A recent study published by the Clinical Journal of Nursing and the University of Miami states that Gay men who identify themselves as "Bears" suffer from lower self-esteem and are more likely going to engage in riskier sexual activities. As a member of this wonder community of hairy handsome men, I have much to say about this so called study and I'm letting it all hang out. Yes, once again, I am shirtless for all you hunks out there. Enjoy and have a wonderful Friday.
Bears Have Lower Self-Esteem And Engage In Much Riskier Sex, Study Finds: http://www.queerty.com/bears-lower-self-esteem-engage-much-riskier-sex-study-finds
Free Royalty Free Music for YouTube from:
Provided by http://www.SmartSound.com/royalty-fre...
all good, but that bit about the rest of the gay community being interested in appearance whereas bears arent, is not true. maybe in the 90s it was so. but now it is one of the most appearance-conscious subcultures in the LGBT sprectrum
To isolate the mobilization-induced labor supply shift, the authors exploit the fact that the fraction of males serving in the war was not uniform across states. For example, in Massachusetts, Oregon, and Utah, almost 55 percent of males between the ages of 18 and 44 left civilian work to serve in the war. In Georgia, the Dakotas, and the Carolinas, this number ranged between 40 and 45 percent. The state differences in war mobilization actually reflect a variety of factors. The Selective Services guidelines for deferments were based on marital status, fatherhood, essential skills for civilian war production, and temporary medical disabilities, but left considerable discretion to the local boards. Because of the importance of maintaining a strong food supply to support the war, an important consideration for deferment was farm employment.
States with a high percentage of farmers had substantially lower mobilization rates, and this explains a considerable share of the state variation in mobilization rates.
The authors show that in states with greater war mobilization of men, women worked more after the war and in 1950, but not in 1940. This differential does not appear to be explained by other cross-state differences or possible demand factors, and is not present in the 1940 data nor does a similar trend recur in the decade of the 1950s. The authors interpret these differentials as labor supply shifts induced by the War. Acemoglu, Autor, and Lyle believe these cross-state changes in female employment were caused by greater participation of women during the war years, with some of those women staying on. War changed womens preferences, opportunities, and information about available work.