who have sex with men and gay men. Rates of HIV are going up instead of down. Clearly we’re doing something wrong. That was part of it — to step back, think outside the box and try to figure out if what we’re doing isn’t working. Rates [of HIV] are going up among men who have sex with men — it’s the only group [for which rates] are going up; they are going down [among] IV-drug users and high-risk heterosexuals. In the prevention world, we’re clearly missing something.

The data from the study shows that most men resolved negative levels of internalized homophobia over time, but that many of the men came of age in a time — like the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s, when there wasn’t nearly the level of positive LGBT imaging there is today. To what do you attribute that?

That shocked us. I think the kind of understood pattern is that it’s the young guys [overcome internalized homophobia] with all this positive messaging — the whole “After Ellen [DeGeneres]” effect. But the older guys were doing just as well.

We have no idea [why], and this is the problem with the paradigm we’re working against. Within the survey, we [asked] about all the negative things; we never considered looking for resilience. It’s weird in public health, we’re really good at measuring sickness and disparity but have no real definition of health and way to measure health.

What do you plan on doing with the results?

We want to take the same sample and look at resilience, and how resiliencies are developed and what it means. We’re going to have to start over with everything we know, going back and doing qualitative research on MSM, what it means to be resilient, how they develop resiliency. Basically, instead of the old pattern of [asking] “What is it that made you start using substances?” asking, “How is it that you avoided using substances?”

How do you study something that doesn’t sound easily quantifiable, like internalized homophobia or resilience?

For internalized homophobia, it’s a scale: a composite of nine questions [about] things like, ‘I tried to stop being attracted to men.’ It asks a bunch of questions about shame around their sexuality and that sort of thing. As far as resilience, that’s what we’re figuring out right now. It’s a fairly new concept in terms of MSM health. We don’t have the answer yet, we’re starting to see more and more evidence of resilience like [the results] in this paper, but how we quantify and predict that, is still a question.

This article appears in Feb 13-19, 2013.

this is a letter i had initially addressed to bill o’reilly, in response to something he said, but i know that it can relate to rush limbaugh, sean hannity, glenn beck, feminists, gays, as well as masculine apologists and anyone else with gender-identity issues.

commenting on a church’s cancellation of some type of christmas play featuring charlie brown, bill o’reilly said these words: “secular progressivism wants to destroy the christian holiday”. while i don’t take issue with this statement at all, i must point out the ways in which bill o’reilly is “buying into” the progressive democrats’ destruction of the ideals that have contributed to the strength and the success of america.

maybe bill o’reilly is fighting the intolerant and anti-christian viewpoints of the left, but he is walking in lock-step with another weakness-promoting aspect of the left – and that is the subjugation of gender.

by referring to members of the taller/wider/stronger gender as “guys,” and by never failing to refer to members of the egg-bleeding/milk-spouting/lesser gender as “women,” bill o’reilly is buying into the political correctness of the left which kowtows to a notion as ridiculous as “gender equality” (as well as the words “a woman can do anything a man can do”).

now, as long as they’re not competing against men, it may seem like women are just as capable as men…but the very existence of gender-based sports teams surely places an asterisk after the “anything a man can do” line.

by referring to members of the apt gender as “guys”while referring to members of the menstruating gender as “women,” bill o’reilly (as well as society in general) is subjugating men through the undue respect of females. referring to men as “guys” rather than “men” is as disrespectful as referring to females as “broads”. in today’s society, we have any egg-bleeding and milk-spouting specimen of motherhood being referred to as a “woman,” but it seems that the only way anyone is going to refer to a man by using the word “man,” is if the man has accomplished something that is worthy of respect. “he’s not a MAN,” says the angry ex-wife with much contempt for who she disrespects. “you’re not a MAN,” says the straight man, contemptuously to the masculivoid who looks at men with a crooked type of misunderstanding that beckons him to take a closer look at men.

gay “men” and “strong” women – these masculine slights are the only ones who are given the letters M-E-N. this is compromise of masculine integrity, plain and simple, and it is contributing as much to the deconstruction of america as is the tolerance of muslims.

aside from being ironic, it’s kind of oxymoronic (if that is a word) for there to be a buzz-phrase like “strong women” or even “gay men”. i say this because the “strong woman” lacks the physical makeup to be anything but “strong FOR A woman,” just as the muscular “gay man” lacks the gender-identity/emotional makeup to be anything but the classic “kid in a candy store” when he’s around half-naked men. “manly for a gay,” “strong for a woman,” this is how the integrity of men and masculinity is slighted. “manly for someone who hasn’t internalized masculine gender-identity,” “strong for someone who lacks the physical attributes of a masculine body,” this is how the integrity of men and masculinity is slighted, because if a woman can be considered “strong” and if a gay guy can be considered “manly” then the very essence of manhood is compromised

there is a reason for the “parking for pregnant women” signs, there is a reason for the gender-based sports teams, there is a reason that the coney island hot dog eating competition had to add a “womens’ division”. the reason is that females are somewhat disabled when compared to men, just as gay “men” are somewhat disabled and rendered dazed or confused when faced with real men. yet, the buzz-phrases “strong women” and “gay men” are commonplace, while the average man is not a man but only a dismissible “guy”.

so, the next time anyone suggests that people stand up to democrats and their hatred of religious holidays, they should be reminded that standing up to democrats’ deconstruction of america means standing up to feminists’ dismissal of men.

let me be clear and say that i’m not in any way suggesting that every man should rape any feminist with a carving knife so that her vagina bleeds more profusely than it does during her normal monthly egg-leak. i realize that womens’ penis-receptacles are necessary tools for men to use just to further the very existence of the human race. i also am not suggesting that we stop basing physical competitions on gender, for i realize that gender-based sports teams are necessary to keep sports competitive. we must keep sports competitive, because with females fighting for equal representation where they don’t belong…well, let me just ask this question: who’d want to see a five-second boxing match between a strong woman and a broad-shouldered, thickly-built specimen of muscle who exercises with weights that are three times as heavy as the ones at curves fitness centers?

as prince sung in a song from the 1989 film called “batman,” i will answer my own question: “NO…BO..DY”.

dylan terreri, i
http://www.femalebashing.com
http://www.strongwomen.info
http://www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays

One reply on “A Conversation with University of Pittsburgh researcher Dr. Amy Herrick”

Gay Rapeir says:

March 31, 2013 at 6:12 pm

this is a letter i had initially addressed to bill o’reilly, in response to something he said, but i know that it can relate to rush limbaugh, sean hannity, glenn beck, feminists, gays, as well as masculine apologists and anyone else with gender-identity issues.

commenting on a church’s cancellation of some type of christmas play featuring charlie brown, bill o’reilly said these words: “secular progressivism wants to destroy the christian holiday”. while i don’t take issue with this statement at all, i must point out the ways in which bill o’reilly is “buying into” the progressive democrats’ destruction of the ideals that have contributed to the strength and the success of america.

maybe bill o’reilly is fighting the intolerant and anti-christian viewpoints of the left, but he is walking in lock-step with another weakness-promoting aspect of the left – and that is the subjugation of gender.

by referring to members of the taller/wider/stronger gender as “guys,” and by never failing to refer to members of the egg-bleeding/milk-spouting/lesser gender as “women,” bill o’reilly is buying into the political correctness of the left which kowtows to a notion as ridiculous as “gender equality” (as well as the words “a woman can do anything a man can do”).

now, as long as they’re not competing against men, it may seem like women are just as capable as men…but the very existence of gender-based sports teams surely places an asterisk after the “anything a man can do” line.

by referring to members of the apt gender as “guys”while referring to members of the menstruating gender as “women,” bill o’reilly (as well as society in general) is subjugating men through the undue respect of females. referring to men as “guys” rather than “men” is as disrespectful as referring to females as “broads”. in today’s society, we have any egg-bleeding and milk-spouting specimen of motherhood being referred to as a “woman,” but it seems that the only way anyone is going to refer to a man by using the word “man,” is if the man has accomplished something that is worthy of respect. “he’s not a MAN,” says the angry ex-wife with much contempt for who she disrespects. “you’re not a MAN,” says the straight man, contemptuously to the masculivoid who looks at men with a crooked type of misunderstanding that beckons him to take a closer look at men.

gay “men” and “strong” women – these masculine slights are the only ones who are given the letters M-E-N. this is compromise of masculine integrity, plain and simple, and it is contributing as much to the deconstruction of america as is the tolerance of muslims.

aside from being ironic, it’s kind of oxymoronic (if that is a word) for there to be a buzz-phrase like “strong women” or even “gay men”. i say this because the “strong woman” lacks the physical makeup to be anything but “strong FOR A woman,” just as the muscular “gay man” lacks the gender-identity/emotional makeup to be anything but the classic “kid in a candy store” when he’s around half-naked men. “manly for a gay,” “strong for a woman,” this is how the integrity of men and masculinity is slighted. “manly for someone who hasn’t internalized masculine gender-identity,” “strong for someone who lacks the physical attributes of a masculine body,” this is how the integrity of men and masculinity is slighted, because if a woman can be considered “strong” and if a gay guy can be considered “manly” then the very essence of manhood is compromised

there is a reason for the “parking for pregnant women” signs, there is a reason for the gender-based sports teams, there is a reason that the coney island hot dog eating competition had to add a “womens’ division”. the reason is that females are somewhat disabled when compared to men, just as gay “men” are somewhat disabled and rendered dazed or confused when faced with real men. yet, the buzz-phrases “strong women” and “gay men” are commonplace, while the average man is not a man but only a dismissible “guy”.

so, the next time anyone suggests that people stand up to democrats and their hatred of religious holidays, they should be reminded that standing up to democrats’ deconstruction of america means standing up to feminists’ dismissal of men.

let me be clear and say that i’m not in any way suggesting that every man should rape any feminist with a carving knife so that her vagina bleeds more profusely than it does during her normal monthly egg-leak. i realize that womens’ penis-receptacles are necessary tools for men to use just to further the very existence of the human race. i also am not suggesting that we stop basing physical competitions on gender, for i realize that gender-based sports teams are necessary to keep sports competitive. we must keep sports competitive, because with females fighting for equal representation where they don’t belong…well, let me just ask this question: who’d want to see a five-second boxing match between a strong woman and a broad-shouldered, thickly-built specimen of muscle who exercises with weights that are three times as heavy as the ones at curves fitness centers?

as prince sung in a song from the 1989 film called “batman,” i will answer my own question: “NO…BO..DY”.

dylan terreri, i
http://www.femalebashing.com
http://www.strongwomen.info
http://www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays