Apparently I'm Not The Only One Who Isn't Aging Well

[+ Gar1eth]

How did Tom keep looking so good? I'd love to know his secret and it better not be Scientology.

 

I think he is earned his fitness through exercise, but his face is the result of earnings. The best plastic surgery money can buy.

 

I'm not really doubting you. But it's interesting many stars have had work done. But the results haven't been as aesthetically pleasing-Mickey Rourke being a case in point. And maybe if I were straight I'd like them because of what they suggest 'subliminally,' but those bee-stung looking lips of some Hollywood stars look awful to me.

 

Gman

[+ sniper]

Irish/English people generally have thin skin that ages poorly and gets damaged easily by the sun. And I'd think that thinner skin also is likely to not take well to plastic surgery. Surgery is a trauma, and thinner skin doesn't heal as well.

 

I went to a dermatologist because I have ruddy Irish skin/rosacea and she basically told me there wasn't really anything she could do for me that was likely to help because my skin was so sensitive the irritation of treatments would probably make it worse.

[Becket]

Lots of factors affect our aging. Illness, stress, financial problems, trouble with family or lack of self esteem to name a few. Ours is a culture where youth is worshiped and the elderly are disposed of in institutions. I'm all for the things we can do to keep healthy. Exercise, good diet, common sense are a few.

 

I get it. This thread is a light heart-ed kinda gossipy chat about who still looks good. But from childhood to grave the ones who look "better" than the rest of us are given advantages and opportunities. Attractive children are considered more intelligent as early as nursery school. The good looking guy is often times the quaterback. Shit, even some guy who just got outta jail.....the so called "hot felon" already has a rich girlfriend and a modeling contract.

 

Poor Val Kilmer. One of my favorite 80's and 90' fantasies has cancer. Anyone who knows a whit about that experience knows one will be changed forever. Here's my two cents. If one evening you find you are stuck between two or three choices, take a chance. Hire the one who looks least attractive to you. My experience has been that THAT fellow will work his tail off to ensure you have a quality experience.

 

I want be self sufficient for ever. At some point my children will come and take my car keys and take me to live in "a place you'll just LOVE, Dad" It is this day on the horizon that keeps me coming here, looking at healthy and happy men, and even procuring their services from time to time. I won't always have this freedom.

[+ quoththeraven]

Some individuals have great genes. Some groups age better than others with fewer wrinkles and less skin damage. But health, wealth, attitude and self-care (plus plastic surgery, potentially) have a lot to do with it too.

 

Even though we act like it matters, ultimately our worth is not bound up in our looks. I know this is like Sisyphus rolling the rock uphill, especially here, but I wish we as a society would stop putting so much emphasis on physical beauty and largely unachievable beauty ideals. It does far more damage than it does good.

 

(I am, however, petty enough to celebrate that as long as I color my hair, I look like I'm in my forties, not my sixties.)

 

/gets off soapbox

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

Foresight is everything in life. Hindsight, however, is a bitch with 20/20 vision.

 

Taking care of yourself starts in your very early 20s: Consuming lots of water, supplements that help skin/hair, no smoking, light drinking, limiting UV exposure, diet, knowing when and what to use for topical skincare... And, as we age, when to start things like Botox and fillers (a good dermatologist helps too).

 

Sure, you can't stop age, but you can prevent from prematurely looking rough.

[+ Gar1eth]

Some individuals have great genes. Some groups age better than others with fewer wrinkles and less skin damage. But health, wealth, attitude and self-care (plus plastic surgery, potentially) have a lot to do with it too.

 

Even though we act like it matters, ultimately our worth is not bound up in our looks. I know this is like Sisyphus rolling the rock uphill, especially here, but I wish we as a society would stop putting so much emphasis on physical beauty and largely unachievable beauty ideals. It does far more damage than it does good.

 

(I am, however, petty enough to celebrate that as long as I color my hair, I look like I'm in my forties, not my sixties.)

 

/gets off soapbox

 

It's not that I think you are wrong. I could only wish my libido would listen to you. Still while standards of beauty may change from society to society and person to person, don't you think we are wired to some extent to be attracted to beautiful things?

 

Anyone know if evolutionary biologists would still posit that we are attracted to beautiful things as they are more likely to indicate good health/good reproductive potential, or is that just pop psychology and not really true?

 

Gman

[+ FreshFluff]

Anyone know if evolutionary biologists would still posit that we are attracted to beautiful things as they are more likely to indicate good health/good reproductive potential, or is that just pop psychology and not really true?

 

Most of the qualities men are attracted to in women are correlated with health or reproductive fitness. Women, on the other hand, don't care about health and reproductive fitness so much. They're attracted to the ability to support them and their young.

 

Of course, none of that can explain M4M preferences.

[+ quoththeraven]

It's not that I think you are wrong. I could only wish my libido would listen to you. Still while standards of beauty may change from society to society and person to person, don't you think we are wired to some extent to be attracted to beautiful things?

 

Anyone know if evolutionary biologists would still posit that we are attracted to beautiful things as they are more likely to indicate good health/good reproductive potential, or is that just pop psychology and not really true?

 

Gman

Of course we are attracted to beauty, but what that is and what that means is socially conditioned. It may not be possible to undo what attracts you the most, but it may well be possible to discover that it's possible to have enjoyable sex with people who are not dropdead gorgeous. Or are you saying sexual fulfillment for men really is that shallow?

 

I think the jury is out on beauty and evolution because I question the validity of most of the definitions and methods used in relevant studies. Also, this is more the purview of evolutionary psychology, not evolutionary biology.

[+ Gar1eth]

It's not that I think you are wrong. I could only wish my libido would listen to you. Still while standards of beauty may change from society to society and person to person, don't you think we are wired to some extent to be attracted to beautiful things?

 

Anyone know if evolutionary biologists would still posit that we are attracted to beautiful things as they are more likely to indicate good health/good reproductive potential, or is that just pop psychology and not really true?

 

Gman

 

Most of the qualities men are attracted to in women are correlated with health or reproductive fitness. Women, on the other hand, don't care about health and reproductive fitness so much. They're attracted to the ability to support them and their young.

 

Of course, none of that can explain M4M preferences.

 

Years and years ago when I was in college in either an introductory ethnology class or an intro to psychology class, I could swear I remember the professor talking about a study where they admisinstered some drug-most likely a hormone to 'reportedly' straight men and women and to gay men. On whatever biological substance they were measuring as a response there was a clear difference between the straight men and straight women with the gay men having an intermediate response. I've never heard about this study since. And of course we can all think of reasons why there could be bias and that the study was a load of cr-p.

 

But maybe gay men look at other men thru a combination of the way straight men look at women and straight women look at men.

 

Gman

[MikeyGMin]

Or are you saying sexual fulfillment for men really is that shallow?

Yes dear Raven. In most cases men really are that shallow. Myself included. In hindsight I regret (sort of?) that I have passed up on several potential relationships that made good sense, and would have been good matches, if I had just been able to make my heart go pitter-pat.

[LivingnLA]

While certain attributes of "beauty" are definitely culturally influenced, there also seem to be "universal" or "baseline" attributes, like symmetry, that appear to be genetically based and passed on generation after generation.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/the-science-of-sexiness-why-some-people-are-just-more-attractive/

 

Another may be how women frequently prefer older men and men frequently prefer women in their 20s. This research is being done on non-heterosexuals as well, but I haven't seen the results for it yet.

 

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/evolutionary_psychology_why_women_like_older_men_and_men_like_younger_women-145652

 

Regarding evolution and homosexuality, there are some fascinating research projects, papers, and books on the subject. The general consensus is that sexual orientation is determined by our genetic heritage with our environment and formative life experiences providing some influence. Also keep in mind that male homosexuality, bisexuality, and lesbianism all appear as though different genetics are involved. In other words, one gene that is generally understood to be behind male homosexuality has not been found to have any involvement in lesbianism. As I've said many times, human sexuality is incredibly complex.

 

http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

 

And for fun, here's one of the best accessible articles online about how biology seems to be the primary driver of how "attraction" works for us.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199304/the-biology-attraction

[+ FreshFluff]

Yes dear Raven. In most cases men really are that shallow.

 

Women are just as shallow, but with respect to different traits.

[+ quoththeraven]

Yes dear Raven. In most cases men really are that shallow. Myself included. In hindsight I regret (sort of?) that I have passed up on several potential relationships that made good sense, and would have been good matches, if I had just been able to make my heart go pitter-pat.

Is that shallowness inevitable or learned?

 

I don't know the answer but it may not be as cut and dried as people think. If it were, then talk therapy should never work.

[+ quoththeraven]

Women are just as shallow, but with respect to different traits.

I'm not sure that holds up, but it depends on what you mean by shallow.

[+ Gar1eth]

But there is the stereotype of women marrying older men for security and having a younger lover on the side. If it's true to any great extent, then you'd have to say that women aren't really attracted to older men but to what the older men can give them.

 

Gman

[+ Gar1eth]

While certain attributes of "beauty" are definitely culturally influenced, there also seem to be "universal" or "baseline" attributes, like symmetry, that appear to be genetically based and passed on generation after generation.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/the-science-of-sexiness-why-some-people-are-just-more-attractive/

 

Another may be how women frequently prefer older men and men frequently prefer women in their 20s. This research is being done on non-heterosexuals as well, but I haven't seen the results for it yet.

 

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/evolutionary_psychology_why_women_like_older_men_and_men_like_younger_women-145652

 

Regarding evolution and homosexuality, there are some fascinating research projects, papers, and books on the subject. The general consensus is that sexual orientation is determined by our genetic heritage with our environment and formative life experiences providing some influence. Also keep in mind that male homosexuality, bisexuality, and lesbianism all appear as though different genetics are involved. In other words, one gene that is generally understood to be behind male homosexuality has not been found to have any involvement in lesbianism. As I've said many times, human sexuality is incredibly complex.

 

http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

 

And for fun, here's one of the best accessible articles online about how biology seems to be the primary driver of how "attraction" works for us.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199304/the-biology-attraction

 

It seems to me that there is a problem with (for men) if you're gay, you are gay, you can never be anything else. Because if you accept bisexuality, then (and I have no proof of this, it just seems logical to me) I would bet there are more guys who are bisexual than there are gays-because it makes more sense from an evolutionary standpoint. And when I say gay, I mean someone 4.75 to 6 on Kinsey. But if there really are a lot of true bisexuals who are reasonably happy having sex with both males and females with maybe only a slight preference in either direction, it stands to reason that in our more 'gay-accepting' society, people who would have never known they were bisexual are going to figure out they like gay sex. But if for some reason they decide it's wrong, then they may be very happily able to switch to a totally straight lifestyle.

 

Mind you, I don't think I could ever be 'straight'. I've never even really had an erection at the thought or site of a nude woman. But I might be more in the minority.

 

Gman

[LivingnLA]

But there is the stereotype of women marrying older men for security and having a younger lover on the side. If it's true to any great extent, then you'd have to say that women aren't really attracted to older men but to what the older men can give them. (Emphasis mine)

 

Gman

 

@GMan, that's a distinction without a difference since the evolutionary drivers for attraction are based on what an "attractive" partner can "give" those that find them attractive. That's the whole point of gene propagation, it's adaptive in the environment such that it outperforms other adaptions and propagates forward more successfully.

 

Also, please read the research regarding women's preference for slightly older partners. Here's a full paper from the latest published research I found. I've cut-n-paste the abstract with my own bold highlighting the relevant points:

 

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474704917690401

 

Abstract

 

Whereas

women of all ages prefer slightly older sexual partners

,

men—regardless of their age—have a preference for women in their 20s

. Earlier research has suggested that this difference between the sexes’ age preferences is resolved according to women’s preferences. This research has not, however, sufficiently considered that the age range of considered partners might change over the life span. Here we investigated the age limits (youngest and oldest) of considered and actual sex partners in a population-based sample of 2,655 adults (aged 18-50 years). Over the investigated age span, women reported a narrower age range than men and women tended to prefer slightly older men. We also show that

men’s age range widens as they get older: While they continue to consider sex with young women, men also consider sex with women their own age or older.

Contrary to earlier suggestions, men’s sexual activity thus reflects also their own age range, although their potential interest in younger women is not likely converted into sexual activity.

Compared to homosexual men, bisexual and heterosexual men were more unlikely to convert young preferences into actual behavior, supporting female-choice theory.

 

[LivingnLA]

It seems to me that there is a problem with (for men) if you're gay, you are gay, you can never be anything else. Because if you accept bisexuality, then (and I have no proof of this, it just seems logical to me) I would bet there are more guys who are bisexual than there are gays-because it makes more sense from an evolutionary standpoint. And when I say gay, I mean someone 4.75 to 6 on Kinsey. But if there really are a lot of true bisexuals who are reasonably happy having sex with both males and females with maybe only a slight preference in either direction, it stands to reason that in our more 'gay-accepting' society, people who would have never known they were bisexual are going to figure out they like gay sex. But if for some reason they decide it's wrong, then they may be very happily able to switch to a totally straight lifestyle.

 

Mind you, I don't think I could ever be 'straight'. I've never even really had an erection at the thought or site of a nude woman. But I might be more in the minority.

 

Gman

 

This is an incredibly difficult topic to discuss. As I've said repeatedly, human sexuality is fiendishly complex and when you start trying to understand the evolutionary aspects of homosexuality, it gets even more so. Here's a great--though some-what old--article that discusses much of the relevant research and understanding for male homosexuality. As I said in a previous post, research seems to suggest lesbianism and bisexuality have different genes driving them compared to male homosexuality. So, keep them discrete as we discuss these topics.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200805/finding-the-switch

 

Now, back to your point about bisexuality. Humans are fairly sexually promiscuous, which seems pretty typical of mammals. One of the most interesting ideas I've seen about it over the last decade, was from UC Berkeley, which suggested an evolutionary benefit for promiscuity to immune system development (link to PDF of the research), which makes alot of sense!

 

Why did I bring up promiscuity when you were talking about sexual orientation? Mostly for fun, but my larger point is that sex, sexual orientation, sexual activity orientation, and gender identity seem to be separate and related. In other words, it's possible to be a physically male human being who identifies as masculine (gender), and fantasizes and dates other male humans but is also perfectly capable of sexual activity with female humans.

 

It's incredibly complicated. Here's an excerpt from an excellent book on this wide-ranging topic:

 

https://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/content/pdfs/14-3_Sex/14-3_Martinson.pdf

 

While one’s “sexual orientation” is primarily determined by the object(s) of ones sexual fantasies and desires, by the focus of one’s inner sexual fantasies and affection, Eli Coleman understands sexual orientation to be even more complex.

Coleman asserts one must consider nine dimensions of human sexuality when discerning sexual orientation: current relationship status, self-identification identity, ideal self-identification identity, global acceptance of one’s current sexual orientation identity, physical sexual identity, gender identity, sex-role identity and sexual orientation identity as measured by behavior, fantasies, and emotional attachments, and lastly the individual’s past and present perception of their sexual identity compared to their idealized future.

 

Remember, our very modern understanding of all of this is barely over a century old. Hell, the terms "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" aren't much more than a century either! We have a long way to go until we fully understand this stuff. Fun times!

[+ quoththeraven]

But there is the stereotype of women marrying older men for security and having a younger lover on the side. If it's true to any great extent, then you'd have to say that women aren't really attracted to older men but to what the older men can give them.

 

Gman

Is there? It's a typology I've only run into recently.

 

In this area, I've come to a position similar to "pics or it didn't happen": rigorously collected data or it didn't happen.

[+ quoththeraven]

@Gar1eth I believe what little data there is suggests bisexuals outnumber same-sex monosexuals in both genders, although the gap may be greater for women.

 

However, the Kinsey system works differently than you suggest, with Kinsey 1 through 5 considered bisexual. It is a mistake to think that only people clustered around 3, who are more or less equally attracted to men and women, are the only true bisexuals. Some (many?) people go through phases where first one or the other gender is attractive to them. Other people are more attracted to one gender than the other, or prefer to form long-term romantic relationships with only one gender. The desire for children and a family adds complexity to the mix.

 

It's complex, not simple.

[+ Gar1eth]

@Gar1eth I believe what little data there is suggests bisexuals outnumber same-sex monosexuals in both genders, although the gap may be greater for women.

 

However, the Kinsey system works differently than you suggest, with Kinsey 1 through 5 considered bisexual. It is a mistake to think that only people clustered around 3, who are more or less equally attracted to men and women, are the only true bisexuals. Some (many?) people go through phases where first one or the other gender is attractive to them. Other people are more attracted to one gender than the other, or prefer to form long-term romantic relationships with only one gender. The desire for children and a family adds complexity to the mix.

 

It's complex, not simple.

 

You're right. It's very complex. But it's also a matter of definitions. In my mind while a 1 or a 2 could have a same sex experience it's not really the 'normal' for them. For most purposes they might as well be straight. Getting drunk and having sex with your fraternity brothers and enjoying it but not really planning to repeat it seems more me like accidental bisexuality. Yes it's within the realm of what's possible for the person, but unless something unusual happens, they aren't really going to seek out same sex experiences.

 

Gman

[LivingnLA]

Introducing Kinsey into this discussion is complicated because his understanding and his research that led to the Kinsey Scale is based on data that's decades out of date. Our understanding of human sexuality is much further along than Kinsey, though he's still very important to understand if you want a good grasp of historical and foundational research about sexual orientation.

 

To use @quoththeraven's logic, which I agree with, a Kinsey 0 or 6 are the only "exclusive" sexual orientations on Kinsey's Scale, beyond the X for Asexuals. The 1-5 rankings are all Bisexual sexual orientations with varying degrees of interest/exposure to hetero/homo-sex.

 

Sexual behavior and activities usually agree with a person's Sexual Orientation, but there are exceptions or variances based on a wide range of factors. Take "Situational Sexual Behavior" in the military or in prisons as examples of how humans are able to perform sexually even with other humans they don't desire, fantasize about, or want a relationship with when other factors are at play.

 

At some point, this all becomes semantics because we're talking about how the lay public colloquially uses terms like "straight" or "gay" to encompass the sum total of a human's sexuality. It's just not that easy.

 

For me, when I'm looking for a man, I have found that I am most turned on by classically masculine men. The typical stereotypes: military, cop, deep voice, chest hair, stubble, etc. all work for me. It goes back to my earliest encounters as far as I have discovered so far in my life's journey. In our hetero-centric society, I grew up when all of those things were only associated with "straight guys" so even to this day I have a strong preference for a "straight guy" to worship. Or to fuck when he's curious. I know I'm not alone in the M4M community in this kink.

 

One of the most interesting outcomes of feminism and the gay rights movement over the last few decades is how our understanding of gender has become so much richer and how many "manly" gay guys or "fem" straight guys I've met or seen in my daily interactions. It's all to the good in my opinion. I look forward to the future--I hope I live to see it--when all of this enriches our deep biological understanding of our species.

[+ Gar1eth]

Introducing Kinsey into this discussion is complicated because his understanding and his research that lead to the Kinsey Scale is based on data that's decades out of date. Our understanding of human sexuality is much further along than Kinsey, though he's still very important to understand if you want a good grasp of historical and foundational research about sexual orientation.

 

To use @quoththeraven's logic, which I agree with, a Kinsey 0 or 6 are the only "exclusive" sexual orientations on Kinsey's Scale, beyond the X for Asexuals. The 1-5 rankings are all Bisexual sexual orientations with varying degrees of interest/exposure to hetero/homo-sex.

 

Sexual behavior and activities usually agree with a person's Sexual Orientation, but there are exceptions or variances based on a wide range of factors. Take "Situational Sexual Behavior" in the military or in prisons as examples of how humans are able to perform sexually even with other humans they don't desire, fantasize about, or want a relationship with when other factors are at play.

 

At some point, this all becomes semantics because we're talking about how the lay public colloquially uses terms like "straight" or "gay" to encompass the sum total of a human's sexuality. It's just not that easy.

 

For me, when I'm looking for a man, I have found that I am most turned on by classically masculine men. The typical stereotypes: military, cop, deep voice, chest hair, stubble, etc. all work for me. It goes back to my earliest encounters as far as I have discovered so far in my life's journey. In our hetero-centric society, I grew up when all of those things were only associated with "straight guys" so even to this day I have a strong preference for a "straight guy" to worship. Or to fuck when he's curious. I know I'm not alone in the M4M community in this kink.

 

One of the most interesting outcomes of feminism and the gay rights movement over the last few decades is how our understanding of gender has become so much richer and how many "manly" gay guys or "fem" straight guys I've met or seen in my daily interactions. It's all to the good in my opinion. I look forward to the future--I hope I live to see it--when all of this enriches our deep biological understanding of our species.

 

It seems ridiculous to me to say that someone who has had one or two gay experiences enjoyed them but never really has any interest in pursuing another one is bisexual. Yes if you consider every single permutation that might possibly occur in his/her sex life, but for all practical purposes that person is straight. But yes if you include such people then obviously there will be more bisexuals than strictly gays, straights, or asexuals

 

Gman

[+ quoththeraven]

Introducing Kinsey into this discussion is complicated because his understanding and his research that lead to the Kinsey Scale is based on data that's decades out of date. Our understanding of human sexuality is much further along than Kinsey, though he's still very important to understand if you want a good grasp of historical and foundational research about sexual orientation.

 

To use @quoththeraven's logic, which I agree with, a Kinsey 0 or 6 are the only "exclusive" sexual orientations on Kinsey's Scale, beyond the X for Asexuals. The 1-5 rankings are all Bisexual sexual orientations with varying degrees of interest/exposure to hetero/homo-sex.

 

Sexual behavior and activities usually agree with a person's Sexual Orientation, but there are exceptions or variances based on a wide range of factors. Take "Situational Sexual Behavior" in the military or in prisons as examples of how humans are able to perform sexually even with other humans they don't desire, fantasize about, or want a relationship with when other factors are at play.

 

At some point, this all becomes semantics because we're talking about how the lay public colloquially uses terms like "straight" or "gay" to encompass the sum total of a human's sexuality. It's just not that easy.

 

For me, when I'm looking for a man, I have found that I am most turned on by classically masculine men. The typical stereotypes: military, cop, deep voice, chest hair, stubble, etc. all work for me. It goes back to my earliest encounters as far as I have discovered so far in my life's journey. In our hetero-centric society, I grew up when all of those things were only associated with "straight guys" so even to this day I have a strong preference for a "straight guy" to worship. Or to fuck when he's curious. I know I'm not alone in the M4M community in this kink.

 

One of the most interesting outcomes of feminism and the gay rights movement over the last few decades is how our understanding of gender has become so much richer and how many "manly" gay guys or "fem" straight guys I've met or seen in my daily interactions. It's all to the good in my opinion. I look forward to the future--I hope I live to see it--when all of this enriches our deep biological understanding of our species.

Kinsey's data is old, but who else has collected as much similar data?

 

It seems ridiculous to me to say that someone who has had one or two gay experiences enjoyed them but never really has any interest in pursuing another one is bisexual. Yes if you consider every single permutation that might possibly occur in his/her sex life, but for all practical purposes that person is straight. But yes if you include such people then obviously there will be more bisexuals than strictly gays, straights, or asexuals

 

Gman

You are confusing orientation and behavior.

 

There's actually a reasonable argument to make in favor of focusing on behavior and ditching orientation as a category or calling it something less definite, but that's an upstream endeavor given orientation is the most recent way of looking at it and there's political investment in it.

 

By the way, say what you wrote to someone who identifies as a bisexual and those are fighting words. The desire doesn't go away if it's never acted on. Being misidentified or assumed to be straight is the bane of bisexuals. It's why we feel like misfits at best in the LGBTQ world and why so many of us use the term queer instead.

[LivingnLA]

It seems ridiculous to me to say that someone who has had one or two gay experiences enjoyed them but never really has any interest in pursuing another one is bisexual. Yes if you consider every single permutation that might possibly occur in his/her sex life, but for all practical purposes that person is straight. But yes if you include such people then obviously there will be more bisexuals than strictly gays, straights, or asexuals

 

Gman

 

It all depends on how you define these terms. You brought up Kinsey and my point is that the Kinsey Scale is based on a person's reported experiences and responses at a given time. As Kinsey himself said, an individual can be at varying positions on the scale at different points in their life. That's why I personally accept a person's self-reported sexual orientation just as I do their gender identity.