Queer eye on a straight guy.
I have a gay friend who, because of choices early on in his life, finds himself married with children. He thus plays the role of a straight man, but anyone who knows him well will likely suspect "tendencies" even if it's never actually discussed. We'll call him GG (for Gay Guy).
Now GG has a friend who we'll call SG (for Straight Guy). SG married a woman who would not countenance sin of any kind (well, visible sin anyway). So when SG's wife discovered he was less than perfect she divorced him. SG is at a stage in life that makes dating eligible women difficult, so he remains single though years have passed since RB (for Raging Bitch) left him and went in search of the "perfect" mate.
Whenever SG has pulled a muscle or pinched a nerve, GG is the one he asks for a massage. I asked GG if SG is aware of the extra mental processes that are involved with GG giving SG a massage. His reply: "He's not stupid, but it's not something we talk about."
At this point, many a homo will pounce and say that SG isn't as S as he thinks. I suppose that is one possibility, but I'm not convinced. All too often gay men skip the other possibility: that SG is really S, comfortable and secure in his Sness and isn't threatened by GG's Gness. GG also has the sense to maintain decorum and not go where he has not been invited. Thus a trust exists between the two of them that allows both to gain some measure of fulfillment without the threat of events taking a turn for the worse.
I have to wonder if there isn't something else at work here. Having been where SG is (divorced and single and having difficulty finding eligible (in my case) bachelors), I understand the need, indeed craving, for intimate contact. GG is a trusted friend, so there is a bond and an intimacy that exists that would not exist if a professional masseuse were sought out. (Not to mention any man who is divorced knows that cash is exceeding scarce.) For all we know SG has turned the tables on GG and is imagining [insert SG's concept of a beautiful woman here] while GG is massaging him.
The interesting thing for me is I don't remember that craving before I was married. Afterward is a completely different story. Now I'm fairly independent and always have been, so I can go stretches without feeling that need. The more of it I get, however, the more I need it.
It's not about simple touch, otherwise friendly hugs would be enough. It's about a connection, some kind of intimacy. That probably has a good deal to do with why I never found anonymous sex satisfying and preferred having friends with benefits. Friends with benefits is its own can of worms, however, and we just won't go there right now.
Anyway, where I'm trying to go with this is there seems to be something addictive about intimate contact. Some will point to this as evidence of the chemical nature of love and attempt to then refute any mystical aspect of love. I have never understood this point of view. We don't teach mysticism in science class because some people can't distinguish between the two. That doesn't mean they can't coexist.
In my mind who we are is something that exists beyond our current sight and understanding. Our bodies are a reflection or the manifestation of that being on this world. I see the chemical process that seem to govern our bodies and reactions similar to the strings of a marionette, something the master uses to control the puppet. Sometimes the strings become tangled or even severed and the master cannot properly exert its will on the puppet.
To my mind, it seems pretty incredible that there is a physical process through which our physical beings are impacted and influenced. Strectching the analogy a bit, early man believed that thunderstorms were the physical manifestation of God's anger. Hell, some of modern man still believe that. Is a hurricane a sign of Mother Earth having a bad day? Is it the planetary version of PMS? Who knows. I can't say that with any more certainty than I can say my marionette analogy is the way it IS.
On the other hand, I won't be surprised if that turns out to be the case.
P.S. Just for the record if hurricanes and such are the result of Mother Earth having a bad day, I do not believe that she focuses her wrath on anyone in particular. Like any woman who is having a bad day (for whatever reason), if you are in her path you tread lightly and bunker down or you are pretty much screwed. 
March 28th, 2006 - 18:43
From what I’ve read and studied Hurricanes are the Earth’s cooling mechanism. A form or “air-conditioning” if you will. With global warming the hurricanes become more powerful because the temperature of the earth is increasing. The planet has it’s own tools for maintaining an ecological balance. Which we are currently destroying. I’m all for the Kyoto Accord.
As for intimacy? There have been studies that show intimacy and tactile contact promotes health. The body responds positively to massage and other forms of intimate contact. One of the studies showed that massage therapy created chemical reactions in the body that helped heal and balance. We as human beings are social animals and need physical contact for physical and emotional well-being. It’s in our nature.