email dated March 4, 2020

Hi Project,

I have been reading your forum for several years and I find it particular because there are several original and very unusual messages.

I’m 42 years old, I’m single or in other words I don’t have a boyfriend, I only had one with whom I had a very complex but also very true relationship. I’ve never been too interested in sex, which on the contrary is absolutely fundamental for him. After me he had other boys but in essence it was just a series of illusions-disillusions. In practice he has never lived a truly symmetrical relationship, he didn’t experience this kind of relationship not even with me. He’s young, he’s 32 years old, but he is afraid of becoming old without realizing anything concrete on an emotional level. I can’t say if I still love him or if I have ever loved him, our relationship has always been very convoluted, indeed we have always said that we did not understand each other and that we were looking for different things, that we would have done better to find other people, etc. etc .. But that minimum of relationship that was there when we were together has never been completely lost. He kept telling me that he was interested in me only for sex, because he was afraid that I would fall in love and get hurt, and instead I would repeat to him, using the most varied expressions, that I was really in love with him above all sentimentally: our positions were so different that it was basically impossible to find any balance and in fact the thing is over.

Was ours a couple relationship? I just don’t think so and I don’t think it was even so at the beginning because I always had many doubts about the matter and I never really felt in love with him, as I would have liked, even if I kept saying to him that I was, and on the other hand he too was not in love with me as he would have liked. We were together, there was a bit of sex, too little for him and too much without feeling for me, basically there was nothing concrete between us, yet this “nothing” was not completely lost even after each of us has gone on his way, but even now our love, if we can call it so, is not a real way of loving each other but it’s a way to depend a little on each other, a sort of dependence because he considers me a friend with whom he’s allowed to have sex sometimes, always too little for him and always too loveless for me. In practice we go on as before but only in an even more diluted way, we meet once in a while, sometimes also after months, when he doesn’t find anything better (I know that saying so it’s a bit as saying a bad thing) or when I get depressed and I miss him and I call him in the illusion that there may be an even minimal emotional contact, because I still delude myself that it can happen.

I must say that in recent months I have felt a gradual cooling in me, years ago I missed him very much, that is, when he was not there I was really bad, but now, sometimes I prefer that he is not there, I feel more peaceful, I delude myself that he’s happy with somebody else and this is enough as an excuse to avoid looking for him.

Sometimes I try to put myself in his shoes and I realize that he’s not living well at all, and then I feel a bit of guilt because I’m now truly abandoning him to himself, I would like that between us there was also a minimum of emotional relationship, but he doesn’t want to know about these things, he tells me that he fell in love even recently, but not with me, and that the story seemed important but then the guy began to be jealous and obsessive (which are the same flaws that he reproaches me) and he felt caged and preferred to close the story because he ended up being too anxious. With me, he didn’t close the story but emptied it from within. He tells me that I never accept compromises and that everything must always be done as I say, but I think of him exactly the same. After him I kept away from sex, partly because of the fear of diseases and partly because putting sex in the middle creates a lot of problems, everyone has his own fixed ideas and fantasies, everyone has his way to live those things and it is very difficult to find a common space, and then I came to the conclusion that it is much better to put aside sex and cultivate only friendships, then, perhaps, if any of those friendships were to become deeper and if there was also a mutual sexual involvement, ok, I would be fine, but I don’t want sex without shared love anymore.

In certain situations one remains in the balance between the need not to be overwhelmed by rhythms that we perceive as something foreign to us and the illusion of being able to make others understand our way of life, and there uncertainties, doubts and oscillations begin, but little by little the oscillations fade away and you are definitely in the middle, without real involvement and without real freedom.

I can’t deny, though, that I can’t permanently get him out of my head. I wish he was happy, because then I would be happy too, but I would no longer like him to be happy with me because I know very well that such a thing is impossible. Unfortunately, over time, I’m increasingly led to think that he will not be happy with anyone. I got easily used to not having a couple life, but it is much more difficult for him, because even if he denies it, he needs a strong emotional relationship that is very difficult to build out of a couple relationship, but a couple life would not be compatible with his free way of experiencing sexuality.

Sometimes I think that among the straight people the presence of children dilutes all these problems, in gay couples, on the contrary, where everything happens only within the couple itself, certain problems end up becoming conditioning.

Use this email as you want but, if you can, try to answer me because it would help me understand many things that maybe I don’t understand at all.


email dated March 6, 2020

Hi Giulio,

your story, if you consider it in the abstract, it seems the twisted story of a failure, but frankly it seems to me rather like a difficult love story, and of true love, I would also add reciprocal. It is evident that you are still in love with that guy but it is equally evident that he has never disappeared and that he considers you an important person. In his own way, apparently without affective involvement, it will perhaps be a partial, defective love, different from how you would have liked it, but it is anyway a form of love because it lasts over time and because it has overcome many difficulties that would have easily led to dissolution any superficial couple relationship. True love stories are always very different from how we had planned them, they are always much more problematic, much less linear but at the same time they have the persistence of reality. I don’t believe that your making love with that guy was “without love”, even if there have been many misunderstandings among you, it has never been an irreparable and destructive conflict. You say that you have created a kind of mutual dependence and it almost seems that you consider this fact something quite pathological, but there is nothing pathological, loving each other also entails this, indeed if this mutual dependence (note the adjective “mutual” that is typical of real couples) were not there wouldn’t even be a love relationship. This guy, after all, if he was only looking for sex, he could find it very easily elsewhere, but if he looks for it from you and he still does it after years, well, he probably doesn’t look for just that, he knows that you will accept and understand him in any case, that he can tell you freely whatever he thinks and that you will answer him by telling him whatever you really think. Affectivity can also be expressed through sex. Anaffective sex is ephemeral, it leads to change many partners not to build anything with anyone but that’s not what happened to you with that guy. His love is not exclusive, this could be a problem for you, but for some people exclusivity is not essential and it is possible to develop very serious even if not exclusive relationships, where, however, there is the problem of HIV risk.

Dear Giulio, I don’t think you lost that guy at all. The superficial stories quickly fade away and yours doesn’t seem to me to be a finished story at all, and I’m not saying from your point of view but from his point of view.

A hug.


e-mail dated 8 March 2020

Dear Project,

you say that his is not anaffective sex and really I think it is not. In my previous email I told you that I had a very complex but very true relationship with him and this, sometimes, I tend to forget it. In fact, he trusted me, he also talked to me about extremely private things and I can’t forget this, he exposed himself to a judgment that could also be fierce and of rejection, that is, he risked a lot. He didn’t please me on principle, he was himself all the way. He knows that I love him and even when he treats me abruptly he does it with respect, perhaps also with love. I haven’t heard from him in a while and I don’t know whether to call him. Anyway, thank you for your answer, because you made me rethink him by putting aside my defense mechanisms. He has his strengths, there is no doubt, he never acted with me.

Thanks again.


e-mail of 9 March 2020

Hi Project,

here we are all agitated by the fear of the virus, and I’m too, but I wanted to tell you that today happened something that I didn’t expect at all. That guy, and I would like to say or should say my boyfriend, called me last night and we were talking until almost dawn (the sky was already bright), he was serene and I felt happy, we remembered our first nights of love, reluctances and scruples on one side and the other. You must know, Project, that I believed that he would come to hate me for those nights of sex, because he was so much younger than me, and instead he remembered them as a beautiful thing, as moments when he felt completely free and accepted. He asked me if I had ever felt forced because he was afraid of having forced me to do something that I didn’t want to do. I told him that he was the only guy in my life, indeed the model of my ideal guy. He reminded me that he also has friends with whom he sometimes has sex, I told him that he had talked to me about it at other times, he asked me if it embarrasses me, I replied that it creates me concern about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and he added: “But, apart from diseases, does this fact embarrass you?” And I replied: “No, because I know that you really love me. You can love other boys too, but this won’t turn you away from me.” It was a very emotional and very rewarding night, totally unexpected and I felt important in his life. That’s all. I wanted to let you know. Obviously you can use my mails as you like better. Thanks again.



If you want, you can participate in the discussion on this post open on the Gay Project Forum:


December 28th 2018, a beautiful sunny morning. I go out in the morning, there is no feeling of frost or annoying wind, it is good in the sun, the sky is bright, the air is crisp, pleasant. All this is outside, then there is the body that is uncertain, it is the body of an old man, who feels a little bit of breathlessness, moving can cause pain, yet the body resists but inside is undermined, the ephemeral of the self dominates the field, no future, only present, hour by hour. Then there is the spirit or whatever it is, but you feel that it is old too, that it has no more impulses, admitted that he had had them in other times. You need confirmations that come from outside, of certainties there is not even a shadow. We should spend ourselves without reserve, perhaps, to change something, but it is as if nothing was worth it. I don’t know if children are a link with the future, gays don’t have children, when they become old they have only a past behind them, in front there is not even the projection of the children to give the impression of not ending completely. Noon has passed, the sun begins to fall, there is still, as long as it lasts. I go back home, it’s warmer, a known environment, old too, full of memories that somebody will throw away in a while, and even if I left my computer to someone, nobody would care. Each has his dreams, which are only his, his archives that will be lost after him. What to do with the remaining time? It is easy to say: something good. The difficulty is to get out of words, of emotional feelings that don’t produce anything. The sense of loneliness is realized when you are old because loneliness is not constructive and means estrangement and abandonment  mingled down, estrangement and abandonment mental rather than physical, means meeting each other without having anything to say, talking about trivial things, just to waste the time, spending hours together waiting and wishing to be alone again, until health will make impossible our being alone, and afterwards, may God have mercy on us!


If you want, you can participate in the discussion of this post open on the Gay Project Forum:


In October 2014, just four years ago, at the conclusion of the Synod on the family, I wrote an article entitled “The Synod on the family and the gay mouse“. The title alluded to the fact that after the great expectations raised by the “Instrumentum laboris”, that is from the preparatory document, the “Relatio post discerptationem” had greatly reduced things, and the “Relatio Synodi”, the final document, had definitively mortified any expectation, limiting only to the material repetition of the contents of the “Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons” signed by Joseph Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in June 2003. The mountain, after a long and stressing labor had given birth to the mouse but the Synod fathers had remained so terrified to hurry up to devour it before it left the Synod hall. But “Sic transit gloria mundi!”
On August 28th of this year I wrote another article “Pope Francis does not know what homosexuality is” when Pope Francis, on his flight back from Dublin, speaking informally, as he usually does, answering a question about the attitude that a parent should take in front of the coming out of the child, expressed himself this way:

“In what age does this concern of the child manifest itself, it is important, one thing is when it manifests as a child, there … there are so many things to do … with psychiatry or …, or … to see how things are. Another thing is when it manifests a little after, twenty years or something …

I was amazed that the Pope had absolutely no clear idea of what serious Psychiatry says about homosexuality, even if, objectively, homosexuality doesn’t appear and certainly is not the fundamental theme and even least the obsessive thinking of Pope Francis. It should be noted, however, that apart from this sudden nod, in the personal attitudes of Pope Francis the tones of the anti-gay crusade typical of Benedict XVI are absent, attitudes to which the Synod on the family of 2014 was also inspired.
From a few days the Synod on young people has concluded and I will try to follow its development on the theme of homosexuality.
The pre-Synodal Final Document, expresses itself on the theme this way:
Problems like pornography distort a young person’s perception of human sexuality. Technology used this way creates a delusional parallel reality that ignores human dignity.
“There is often great disagreement among young people, both within the Church and in the wider world, about some of her teachings which are especially controversial today. Examples of these include: contraception, abortion, homosexuality, cohabitation, marriage, and how the priesthood is perceived in different realities in the Church. What is important to note is that irrespective of their level of understanding of Church teaching, there is still disagreement and ongoing discussion among young people on these polemical issues. As a result, they may want the Church to change her teaching or at least to have access to a better explanation and to more formation on these questions. Even though there is internal debate, young Catholics whose convictions are in conflict with official teaching still desire to be part of the Church. Many young Catholics accept these teachings and find in them a source of joy. They desire the Church to not only hold fast to them amid unpopularity but to also proclaim them with greater depth of teaching.”
“We, the young Church, ask that our leaders speak in practical terms about controversial subjects such as homosexuality and gender issues, about which young people are already freely discussing without taboo. Some perceive the Church to be “anti-science” so its dialogue with the scientific community is also important, as science can illuminate the beauty of creation.”
I would like to focus on each of these points in particular.
It is a clear fact that pornography distorts the perception of sexuality and not only that of young people, but the Church also condemns the undistorted representation of sexuality as pornography. I have often insisted on the fact that pornography doesn’t represent sexuality correctly but I believe that a realistic representation of sexuality, which doesn’t trivialize it and doesn’t reduce it to mere performance, is not only useful but necessary to understand that sexuality can be expression of a profound affectivity, but it can also be lived in a light way but respectful of the other, and can even turn into a form of abuse and violence and this is true both in gay and straight field. I hear many gay guys use expressions like: “I prefer a thousand times to see a gay love story with a little sex than a porn, which in the end makes no sense and was built for commercial purposes only.” We should meditate on the idea of a sexual education (also of adults) built on reality to leave no room for the sole exploitation of sexuality, but on this ground the Church has never expressed itself seriously.
Regarding the disagreement among young people, both inside and outside the Church, on issues that are now particularly debated, among which there is also the homosexuality, it must be said that the disagreement doesn’t exist only among the young people but also among persons of mature age and even within the same hierarchical Church. When the preparatory document speaks of “young Catholics whose convictions are in contrast with the official teaching of the Church, who wish nevertheless to be part of it” it affirms that one can feel Catholic and at the same time contrary to the official teaching of the Church and this happens precisely because it is believed that this teaching is not in conformity with the evangelical spirit and is vitiated by prejudicial visions, by legacies of other eras that should be radically revised in the light of a vision scientifically founded on reality, for this purpose I remember that the Catechism of the Catholic Church and papal documents concerning homosexuality speak of “grave depravity”, “fatal consequence of a rejection of God”, “lack of normal sexual evolution”, “pathological constitution”, “intrinsically bad behavior from the moral point of view”. Saint Pius X, in his Catechism of 1910, classifies the “impure sin against nature” as second by gravity only to the voluntary homicide, among the sins that “cry revenge in the presence of God”.
All these things, besides being dangerous, are even ridiculous for those who have a minimum of knowledge of the reality, such judgements are very distant from scientific objectivity, are the result of pure prejudices and should be radically reviewed with intellectual honesty. The idea of homosexuality as “guilt” or “pathology” is a legacy of the past and has been archived by the scientific community a few decades ago. The statement according to which “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered“, contained in the art. 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church strongly clashes with the statement many times repeated by the World Health Organization, according to which homosexuality is “a natural and non-pathological variant of human sexuality”. 
The preparatory document states that the Church’s doctrine is for many Catholics a source of joy. From what I see every day among young gays, the Church’s doctrine on homosexuality is one of the basic motivations for which gays abandon the Church, sometimes migrating to other religious confessions. Young gays abandon a Church that condemns them as severely depraved, as people who pay the fatal consequences of a rejection of God, as sexually non-normal individuals, pathological cases that put into practice intrinsically bad behaviors from the moral point of view, of such gravity that only voluntary homicide is worse! I wonder how it is possible to feel joy in the face of these statements that are not only dangerous and violently homophobic but radically anti-Christian. 
In the preparatory document we read: “ We, the young Church, ask that our leaders speak in practical terms about controversial subjects such as homosexuality and gender issues, about which young people are already freely discussing without taboo.” I stop on a single element whose presence is surprising: the “gender”, a modernized species of “Arabic phoenix” of metastasian memory, something that everyone talks about but that no one has ever seen! Benedict XVI speaks about “gender” in an insistent manner, and this doesn’t surprise too much, but even Pope Francis has expressed some concern for the theory of gender, that anyway has no scientific evidence, neither Sociology nor serious Psychiatry have ever spoken of this phantom topic and even less in the absolutely improbable manner described by the acts of the catholic Church. The so-called gender theory is an invention of Mons. Tony Anatrella. “The “gender” theory prepares us for a world where nothing will be perceived as stable,” says psychoanalyst Tony Anatrella. «The damages caused by the divorce are nothing compared to those that can cause the LGBT ideology» ( I add only by the way that Mons. Anatrella is accused of sexual abuse and Mediapart’s article: “De nouveaux témoignages accablent Mgr Anatrella et ses thérapies sexuelles” provides ample information about it. I wonder how it is possible to give space to the extemporaneous theories of Mons. Tony Anatrella neglecting all that the World Health Organization has been repeating for several decades. And one should be amazed that someone can accuse the Church of anti-scientific attitudes? Galileo docet: “the wolf loses the fur but not the vice.” [an Italian way of saying that reminds us that what happened once will most likely happen many times] 
I now come to the examination of the final document of the Synod on the parts concerning homosexuality. 

I start with an observation: in the final document all references to the theory of gender are completely omitted, and it is a big step forward, like saying that the fight against witches has stopped! 

I must add that the full reading of the document, which requires time and attention, leaves the reader with some impression of novelty. The references to the magisterium of Benedict XVI are rare, the underlining of the intangibility of the doctrine is replaced by some timid openness to the need for a deepening, the tendency is to dialogue and not to castling, the document doesn’t identify an enemy in those who don’t share certain elements of Catholic morality, but an attempt is made to keep a dialogue open.
The Vatican has also published the results of the voting on the individual articles of the document. It is significant that the art. 149 and 150 that deal with sexuality have registered the highest number of non-placet in the Synod. Art. 149, which deals with sexuality in a generic way has obtained 214 votes in favor and 26 against, the art. 150, which deals more specifically with homosexuality “without tones of crusade” obtained 178 votes in favor and 65 against, the maximum number of votes against among all the articles of the Synod.
I remember that to be approved an article must get 2/3 of the votes. Article 150 has passed but with the minor quorum compared to all the other articles.
There are some references to the dark side of the web: “a channel for the dissemination of pornography and exploitation of people for sexual purposes or through the game of gamble.”
The reference to sexual abuse and sexual scandals within the Church, which could provoke controversy, hasn’t been omitted.
It is  stated that “Along with the persistence of ancient phenomena, such as the precocious sexuality, the promiscuity, the sexual tourism, the exaggerated cult of the physical aspect, today we see the pervasive diffusion of digital pornography and the display of one’s own body online.” Church therefore becomes aware of objective and objectively dangerous things. 
It is possible to note the embarrassment of the Church in presenting and defending its own sexual morality and it is stressed that: “In fact, sexual morality often causes misunderstanding and estrangement from the Church, as it is perceived as a space of judgment and condemnation. Faced with social changes and ways of experiencing affectivity and the multiplicity of ethical perspectives, young people are sensitive to the value of authenticity and dedication, but are often disoriented. They express more particularly an explicit desire for confrontation on issues related to the difference between male and female identity, to the reciprocity between men and women, to homosexuality.” And here too there are no judgments.
The mention of authenticity as the underlying value of sexuality had never been present in the official documents of the Church. 
The final document refers to sexual exploitation, to rapes of war, that are deeply considered by secular morality. In essence, the distance between secular and Catholic morality seems to shrink at least marginally and perhaps not only, because many of the great Christian values are also great secular values.
I quote hereinafter in full the art. 149-150 which are more closely related to homosexuality:
Sexuality: a clear, free, authentic word.
Art. 149. In the current cultural context, the Church struggles to convey the beauty of the Christian vision of corporeity and sexuality, as emerges from the Holy Scriptures, Tradition and the Magisterium of the last Popes. Therefore, a search for more adequate methods is urgently needed, that can result concretely to the elaboration of renewed training paths. It is necessary to propose to young people an anthropology of affectivity and sexuality capable of giving the right value to chastity, showing pedagogically its most authentic meaning for the growth of the person, in all the states of life. It is a matter of focusing on the empathic listening, the accompaniment and the discernment, on the line indicated by the recent Magisterium. For this reason it is necessary to take care of the formation of pastoral workers who are credible, starting from the maturation of their affective and sexual dimensions.
Art. 150. There are questions concerning the body, affectivity and sexuality that need a more in-depth anthropological, theological and pastoral elaboration, to be carried out in the most convenient modalities and levels, from local to universal. Among these emerge in particular those related to the difference and harmony between male and female identity and sexual inclinations. In this regard, the Synod reaffirms that God loves every person and so does the Church, renewing its commitment against any discrimination and violence on a sexual basis. Equally reaffirms the determinant anthropological relevance of the difference and reciprocity between man and woman and considers it reductive to define the identity of people starting only from their “sexual orientation” (CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter to the Catholic Church Bishops on pastoral care of homosexual persons, October 1, 1986, No. 16).
There are already in many Christian communities accompaniment walks in the faith of homosexual persons: the Synod recommends encouraging such paths. In these ways people are helped to read their own story; to adhere freely and responsibly to one’s baptismal call; to recognize the desire to belong and contribute to the life of the community; to discern the best forms to make it happen. In this way we help every young person, no one excluded, to increasingly integrate the sexual dimension in his personality, growing in the quality of relationships and walking towards the gift of oneself.
[I translated the text from Italian, because the official English translation is not yet on line]
I limit myself to observe that the reference to the Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral care of homosexual persons, drafted by Ratzinger in 1986 is purely in style and cites one of the less substantial elements of that document of the most radical obscurantism, which aroused, to say the least, big perplexities. The final part of the art. 150 contains a deliberately neutral formula of openness, addressed to all, no one excluded, that doesn’t point out any condemnation or exclusion.
In summary, the final document of the Synod seems, at least in language, and perhaps not only in language, to contain some opening towards a way not only more scientific and objective but also more evangelical of conceiving homosexuality. It is still true that a swallow doesn’t make spring and that the wind (even that of the Spirit) blows where it wants and could always change direction, but it seems that the yeast is beginning to ferment all the dough, or at least good portions of it. Time will allow us to understand if it is only an episodic event or it is really the beginning of an opening, on which I still maintain all my reservations, because common sense and experience lead to restrain enthusiasm and follow the example of St. Thomas.
If you want, you can participate in the discussion of this post open on the Gay Project Forum:


“I state that this topic has no moral aims, but is only the result of some reflections. I repeat, avoiding unnecessary discourse on the morality of those who practice sexual intercourse with strangers, I would like to draw attention to the fact that many times the need to have unprotected sex is a bit like playing Russian roulette with one’s own health.

Reflecting on this topic, it occurred to me that, not only through the chats, you can have meetings with perfect strangers, but also in special rooms. I bring you an extreme case, the dark rooms, for those who don’t know what they are, I refer you to the definition that there is on Wikipedia.(1) What I ask is: “How is it possible to have sex with a perfect stranger whose face you cannot even see?” Or rather: “How do you trust yourself to have sex with a perfect stranger whose face you cannot even see?”

Apart from the fact that I think that people in these places hardly bring a condom, anyway … I’m honest … but I cannot understand these things … and I sincerely find all this at the limit of madness … the thing that leaves me speechless is that even the stones know that by not using protections the risk of ruining one’s own health is high, nevertheless many times people use more what they have between their legs that what is located much higher … The question I ask myself, and ask you too is: “Why people don’t use protections when they have sex with perfect strangers?”

I found some answers on the net, reading an article, dated 2009,(2) I quote some excerpts that really make my arms fall. “They say that using them is difficult, complicated, not very sexy. They explain that love should be grasped, taken where and when it arrives, if we can “protect ourselves” it’s better, otherwise patience, we will try to be careful.” … “three young people out of four don’t use any protection during sexual intercourse, because “the partner is against” (22%), or because “they don’t have them at hand”. Some things make us reflect on how we are arranged in Italy. “For almost a decade now, campaigns on contraception have disappeared from the media and the priorities of the Ministry of Health. Guys who today have between the thirteen and seventeen years didn’t live the years of the emergency linked to HIV, from which sprung seasons of widespread information on safe sexuality, with a consequent spread of condom use.”

The problem is that these answers are not enough for me, because I cannot conceive how it’s possible to have so little consideration of oneself, because if you decide to take your health so little seriously, it means that you believe your life is worth less than zero … Reflecting on these things, it occurred to me that perhaps having an intercourse without a condom is a “distorted form” of self-harm. Self-harm(3): “is an act that involves the procuring, consciously or not, damage to one’s own person, both physically and in the abstract sense.” Having intercourse without protection with strangers can cause harm to you, in “physical sense” because there is the risk of taking diseases.

After these searches on the net I feel emptied, despite the article I read, I cannot find a logic behind this type of behavior. But there is a logic behind? It seems absurd to me that one can be indifferent to one’s own health and that of others, because if you have an illness and if your casual partner has no protection there is a risk of infecting him too.

Project answers:

“Well, understanding why it is not easy and there are many reasons for it, and they are very intertwined with each other. We must bear in mind that sexuality exists and that its importance is constantly stressed. The problem lies in how sexuality can be experienced. For someone it is possible to live sexuality in the context of an important emotional relationship, or at least in the context of a relationship characterized by mutual respect, it is clear that sexuality in these situations doesn’t create problems because it integrates deeply into the life of one person, which demystifies it and makes it a mode of emotional exchange.

Unfortunately there are situations in which sexuality doesn’t really have a way of integrating into a person’s life and then takes on the characteristics of the necessarily invisible, underground activity and in these cases it often happens that we turn to unknown people only for a sexual contact that seems being a liberation with respect to the compression of sexuality to which we are subjected.

Sexuality perceived as separate from the complex of the person must find a way to be realized with modalities completely separate from those of ordinary life. It must be kept in mind that the impossibility of living one’s own sexuality for what it is creates deep suffering and pushes to solve the problem even in dangerous ways. I try to explain myself with an example. A guy coming from the middle-class family of the late nineteenth century had to bow to a combined marriage, in which the sexual component was considered little more than a duty. It is obvious that in such situations, despite the risk of syphilis, that guy tried to have sex with a prostitute. But let’s get to gays.

Before the Internet age, a gay man, in order to live even at the minimum level a form of couple sexuality, had in practice only one choice, that is to frequent the places of male prostitution with all the risks connected to sexually transmitted diseases. Today there is the Internet and this means that male prostitution in the traditional sense tends to decrease, because, to have sex without commitment there are the dating sites that have at least the advantage of safeguarding the public image of people, clearly, even meeting people just known on the net there is the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

For some people, I talk about those who have uncommon sexual preferences, finding a real fulfillment is difficult even in dating sites and for this reason the propensity to accept a higher risk tends to increase. I could say that in general the more difficult it is for a person to find a way to live his sexuality, the higher is the dose of risk that that person is willing to accept. You are willing to accept high risks to achieve forms of sexual fulfillment that it is almost impossible to get without taking those risks.

It should be considered that sexuality experienced in this way is associated with low levels of self-esteem, element, this, correlated with the idea that it makes no sense to invest in your future and that you have to play everything for everything like when you play roulette.

Beyond these sociological and psychological motivations that can weaken the instinct of conservation, it remains however the fundamental reason for the dangerous behaviors, that is the ignorance or the underestimation of the risk. We are not even accustomed to food hygiene and we often abuse food because we don’t realize the damage we produce to our body and, even more so in sexuality, given the complete absence of a sexual education, we expose ourselves to risks because we are not informed and we don’t realize the dangers of our behavior. People very often discuss sexuality and morality, but it would be essential, before discussing such things, to seriously inquire about the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

Sex education not only helps you live better but can literally save your life. Health is too great a good thing to expose it to useless risks. A condom can be worth life!”

Riverdog answers:

“Hello Isabella, I wanted to reflect on your post … First of all, I think the topic is very important, so thank you for having dealt with this topic … but, in my opinion, there is a basic concept that should be clarified. I find the title more than suitable: “UNPROTECTED sexual intercourse” … unexceptionable I would say! Only that during the post, you “mix” this topic with another: “sexual intercourse with UNKNOWN people” … in short words it can be inferred that the risk of playing Russian roulette, comes from the combination of these two elements: 1) having unprotected sex; 2) have sex with a stranger. I don’t doubt that this represents the possible most risky combination among those obtainable, be clear. But the underlying message that can be drawn from it is that if I “know” the guy, the threshold of perception of danger can change and one can lower the guard, translated: one can lightly assume risky behaviors. I think that the protections should always be used, regardless of the knowledge of the partner, because that person can so far have had a sober sex life, but you never know … maybe he had a single intercourse, but with a partner that occasionally allowed himself some escapades …

or who perhaps become infected through behaviors not related to sexuality and maybe not even aware of his condition (fortunately nowadays a rare thing, but years ago …). What I want to be clear on is that no one is 100% sure. But this doesn’t mean that you have to get caught up in the paranoia, otherwise, hell, you don’t live anymore.

The use of condoms is of vital importance if you have intercourse with strangers, but it is good to use it also with well-known people. At least until a relationship blooms, and at that point we can resort to some analysis and then can be quiet (… hoping that the partner is a person with a bit of brain, but having behaved in that way previously makes me hope that then he avoids risky behaviors with other guys … at least for the protection of the usual partner …).

Actually, if the person is well known, and inspires you some security, in certain situations a little more elastic behavior can be allowed … but I avoid publicizing behaviors not 100% safe. Although 100% security doesn’t exist, and even the degree of fatalism of the individual affects his behavior. That said, in my opinion, you have to do things right, with rationality and information … at that point the fears must be put aside, otherwise you live badly … you can die even going to see your dad that crosses the finish line to a marathon, and in millions of other ways, also because this world is full of unbalanced persons … blessed the one who at least trusts in the afterlife …”




(3) Wikipedia,


If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:


Dear Project,

I read the discussion “Do the ideas change?” And I think I have to say something about the relationship between people of very different ages . I write to you, Project, then you see what to do with my mail, if you think it’s appropriate, include it in the discussion because I would like to know what the guys think. Naturally, I’m especially interested in what you think about it, because, from the chapter of “Being gay” that you have dedicated to this topic, I think it is not the first time you are faced with situations of this kind. So, let’s get to the point.

I’m 49 years old, at 20 I fell in love with a man much older than me, who was 57, although youthful appearance. My “he” (I will call him Renzo) died two years ago and I miss him terribly. We have been together for 27 years, we have had so many problems, especially due to the fact that people don’t accept this type of relationship and don’t understand that they can be relationships of love in the true sense of the word.

We also had our misunderstandings and in 27 years it happened several times, but then we always came back together because we were well together. I loved Renzo but I didn’t look for a father, at least I never saw him like that, there was a real complicity between us, a way of understanding each other that I think was unique. At the beginning it was difficult because he wanted to keep a certain distance, he felt old and didn’t want to make me any kind of obligations and he didn’t understand that he didn’t create anything of that kind.

We were a couple in the most beautiful sense of the term, even if at the beginning we had to hide because my family would never have accepted a story like ours. For me it was a total reference point, first he taught me to live and then he also taught me to die with dignity and, I would say, with serenity. In the last period he often told me that his life had been a happy life because he had met me, he also told me that he was not afraid of death, that it is a natural thing and that an old man can prepare himself to this event slowly. He never complained, it was he who gave courage to me.

For us there were no civil marriages and for this reason he thought in advance to leave me his assets before they ended up in the hands of distant relatives who had never dealt with him. He did these things with the utmost commitment, I tried to remove the idea of his death but he treated it with clarity, preparing everything with the utmost care. The last days I stayed with him at the hospital even in the night, he was very weak but he always tried to smile at me and I used to held his hand. Unfortunately I was not close to him at the end because they brought him to intensive care and when they let me in he was already dead.

I did everything according to his instructions. At the funeral there were no relatives, he had only distant cousins who hadn’t even been informed, at the funeral there were only a few common friends, among the very few who knew everything about us. He explicitly forbade me from mourning and told me that in my life nothing had to change, he also forbade me to go to the cemetery more than once a year.

After the funeral I felt very bad, right on the verge of deep depression and bad ideas started to go through my head, but he had warned me and had insisted very much in order to push me to do something “good” and I remembered it and started to volunteer during my free time. I would have devoted myself to the elderly but I have been assigned to manage a small clinic (I’m a doctor), for those who cannot even pay the ticket. When we met, Renzo was doing something similar (he too was a doctor) and it seemed strange to me at that time, but then I started to understand the value of these things. Sometimes they called him the night for an emergency and we used to go together.

He did not spare himself, and if he understood that people could not pay, he did his duty completely free. He didn’t go to church, but if anyone needed him, he didn’t hold back and did his best to help him. He was a good man, he thought more of others than himself. I miss Renzo badly, I feel a vacuum inside and I never fell in love with anyone else. I remember how he knew how to reassure me, how he could make me reason when doubts about a thousand things invaded me, especially about the profession. I felt unsuitable, too inadequate to be a doctor and he told me that I was a very serious and competent doctor.

In short, today, two years later, I still feel close to him. I lived the life I wanted. At first he was reluctant, he could hardly believe it, then he saw that I really loved him and he felt completely free. Among us there was also sex, of course, and even in the sex I felt that he tried to make me feel comfortable and make me feel good. He was a profoundly good man, a little like I wanted to be, and this has me pushed to fall in love with him. We loved each other and I think I would never have found happiness if I had not met him. I know very well that for many people what I wrote is pathological but for me it was the true happiness of life.



If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:


Pope Francis, on the return flight from Dublin, speaking informally, as he usually does, answering a question regarding the attitude that a parent should take in the face of his son’s coming out, expressed himself so:
“In what age does this concern of the child manifest itself, it is important, one thing is when it manifests as a child, there … there are so many things to do … with psychiatry or …, or … to see how things are. Another thing is when it manifests a little after, twenty years or something … “
I wonder without a spirit of controversy how a Pope cannot have the faintest idea of what homosexuality really is.
In the classification of mental and behavioral disorders contained in the 10th formulation of the World Health Organization (WHO) document for the classification of diseases (ICD-10), homosexuality is no longer considered an illness in itself and is recognized the existence of dystonic forms of all sexual orientations. Echo-dystonic homosexuality is a homosexuality recognized by the subject but not accepted. If a homosexual, fully conscious of being homosexual, comes into conflict with his sexual orientation for religious, moral or social reasons and wishes to change sexual orientation,  his homosexuality is called ego-dystonic homosexuality. This category is now outdated and ego-dystonic homosexuality is no longer classified as a mental disorder, but as a simple discomfort due to cultural or social reasons. 
The ICD-10 was approved by the 43th WHO Assembly in May 1990 and has been in use in the WHO member States since 1994. The release date for ICD-11 is 2018, and any reference to homosexuality, even the ego-dystonic one, is expected to be completely eliminated.
Maintaining the category of “ego-dystonic homosexuality” has fueled the thriving market of conversion therapies aimed at bringing back homosexuals to heterosexuality, because these aberrant practices were officially considered forms of treatment for a “disease” and therefore were repayable by health insurances or national health services, if any.
Homosexuality had been deleted from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)) since 1973, after a very tortuous path in which ideological resistance, political opportunism and economic interests were intertwined in various ways, in a border territory in which science (psychiatry) risked losing even the appearance of objectivity. In this regard, I refer to a fine article by Jack Drescher: Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality which illustrates the path that led to the de-pathologisation of homosexuality by the APA.
 Below is a fundamental document on reparative therapies:
Pan American Health Organization
Regional Office of the
World Health Organization
Purported therapies aimed at changing sexual orientation lack medical justification and are ethically unacceptable



Countless human beings live their lives surrounded by rejection, maltreatment, and violence for being perceived as “different.” Among them, millions are victims of attitudes of mistrust, disdain and hatred because of their sexual orientation. These expressions of homophobia are based on intolerance resulting from blind fanaticism as well as pseudoscientific views that regard non-heterosexual and non-procreative sexual behavior as “deviation” or the result of a “developmental defect.”
Whatever its origins and manifestations, any form of homophobia has negative effects on the affected people, their families and friends, and society at large. There is an abundance of accounts and testimonies of suffering; feelings of guilt and shame; social exclusion; threats and injuries; and persons who have been brutalized and tortured to the point of causing injuries, permanent scars and even death. As a consequence, homphobia represents a public health problem that needs to be addressed energetically.
While every expression of homophobia is regrettable, harms caused by health professionals as a result of ignorance, prejudice, or intolerance are absolutely unacceptable and must be avoided by all means. Not only is it fundamentally important that every person who uses health services be treated with dignity and respect; it is also critical to prevent the application of theories and models that view homosexuality as a “deviation” or a choice that can be modified through “will power” or supposed “therapeutic support”.
In several countries of the Americas, there has been evidence of the continued promotion, through supposed “clinics” or individual “therapists,” of services aimed at “curing” non-heterosexual orientation, an approach known as “reparative” or “conversion therapy.”1 Worryingly, these services are often provided not just outside the sphere of public attention but in a clandestine manner. From the perspective of professional ethics and human rights protected by regional and universal treaties and conventions such as the American Convention on Human Rights and its Additional Protocol (“Protocol of San Salvador”) 2, they represent unjustifiable practices that should be denounced and subject to corresponding sanctions.
Homosexuality as a natural and non-pathological variation
Efforts aimed at changing non-heterosexual sexual orientations lack medical justification since homosexuality cannot be considered a pathological condition.3 There is a professional consensus that homosexuality represents a natural variation of human sexuality without any intrinsically harmful effect on the health of those concerned or those close to them. In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure. For this reason homosexuality was removed from the relevant systems of classification of diseases several decades ago.4
The ineffectiveness and harmfulness of “conversion therapies”
Besides the lack of medical indication, there is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of sexual reorientation efforts. While some persons manage to limit the expression of their sexual orientation in terms of conduct, the orientation itself generally appears as an integral personal characteristic that cannot be changed. At the same time, testimonies abound about harms to mental and physical health resulting from the repression of a person’s sexual orientation. In 2009, the American Psychological Association conducted a review of 83 cases of people who had been subject to “conversion” interventions.5 Not only was it impossible to demonstrate changes in subjects’ sexual orientation, in addition the study found that the intention to change sexual orientation was linked to depression, anxiety, insomnia, feelings of guilt and shame, and even suicidal ideation and behaviors. In light of this evidence, suggesting to patients that they suffer from a “defect” and that they ought to change constitutes a violation of the first principle of medical ethics: “first, do no harm.” It affects the right to personal integrity as well as the right to health, especially in its psychological and moral dimensions.
Reported violations of personal integrity and other human rights
As an aggravating factor, “conversion therapies” have to be considered threats to the right to personal autonomy and to personal integrity. There are several testimonies from adolescents who have been subject to “reparative” interventions against their will, many times at their families’ initiative. In some cases, the victims were interned and deprived of their liberty, sometimes to the extent of being kept in isolation during several months. 6 The testimonies provide accounts of degrading treatment, extreme humiliation, physical violence, aversive conditioning through electric shock or emetic substances, and even sexual harassment and attempts of “reparative rape,” especially in the case of lesbian women. Such interventions violate the dignity and human rights of the affected persons, independently of the fact that their “therapeutic” effect is nil or even counterproductive. In these cases, the right to health has not been protected as demanded by the regional and international obligations established through the Protocol of San Salvador and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
Health professionals who offer “reparative therapies” align themselves with social prejudices and reflect a stark ignorance in matters of sexuality and sexual health. Contrary to what many people believe or assume, there is no reason – with the exception of the stigma resulting from those very prejudices – why homosexual persons should be unable to enjoy a full and satisfying life. The task of health professionals is to not cause harm and to offer support to patients to alleviate their complaints and problems, not to make these more severe. A therapist who classifies non-heterosexual patients as “deviant” not only offends them but also contributes to the aggravation of their problems. “Reparative” or “conversion therapies” have no medical indication and represent a severe threat to the health and human rights of the affected persons. They constitute unjustifiable practices that should be denounced and subject to adequate sanctions and penalties.
To governments: 
Homophobic ill-treatment on the part of health professionals or other members of health care teams violates human rights obligations established through universal and regional treaties. Such treatment is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.
“Reparative” or “conversion therapies” and the clinics offering them should be reported and subject to adequate sanctions.
Institutions offering such “treatment” at the margin of the health sector should be viewed as infringing the right to health by assuming a role properly pertaining to the health sector and by causing harm to individual and community well-being.7
Victims of homophobic ill-treatment must be treated in accordance with protocols that support them in the recovery of their dignity and self-esteem. This includes providing them treatment for physical and emotional harm and protecting their human rights, especially the right to life, personal integrity, health, and equality before the law.
To academic institutions: 
Public institutions responsible for training health professionals should include courses on human sexuality and sexual health in their curricula, with a particular focus on respect for diversity and the elimination of attitudes of pathologization, rejection, and hate toward non-heterosexual persons. The participation of the latter in teaching activities contributes to the development of positive role models and to the elimination of common stereotypes about non-heterosexual communities and persons.
The formation of support groups among faculty and within the student community contributes to reducing isolation and promoting solidarity and relationships of friendship and respect between members of these groups.
Better still is the formation of sexual diversity alliances that include heterosexual persons.
Homophobic harassment or maltreatment on the part of members of the faculty or students is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.
To professional associations:
Professional associations should disseminate documents and resolutions by national and international institutions and agencies that call for the de-psychopathologization of sexual diversity and the prevention of interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation.
Professional associations should adopt clear and defined positions regarding the protection of human dignity and should define necessary actions for the prevention and control of homophobia as a public health problem that negatively impacts the enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.
The application of so-called “reparative” or “conversion therapies” should be considered fraudulent and as violating the basic principles of medical ethics. Individuals or institutions offering these treatments should be subject to adequate sanctions.
To the media:
The representation of non-heterosexual groups, populations, or individuals in the media should be based on personal respect, avoiding stereotypes or humor based on mockery, ill-treatment, or violations of dignity or individual or collective well-being.
Homophobia, in any of its manifestations and expressed by any person, should be exposed as a public health problem and a threat to human dignity and human rights.
The use of positive images of non-heterosexual persons or groups, far from promoting homosexuality (in virtue of the fact that sexual orientation cannot be changed), contributes to creating a more humane and diversity-friendly outlook, dispelling unfounded fears and promoting feelings of solidarity.
Publicity that incites homophobic intolerance should be denounced for contributing to the aggravation of a public health problem and threats to the right to life, particularly as it contributes to chronic emotional suffering, physical violence, and hate crimes.
Advertising by “therapists,” “care centers,” or any other agent offering services aimed at changing sexual orientation should be considered illegal and should be reported to the relevant authorities.
To civil society organizations:
Civil society organizations can develop mechanisms of civil vigilance to detect violations of the human rights of non-heterosexual persons and report them to the relevant authorities. They can also help to identify and report persons and institutions involved in the administration of so-called “reparative” or “conversion therapies.”
Existing or emerging self-help groups of relatives or friends of non-heterosexual persons can facilitate the connection to health and social services with the goal of protecting the physical and emotional integrity of ill-treated individuals, in addition to reporting abuse and violence.
Fostering respectful daily interactions between persons of different sexual orientations is enriching for everyone and promotes harmonic, constructive, salutary, and peaceful ways of living together.
1 Human Rights Committee (2008). Concluding Observations on Ecuador(CCPR/C/ECU/CO/5), paragraph 12.
Human Rights Council (2011). Discriminatory Laws and Practices and Acts of Violence Against Individuals
Based on Their Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (A/HRC/19/41), paragraph 56. <;
Human Rights Council (2011). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health (A/HRC/14/20), paragraph 23.
United Nations General Assembly (2001). Note by the Secretary-General on the Question of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (A/56/156), paragraph 24. <;
2 The human rights that can be affected by these practices include, among others, the right to life, to personal integrity, to privacy, to equality before the law, to personal liberty, to health, and to benefit from scientific progress.
3 American Psychiatric Association (2000). Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies):
Anton, B. S. (2010). “Proceedings of the American Psychological Association for the Legislative Year 2009: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives and Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Directors”. American Psychologist, 65, 385–475.
Just the Facts Coalition (2008). Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel.
4 World Health Organization (1994). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (10th Revision). Geneva, Switzerland.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(4th ed.,text revision). Washington, DC.
5 APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (2009). Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC. <;
6 Taller de Comunicación Mujer (2008). Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos: Informe Sombra.
Centro de Derechos Económicos y Sociales (2005). Tribunal por los Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales de las Mujeres.
7 See General Comment No. 14 by the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights with regards to the obligation to respect, protect and comply with human rights obligations on the part of States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
Obviously Pope Francis does not know these documents but only the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He may also have courage in fighting pedophilia but he has absolutely no clear idea of what serious psychiatry says about homosexuality. On the other hand, the Church seems to suggest today, according to the words of the Pope, a reparative therapy to be applied at a very early age.
To understand exactly what reparative therapies are I advise you to read a journalistic very documented report on the “reparative therapy of homosexuality” the therapy that Catholic groups recommend to solve the “problem” of homosexuality (…osexuality) all under the supervision of a professor of psychology at the Gregorian Pontifical University. Already on another occasion I had to mention the “gay science” (gay here means light) of so-called scientists, but here things are more serious because behind these things there is the endorsement of the Catholic Church and this is not then the usual isolated guru. In these things are involved churchmen. I am personally convinced that the Christian message is a very serious thing, or rather something that, if taken seriously, is a very serious thing, and I have known men of the Church who have really spent their lives for the others. I wonder how it is possible that what is described in the published report could obtain the approval of the Church. How could be tolerable that a boy 15/16 y. o. should be subject, according to the will of the parents, to raving “reparative therapy od the homosexuality”. These things are not only immoral but verge on the Criminal Code.
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:


Hello Project, I jump the pleasantries, if I write you it means that for me you are ok. I’m 24 years old, I cannot say if I’m single or multiple. I mean I don’t have a boyfriend, or rather I don’t have a boyfriend in the traditional sense of the term, but I have more than one. I don’t go looking for chat of meetings or similar things, my boyfriends, if I can call them so, are guys I met in real life, for me it’s not just a sexual interest, I love these guys (I would say that they are currently three, or maybe four) and I am convinced that they would do anything for me just as I would do for them. 
I read the email you posted on ex-boyfriends that is “Beyond the gay couple”, but for me it is different, there are no ex-boyfriends, I may not have seen one of my boys for a long time, even months, but finally when we see each other we can also have a bit of sex. Sex for me is very important but also because it gives me a little certainty that the guy doesn’t say no, doesn’t refuse me, I think the point is this. If I like a guy, he attracts me because he is a good and nice guy, then, when I fall in love with him, I want him to have sex with me, it becomes a kind of fixed idea for me, I court him with the utmost commitment, that is, I make it clear in every way that I’m in love with him, but if he refuses me, I keep him at a distance definitively.
I want guys who want me even from that (sex) point of view, then, when it happened, the frenzy goes away and let’s say that that guy remains as a real interest for me, sex and affection together, I know that I can trust him, in a sense I don’t even care if he’s faithful because I probably wouldn’t be faithful to him, but I have to know I can trust him. With the guys I always make a clear speech, I don’t look for close bonds, I don’t like such things, with someone a similar speech is possible, with some other really not and it all ends immediately, unless they pretend to be able to change things.
I don’t consider myself a stray of sex in the sense that I don’t go with the first one I meet, I have to love a guy to think about sex with him, somehow I’m polygamist, in the sense that I have more guys at the same time, but they are always and only the same, maybe over time someone will go away and I will know some new guy, but my boys are few.
I like serious guys but not moralists, I don’t like those who preach all the time because they want to manage you as if you were a thing. Then, of course, it happens that I, for some periods, have a quasi-boyfriend, that is a guy who in practice attracts me very strongly on a sexual level and not only and at that time I think only of him. But it doesn’t happen that it becomes a definitive and exclusive thing. My boys know that I’m like that and I think that at the beginning they suffer a lot because they think that the fact that I dedicate myself to another guy means that I forget them but it is not so and when they understand it they are perplexed and then amazed in the positive sense.
That is, if just to say, I belonged to one guy only I would feel forced, I would feel it as something not spontaneous, and then who says that you cannot really love three or four guys but that it should be only one? The general rules don’t make much sense. If for someone it works so good for him, it does not work for me like that. Some friends, not “my boys”, tell me that going on like this will leave me nothing because I will never have an emotional stability, but I feel good this way. I tried several times to have only one boyfriend but eventually it became a routine, an obligation, while I want things to be spontaneous. I’m not a person who comes crazy for sex, I like it and a lot, but I don’t have to be in bed with someone every night, in fact sometimes I spend very long periods without sex and then sometimes the imagination is enough and I can do it myself. One thing to remark: I’m very careful, on a maniacal level, about prevention but now my boys know it.
Project, I don’t feel strange for my way of living sex, it’s the others (not my boys) who do everything to make it seem strange. My boys, for me, are not just friends and not even friends with whom you can also have sex, for me they are really important. Losing one of them would make me feel bad, but, saying “loosing”, I don’t mean “loosing” him in the sense that he has found another boy but in the sense that he does not think about me anymore, that he doesn’t look for me anymore and also that he refuses me when maybe I can think of having a bit of sex with him. I would still like to continue to believe that he is there and that there will be anyway, no matter whether he has or doesn’t have a boyfriend. I know it sounds strange, it sounds strange to me when I read it, however, in fact it is so. I think that gay polygamy, like mine, exists and that it is not such a rare thing. It took me a long time to understand that this works for me but in the end my spontaneity is just that. What do you think, Project?
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: