In its e-newsletter Liberty Line yesterday, the Liberty Education Forum referenced a Washington Post article on a support group for young HIV-positive men. A number of things struck me about the article, notably the number of gay men who continue to engage in unprotected intercourse. If it’s true, as we’re told, that this virus is one of the most difficult to transmit, why is it that so many gay men refuse to take the simple precaution to protect themselves?
The article notes that a Center for Disease Control “study of men who have sex with men released last month reported that out of 10,000 men surveyed, 47 percent said they’ve had unprotected anal intercourse with men in the previous year.”
Marsha Martin, head of D.C.’s AIDS office, makes sense when she says “the urgency of the HIV prevention messages we’ve been sending — safe sex only! use a condom! — has worn off.” She, however, also tries to politicize gay men’s unsafe practices:
And if you think about the political and social climate we’ve been in and we’re still in, what message is that sending to gay men? ‘No, you can’t get married as gay couples.’ ‘No, you can’t be openly gay in the military.’ ‘No, you don’t have equal rights.’ Those things produce a lack of self-esteem, a kind of self-loathing, and in that environment is HIV.
I don’t think the absence of state-sanctioned gay marriage causes gay men to practice unsafe sex.
Rather than listen to the jargon of a government bureaucrat, we might better listen to the words of a young gay man who got infected by “playing unsafe.” After chatting with a guy online, he went to the man’s place “and had sex. He was lonely. He didn’t use a condom.” He was lonely and felt closer to that man “without” protection.
He was lonely.
Sometimes when we seek a human connection, we go to great lengths to secure that bond. Ms. Martin’s jargon about self-esteem doesn’t help us understand the number of gay men who have unsafe sex, even while knowing the risks. This young man’s words, that he was lonely the night of his unfortunate encounter, however, go a long way to understanding the risks some gay men take. And help us see the very human aspect of their (seemingly) irrational behavior.
In many cases, those who “play unsafe” seek a human connection and forego the latex so as to feel closer to another human being. Now, we need to find ways to to help them — to help all of us — find such connections without risking their health. That is, perhaps, the biggest challenge confronting our community — to help us better connect to one another so we feel less alone and less isolated from our fellows.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Some of you may note the new category, (Gay) Male Sexuality & the Monogamous Ideal, in the header to this post. In a few days, I will talk a little more about it.
I don’t think the absence of state-sanctioned gay marriage causes gay men to practice unsafe sex.
You’re kinder than I am, GPW.
Ms. Martin needs to explain why, if the absence of the right to get married causes AIDS, there is an explosion taking place among heterosexuals.
Maybe if she started focusing on unsafe sex, which IS the cause of the problem, instead of trying to blame the Bush administration, we’d actually get somewhere.
Things I’d like to see the gay community be more honest about:
1) Sex is psychologically addictive for a lot of gay men.
2) That isn’t the fault of government or social oppression. Nor a medical condition. It is the exact culture that “Gay Liberation” (left-wing style) set out to create in the 1970s. And it’s fun. It’s an indulgence gay men have been permitting themselves.
3) Although gay orientation is not a lifestyle choice: the choice to be simultaneously promiscuous and unsafe, is.
4) The individual can sing “I’m So Ronery”, and we all know how hard loneliness can be – but gee, some of us overcome it after struggle. Maybe what the individual needs is: more guts.
5) Contra Marsha Martin, self-esteem does NOT depend on social approval or “culture”. People who think it does, just show they have no clue about it.
6) Outside of a monogamous and meaningful relationship: the “intimacy” or “connection” felt in unsafe sex is a total illusion.
7) Government does play a role in subsidizing today’s spread of HIV. In CA, it is illegal to ask someone HIV status when selling health insurance – yet legal to ask them about smoking, drinking, psychiatry, family history, etc. Translation: HIV+ individuals are uniquely “exempt” from paying the full-on costs of their past choices / status, in a way that smokers with cancer, etc., are not. Umm… why???
7a) As HIV or point (7) illustrates, when government subsidizes something, people on average somehow end up having or making more of it. The solution to (7) is NOT for government to similarly exempt smokers, medically overweight people, etc.; nor to (further) socialize medicine.
Interesting observations Calarato.
I sometimes wonder if the reason unsafe sex is becoming more common is that HIV isn’t as scary as it used to be.
I think part of this is better treatment exists for HIV+ people, and they are able to live longer, and there just don’ t seem to be as many people dying of AIDS. Also, back in the 80’s and early 90’s the media had stuff on AIDS all the time, now not so much.
I guess I think to some degree the fear as a deterrant seems to have worn off, and people think the risk is worth it.
Calarato, good points. And you address some of the themes I wish to get at in my new category — (Gay) Male Sexuality & the Monogamous Ideal. Sex has become psychological addictive for a lot of gay men. And our community does not discourage promiscuity. Indeed, the very culture seems to promote it.
Just me, good points as well, esp. re: HIV not being as scary as it once was.
And NDXXX, it’s unfortunate that so many, like Ms. Martin, who should be seriously thinking about the problem by talking to individual gay men, would rather politicize it.
Good comments, guys. I hope your comments are a sign that this post will spark a serious conversation.
All very good points, girls. More power to y’all.
Regards,
Peter H.
Hehe. Good one Calatato. I wonder how many people got the Team America reference.
I find it very sad that the guy only saw a connection through the physical act. That’s a shame. The real connection he needs to stop feeling lonely isn’t going to come from seks. Hey, I love the seks. Don’t get me wrong!
Well said, Dale.
I think we’ve all (or at least many of us) have learned that the connection we achieve through the “physical act,” even when we play safe, is only illusory.
Hey Dan,
Excellent post, and I think you struck the right tone. We all know that the environment we grow up in effects our choices as we get older, and it’s horrific how bad some gay kids have it growing up, but that is never an excuse for stupid-a$$ behavior, and people, gay and straight, want to have sex wo/condoms for lots of reasons: some of them tear-jerking, many of them selfish, and none of them relevant. AIDS is out there, gay ppl have a problem with it in general, and having sex wo/ a condom is no one’s fault except your own.
One comment to Calarato: I might quibble a bit with this bullet: Contra Marsha Martin, self-esteem does NOT depend on social approval or “culture”. I agree that self-esteem doesn’t depend on social approval, but it sure as hell is affected by it. If you were unlucky enough to grow up in a bible-thumping town, had bible-thumping parents, and ppl knew you were gay, I’d say the odds of growing up with some low self-esteem are good, and it’s not just because you’re being wimpy. The amount of “you are teh gay and evil” that some people get exposed to can warp even some pretty hardy souls.
While I will never absolve someone of the responsibility for their own actions (i.e., having sex wo/ a condom), it seems a bit insensitive to shrug off the effect that bigotry has on gay people’s lives and spirits. Maybe I misread your point, though.
I would guess that in between “I was lonely” and unprotected sex, there was the consumption of alcohol etc. I think bringing down the alcoholism rate and drug use in the gay male community would automatically bring down the rates of HIV infection.
Caralato says:
This is really just a bunch of crap.
Caralato, I don’t know if you have ever noticed this before, but FYI, men like sex.
Gay men, Straight men, Democrats and Republicans, either/or/and all of them; they all like sex. If they could, each of them would be happy to rub that part of their anatomy there, in that place, as often as possible. That doesn’t mean they are all “sexual addicts”, it means that they are men.
The attempts of Western Civilization to harness and control the sexual drive of men is a part of everything in our culture from circumcision to marriage.
Yes, men are individually responsible for where they put their penis. But to deny the cultural context is an indulgence in simple-minded snobbery. And its not a “left-wing” culture, its a male one. In history, whenever straight men have been given the opportunity to copulate frequently and indiscriminately, they have always done so.
What you snootily look down your long nose at gay men for is a quality that all men share to some degree. Rampant horniness. Get used to it.
If you really want to look at reasons for promiscuity and those aspects of the the culture you don’t like, you are better off looking at what the guidelines and expectations in our culture are for ALL men, not just gay ones.
Young gay men are acting the way the idealized version of all men are told they are supposed to act in order to “prove” their manhood. Studs. Creating male-self esteem by the number of notches on the bedpost.
Of course with straight guys and those that are willing to pretend to be straight, they have other options to prove their manhood. They can get married, have children, become family men. In other words, become “Dad”.
It is only in the last few years that that role has been available to gay men. Prior to that you were only permitted to grow up and be something like florist or Church organ player.
Even today, young gay men growing up cannot have the expectation of getting married and becoming daddies. Although this is changing.
Now go back to the 70’s and try to imagine that happening. Uh-uh. No way. Once the cork of repression had been blown off, the explosion of male sexuality that occurred in the 70’s was inevitable, not a result of “left-wing” politics. Thats just one of the stupidist things I’ve ever heard.
“Monogamous Ideal”
Is monogamy the ideal? I don’t know that it is…I know I am monogamous because the hurt it would bring if I wasn’t. (Just as I hope my partner is monogamous because I don’t want to be hurt)
If we had a legally/morally binding marriage it would only force us to consider our relationship more carefully before we split. You cannot pooh-pooh the power of a legal marriage. I know of several marriages that have been saved only because they did not want to get a divorce…
Further if you want to discuss this topic further in a more meaningful way, you will have to find a word that is the opposite of monogamous…If there is one I don’t know it.
#9 – Gryph, I know how often you have problems getting what your traditional opponents’ statements mean, and/or problems with me personally – so I wouldn’t expect you to understand my points in #2 as anything but strawmen for you to knock down, after first distorting or misinterpreting. I also know from experience that you wouldn’t understand any further explanations that came with my name on them. Some of your points in #9 may be quite valid in themselves – while not necessarily relating to (or contradicting) my actual points. While some others of your points may be kind of angry or kooky. ‘Nuff said.
#8 – tp, nice points. In my framework for thinking about these things, you are touching on the difference between children and adults. A child’s self-esteem is socially influenced, absolutely. Part of growing up is the process of learning to think for oneself, choose one’s behavior patterns, and make one’s own self-evaluations – ultimately becoming one’s own primary source of validation (or invalidation, if one’s actions merit that).
So that’s adult self-esteem: you look at your record yourself, and either you honestly can respect it, or you set about cleaning up your act. People who are over 21 and don’t know that, have problems indeed. I don’t condemn them, and I don’t exempt myself; I’m speaking from personal familiarity with some of these problems. I’m saying, grownups (as opposed to young kids) should be expected to take responsibility for their self-esteem – or their mental, behavioral and moral health.
#6, #5, #4, #3 – thanks guys 😉
Gryph is right to raise the issue of alcoholism and drug use in #9. I think that contributes it too. And he has a point about the “cork of repression” being blown off. Once gay men in the ’70s rejected the societal proscription on homosexual sex, they rejected any — and all — limitations on their sexual behavior. While AIDS may have put a damper on this in the late 1980s. For some gay men, the new drugs have removed the damper.
Though a majority of us (alas a slight one at 53%) continue to “play safe.”
#9 – #11 – P.S. for the record:
The fact that early 70s Gay Liberation movement was connected with left-wing anti-Vietnam, national liberation, Women’s Lib, Black Lib, and other such movements – and consciously read their literature and modeled itself on them ideologically (basically just substituting in gays), rejecting the less radical approach of the Mattachine Society of the 50s and 60s – is a well-documented part of gay history.
Equally (or as another way of saying the same thing): It’s a well-documented part of gay history that the Gay Lib movement consciously advanced a vision of gay men as promiscuous sexual outlaws, and derided gay men who hoped for marriage, monogamy, etc.
I remember watching my first Gay Pride parade, seeing a LOT of signs and people screaming about “No Assimilation!” I said to my companion, “Hmm, what’s that about?” A guy our age in front of us turned and said, in a loud voice with a very marked sneer of contempt on his face, something resembling “It means we’re going to fuck as much as we want and not just try to be like the breeders and settle down for stupid monogamy and oppression.”
That was in SF, circa 1990. To this day, I come across such sentiments in letters to the local gay papers.
#12 – And Dan, your spin on the “cork of repression” theory is compatible with my presentation. I daresay we agree that the gay men of the 70s largely (there are always exceptions) wanted to have lots of sex and be sexual outlaws, and it’s a culture that’s still with us today.
OK, I’ll let others talk now 😉
“Further if you want to discuss this topic further in a more meaningful way, you will have to find a word that is the opposite of monogamous…If there is one I don’t know it.”
Um, 401(k), the word you are looking for is “polygamous.”
Exactly how this definition will assist you in contributing in a “meaningful” way is anybody’s guess. There IS such a thing as a dictionary, you know.
Regards,
Peter H.
Caralato:
So what?
The straight people were all saying that at the time too. Many of them are still do, just like your letter-writers.
It isn’t without truth either. Do you think all gay relationships should settle down and have one person as the breadwinner and the other as the housewife? Where one person is treated like the property of the other? At least Leather Daddies and their Boys are more upfront and honest about the dynamic at work there.
Its become very popular these days, especially on the Right side of the table, to condemn the 70’s as the age of excess etc. But that doesn’t mean that there were not real issues worthy of rebelling against. Many of the “pillars of society”, when examined closely, were showing some real cracks in their make-up. In fact you can thank Republicans for screwing some of that up. Such as when Nixon single-handedly destroyed the credibility of the Presidency.
Ah, and now the troll.
I did want to add one last thing, earlier. A small plug (I have NO financial connection involved).
For reasons I won’t go into, over the years, I have learned something about all the ‘programs’ people have for dealing with their addictions (sex, drugs, whatever). Your mileage will vary for sure – but for my money, this is the single most direct, helpful, accurate message out there: http://rational.org
I think alcohol and drugs play a huge role in risky sexual behavior for heterosexuals, not just homosexuals.
I think addressing the use/abuse of these substances would be a good thing for everyone.
Patrick writes (without protection I might add): “Such as when Nixon single-handedly destroyed the credibility of the Presidency.”
No Gryph-ter, the Presidency was saved because Nixon, unlike your perjurer in Chief Slick Willy, stepped aside and resigned. The only Presidents in the modern era that “destroyed the credibility of the Presidency” were JimmineyCricketCarter and SlickWilly. In both cases, it took a morally conservative, pro-American, religiously cognizant leader to restore the Presidency.
But by your slam you prove once again the old blog-adage: “You can take the troll from under bridge but you can’t expect him to be civil”. That BushHatred is flaming bright red-yellow these days, Gryph-ter.
Hey Matt are you sexy too? Give em hell man.
Dan, excellent post. And a lot of good comments that followed. First, I don’t quite understand how loneliless in itself would lead someone to decide that they can be closer to his sexual partner without a condom. No matter what, this person, as well as his partner, was irresponsible.
But in terms of promiscuity, there is something to being socially oppressed that can lead to such behavior. When you grow up seeing and thinking that only straight people can have meaningful romantic relationships, it puts a damper on the monogamy ideal. So, in many cases, gay men have compensated by having more, even if afterwards they feel that it doesn’t help and makes them feel emptier.
As for me, I didn’t grow up with Bible thumping parents. I even had gay relatives. But when you went to school with your peers, it was simply more acceptable being a drug addict than being gay. So my self-esteen was not exactly at a high level. But unlike most men, I did the opposite, and didn’t pursue any relationships, meaningful or otherwise. In fact, today I could count on one hand (no pun intended), the number of sexual partners I have ever had. But eventually, I knew I was responsible for my own self-esteem, and had to take the necessary steps in order to be able to accept being gay. Once I was able to accept it, and then embrace it, the dates then followed, and now have been in a monogamous relationship for over two years.
If gay marriage was adopted tomorrow, I realize that that by itself, is not going to change behavior dramatically, if at all. But it would be another step, among others, along the way to end social oppression. It’s still there, so there are going to be many young gay teens with low self-esteem. And even though adults are responsible for their own self-esteem, it is difficult at age 18 or 21 to just snap your fingers and tell yourself that you are okay. I’m sure many of our straight counterparts who have well-adjusted lives have them, simply because they didn’t have this one extra burden that gay men have. Yes, it is unfair, but would advise any young gay man to throw out the victim card and do what they can to build their self-esteem.
Of course, not all promiscuity is a result of social oppression and low self-esteem. There are also many gay men who have been accepting and extremely happy being gay since they were children. And many of them are promiscuous for various reasons, such as self-entitlement, to using the excuse that their sexuality (despite their high self-esteem) is inferior. Although I don’t agree with everything that Gryph said, he made some excellent points regarding men, both gay and straight. In many cases, men, without having social or religious restrictions, will have all the sex they can get their hands on. Straight men are held in check, because women were basically taught that either sex was dirty, or they have to wait until marriage, for fear of being oppressed. But once we had the designation of “good girls” and “bad girls,” many straight men were also able to have all they sex they could get. And today, I know many straight men that have many sexual partners, and have no intent on ever settling down.
For me, it’s hard to have an opinion on whether I believe anyone who is promiscuous is a bad person. I’m not even sure at what number is too much. It seems like many people’s definition of a promiscuous person is someone that has more sex and more partners than they do. And what if this person, despite the high numbers, will never under any circumstances have unsafe sex.
Anyway, just some of my thoughts.
Hi Pat,
Nice points – thanks.
Not to blow this one thing out of proportion, but I wanted to talk about the “men just like sex” concept a bit more. It’s a truism, isn’t it? Something so obviously true, it didn’t occur to me that it should deserve elaboration when I threw my view in early on.
You know what else? Women like sex, too. All humans naturally do. If women act as a restraint on heterosexual men sometimes, it’s only because sexist cultural training has put the responsibility on them to “be the responsible ones”, so to speak.
What I notice happening with the “men like sex” truism is that it is usually employed as a form of self-justification, and/or cultural indoctrination, to avoid moral responsibility for destructive acts. You’ll see certain people screeching it an excuse for men to be pigs (or perhaps implicitly for their own piggishness?). It isn’t an excuse.
The fact that men – and women, or all human beings – like sex very much and sometimes feel as if they want to die for it, is no excuse for grownups to do things that are clearly irresponsible, dangerous or destructive. Just like “society’s oppression” isn’t. We are, after all, human beings – different from the animals. Or we ought to be.
As for “promiscuous” – I agree it is NOT a matter of numbers. I think it’s a matter of intent, or situation. I define it most basically as: doing it with strangers. If you’re out there doing it with strangers, and/or cruising to – well that, if nothing else, has got to fit the meaning of “promiscuous”. LOL
But also note here that I employ the word in its descriptive mode, not a mode of condemning the human being.
My $0.02! 🙂
Well put, Calarato.
But I will contend promiscuity in gays is a character fault, our community glorifies it and the “men will men” BS is almost always a rationalization for behavior the person knows is immoral. Unless a gay person has a near limitless number of buddies with benefits, promiscuity by definition means sex with strangers simply for sexual gratification. Being promisccuity means you are a bad person with a enough character faults to warrant serious therapy time. Do most gay men get through life telling themselves it’s ok ’cause they’re not hurting anyone? Right… but they hurt, corrupt, corrode our culture and debase the intrinic worth of each person.
Maybe the low self-esteem issues are warranted?
Thanks Matt. Re: self-esteem… you got it. Self-esteem is your real opinion of yourself, beneath your B.S. and excuses… your *reputation with* yourself. Sometimes, or in some ways or areas, low self-esteem will be warranted.
But re: promiscuous people – I think it’s more helpful, and more accurate / fair, to only name the behavior as bad – not the person. I can easily imagine a person who does it with strangers, but in a medically safe / responsible way, and who is a good person in other areas of life. Overall, I would not call them a bad person; in fact, I would defend them from claims that they were.
You see it differently? (We may have to agree to disgree.)
polygamous?
I learned a new word.
Thanks Peter.
Michigan-Matt:#24
Just to clarify, that while yes, I do believe that men like sex, I wanted to point out that both gay and straight men are taught that the higher the number of sexual partners you have, the higher self-esteem you should have, as a man. It is shat you are supposed to base your studly male identity on. This is cultural indoctrination more than biological impulse. And gay men have simply not had the traditional cultural guideposts, such as marriage and fatherhood to follow in this area. Unless they choose to marry a woman.
To concentrate on something Michigan-Matt says:
Spelling and grammar errors aside, this is just old-time Religion bull-shit. There is absolutely nothing immoral about seeking sexual gratification from strangers. If you believe that there is, then you must also by definition regard masturbation as immoral as well. Because you are judging the act of sexual gratification itself as being inherently immoral. Which is just plain silly.
If a young man wants to go out and have a different sex partner each night of the week, that’s just fine. The sexual desire that urges you to masturbate is exactly the same desire that urges you to have sex. Whether with a stranger or not. Whether with a hundred people or just one person. The desire itself does not have any moral value of good or bad. The notion that it does is just plain religion-based pleasure-hating holier-than-thou judgmental bullshit. And it’s often based on the jealous “if those guys are having a better time than I am tonight then they must be doing something sinful” line of reasoning. Its just jealous crap, crap, crap. Got it?
I often read the complaints about promiscuity among gay men and that it is a shallow, selfish lifestyle.
You know what? Shallow selfish people have shallow selfish sex. Whether it’s with one partner or a hundred. It’s what you bring to the table in your personal character that gives it that meaning. Or not. Having casual sex with someone does not mean that you think nothing of them as a human being. Unless that’s the belief you bring with you. It’s not the act of sexual gratification itself. Even if someone is using casual sex as a means to avoid intimacy, it is not of itself, immoral, just self-destructive. And it’s not a “lifestyle”.
However something that IS a lifestyle choice is marriage. And it just doesn’t suit everyone. There are lots of people, straight and gay, who just don’t want to be married. They are just not destined for white picket fences. Maybe they just don’t feel the need to have a life-long intimate relationship of that kind. Or maybe they have been so emotionally damaged by others that they are just incapable of forming the trust that that kind of connection requires. That does not make them evil and immoral people. And if someone chooses not to get married it doesn’t mean that they should be expected to live a celibate life without the human touch of another. To ask that of someone is cruel.
Well, isn’t this a hoot. First there’s Gramps, who insinuates in the above post that a lot of right-thinking gays are morally uptight and too conservative, and then you’ve got 401(k) not two posts down who calls us “morally depraved.”
Well, make up your collective minds, people. Unlike Slick Willie, we can’t be two people at the same time in front of different audiences.
At least stick to the same talking points from Daily Kaka and Demonic Underwear. Someone must not have gotten their marching orders yet.
Regards,
Peter H.
Patrick, what twaddle and piddle you present as opinion. Still haven’t learned to read for comprehension, I see. Is that a condition of your unique trollsmanship or do you have to work at being that dense?
And when are you going to get serious? What you think passes for serious commentary over at your unread blog site isn’t considered serious in these threads. You need to quit thinking with your lust and start looking at society’s long term interests, bubbabear. Oh, I forgot you’re one of those sociopaths who think “Screw society; if I want to do it, they can’t stop me.”
Now, while you might try to take an absurd reduction like the notion that “it’s all about self gratification” and tie it into masturbation, your sniff and scratch test fails… I didn’t say sex for sexual gratification is wrong –despite how desperately you try to spin it. It’s all about reading for comprehension, Gramps.
I DID say that sexual promiscuity (spell check is now on for Gramps –what a petty observation, Gryph-ter) with strangers is simply for sexual gratification. Jump that over to “masturbation is wrong” is a leap in logic only you can fathom. Then jump that to not all gays need to be married so that’s means celibacy for them and a denial of their basic humanity? WTF, Gramps; you aren’t even on the railroad track anymore –that train is pulling you into FantasyLand Depot. Say hello to the lower-case-clan when you get there.
You are right on one thing: an endless parade of strangers for sexual gratification in order to avoid intimacy is self-destructive. So is unresolved personal angst about unloving, condemning alcoholic and abusive fathers… or parents who are atheists and raise their children in a culture ripe with anti-religious bigotry. (Aside: There are a lot of self-destructive behaviors Patrick that society works very hard to fix –hell, my tax dollars go to fixing those patterns of behavior over and over.)
You see Patrick, I think for instance hiring strangers to engage in sex with you is wrong. It is immoral. It should be sanctioned by criminal prosecution. Immoral conduct makes you “bad”. Period. I think multiple sexual partners in order to satisfy sexual lust is immoral and it creates a condition where we –society– can say “You, Patrick are bad when you behave that way. Pay a fine; go to jail.” Libertarians can offer that govt and society have no right to regulate behavior between consenting adults, but that’s the law in only a small segment of America… and mostly in areas where criminally immoral elements control the political landscape.
The unfettered sexual gratification you and your peers pursued in the 1960’s and 70’s has scarred our culture, our society. It’s given the gay community a huge, mostly non-repairable PR black eye. And that behavior made you bad. Period. Therapy should help.
Patrick writes: “Its just jealous crap, crap, crap. Got it?”
I do, you don’t. It isn’t jealousy Gramps… although that may motivate you to act… it’s called moral agency and personal accountability. Those are two values I wouldn’t expect someone on the GayLeft to understand or accept. Clearly you don’t.
Again: The lack of marriage for gays and lesbians, lack of cultural guideposts, etc. serve to make gay promiscuity *more understandable* – But not excusable.
There is a difference. Just because I can *understand* someone’s personal hell (and remember: every human being alive has one; gays are not special victims here in America; only in places like Iran) and accept them as a person, does not change the destructiveness of certain behaviors and the wrongness of a person’s choices if that is the choice they took.
“There is absolutely nothing immoral about seeking sexual gratification from strangers.”
Saith Gryph. It all depends on how you understand the word, “moral”.
My own perspective, probably different from Matt’s: Non-religious. Morality is a tool that human beings use to make better, more beneficial choices. Some choices are, in total context, more beneficial than other choices that are objectively risky, destructive, etc.
“If you believe that there is, then you must also by definition regard masturbation as immoral as well.”
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. Masturbation doesn’t involve strangers nor associated health risks, Gryph. (Unless the person is a stranger to himself, perhaps? and on death’s door, disease-wise? And remember, HIV isn’t the only risk and many of the other ones aren’t preventable via condoms.)
“If a young man wants to go out and have a different sex partner each night of the week, that’s just fine. The sexual desire that urges you to masturbate is exactly the same desire that urges you to have sex…”
Folks – Notice how Gryph here conflates behavior and desire. That is the mythology that the left-wing Gay Libbers of the early 70s have left us with today.
That mythology’s devotees want(ed) to justify following their thoughtless, unhealthy urges for instant gratification with strangers at any time. They set about denying that there could be a valid gap between desire and behavior.
For my part: I agree with Gryph 100% that there is nothing wrong with a guy, um, *wanting* sex with a different partner every night of the week. Operative word, “wanting”.
Whether it is wise and right to do it, is another matter. That is where the guy needs to start engaging his brain to make life-affirming moral choices.
“Because you are judging the act of sexual gratification itself as being inherently immoral.”
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong again! I mean, at least I’m not. Nor did it strike me that Matt was. Matt, you can tell us if you are.
I could go on, but that’s enough for now. Sorry Gryph, but answering your claims can get rather tiresome.
In my personal opinion, promiscuity is an unhealthy and ultimately ineffective attempt to fill a need that really needs something deeper and more meaningful. Coming to that realization is part of a person’s natural maturity and failing to come to that realization is a kind of moral retardation. Strong words, yes, but that’s my opinion.
I certainly don’t push my beliefs on anyone. I’m just stating them. I have lots of promiscuous friends and I don’t preach to them because they own their bodies and can do as they please. I also think being preachy is not very effective for changing behavior anyway. But since we’re on the topic of promiscuity, it seems appropriate to preach a little bit here.
Now I’m not puritanical either. I have on occasion had sex pretty early in a dating scene or even on a few occasions when I knew it was just sex. I found it rather unsatisfying and as I’ve gotten older, those occasions have gotten fewer and further between. I’d say I’m definately not promiscuous even on the straight scale, and by skewed gay standards I nearly am puritanical.
Oh, and Patrick, you’re just using standard liberal justification. It may alleviate some guilt to say it, but the hole is still going to be there.
Oh boy, sanctimonious condemnations from Caralato and Michigan Matt. Along with an arrogant assumption from Dalebert about the state of my conscience.
Sorry Dalebert, I really don’t feel guilty about any of the times I have had sex. Not a bit. You see, I’ve never used sex, casual or otherwise, to “fill a hole”. Other things perhaps, but not sex. I’ve gone out to have sex because I’m horny, but I’ve never gone out to have sex because I was lonely.
Way to admit how badly your “logic”/assumptions in #27 failed, Gryph! 😉
And this line:
“I’ve gone out to have sex because I’m horny, but I’ve never gone out to have sex because I was lonely.”
OK, well, I don’t want to openly laugh at you, but let those with eyes (or who see what Dalebert, Matt and I have been talking about), see now.
Michigan-Matt- you need a better definition of “self destructive”
Is not an example of self destructive behavior. They may be persecuted, but it is not self destructive. By your logic, government-independent christians in China are self destructive (and even *more* self destructive than atheists in america).
Being gay isn’t self destructive either, even though there may be a culture “ripe with anti-gay bigotry”.
Nice try Patrick, but you’re still missing the boat, the train, the bus, the forest, the trees and the central point by miles.
Moral agency –something that is seriously lacking in our gay community– requires each of us to think beyond our selfish, short-term interests and weigh the adverse impact our behavior may have on long-term societal interests. It’s why MSAmerica will continue to deny us gay marriage –our gay culture is centered on sexual gratification at the expense of community health and building strong bonds in relationships and moral conduct. Patrick, you condone immoral behavior and see “nothing wrong” with that. It’s clear you do NOT have society’s best interests at heart or even in focus… unfortunately, you’re like about 87% of gays and in good company because your pal, AndieSullivan the reprobate, feeds his base impulse much like you do.
The part that’s hardest to understand is you willingly engage in immoral behavior and yet you scream morality when American operatives use strong interrogation techniques on known terrorists. Like many on the GayLeft, I presume your sense of moral outrage moves like the political goalposts you hang on –if we can use it to BashBush, it’s ok. BZZT.
Some here have argued that having anonymous sexual relations with strangers “because I’m horny” is ok because it hurts no one, helps satisfy a “need” and is rationalized as “well, all animals do it… so” or “men will be men and that’s just too bad if society doesn’t like it”.
BZZT again. Society gets to make the laws and, if we can keep the social activist judges in check, the feel-good-crowd in the gay community will not be allowed to further corrode our culture… it’s as simple as that. Maybe the morally prudential gay crowd can finally marginalize the base element in our midst and wrestle our future away from the 3 minute crowd.
The “sea change” of political control so hyped in the GayLeftBorg over this summer now appears to be a vanishing ghost. Americans who share a common purpose in restoring, preserving and extending our culture and values will remain in control of the major organs of govt. We may even bring the first true muslim democracy to the MiddleEast.
And that’s a good thing. Moral agency will continue to underscore public policy. That’s a good thing.
My views aren’t based on what’s good for society though. Mine are based on what I think is healthy for the individual. Just like I exercise moderation in what I eat for my physical health, I exercise discretion in my sexual habits for both my physical and emotional health. I’m very Libertarian-minded so I really could care less what people think I should do. If I didn’t care about getting fat or having heart problems, I’d eat whatever I want whenever I want. That’s my decision. I just honestly don’t enjoy indiscriminate sex and I don’t think it’s healthy physically or emotionally and it’s not very satisfying. It’s much like I might get a craving to binge on sweets but I resist it because I know it’s just a very brief moment of satisfaction that I will pay for in spades later. I don’t even want the memory of some empty sexual encounter clouding my mind. However, if you’re just concerned with getting your rocks off right this second, go for it. It’s a relatively free country.
Actually, I can resist the urge for meaningless sex pretty easily. It’s much less tempting. The sweets is harder, but most of the time I do pretty good. 🙂
I’m more in Dalebert’s camp than Matt’s as well… but in this instance, the results are not so different. Moral agency. To me, that term means using your brain to look at the full context of an action, including possible long-range effects… not just indulging the impulse-of-the-moment.
bingo Calarato… there has to be a suitable doorprize for those observations.
I have had sex because I was horny.
I have had sex because I was lonely.
Anyone who says they haven’t is full of crap.
And Matt you can try to politicize this as much as want, but it sounds like you are asking gay people to either “act straight” or go back in the closet.
And neither of those choices are the way some gay folks want to live.
Why do you condemn for that?
Keogh, there is much truth in your first paragraph, but I think it’s wrong for you to say that Matt is asking people to act straight. Is it acting straight that we treat sex as something more than just an act of pleasure? That we see it as a profound and meaningful act, best experienced not between any two individuals, but between two loving partners?
keogh/lester writes: “I have had sex because I was horny. I have had sex because I was lonely. Anyone who says they haven’t is full of crap.”
Evidently you’re swimming in the shallow end of the morals pool. As an adult making that statement, it’s ripe with shallowness but somehow fitting for you –given your politics– to think that everyone “does it” because you can’t seem to practice self-restraint. There’s a difference in what underage teens do in exploring their sexuality and what adults should be expected to. But I get your point that for you, those urges are hard to control and you feel must be acted upon and… because YOU do it, you need to see it as normal and project that everyone does it.
I understand that impulse… see I think most voters are as well informed as I when they enter the polls, but look how many voters made a stupid mistake voting for Kerry or Gore? Go figure.
I think most car buyers are as savvy as I when they buy their autos, but look how many Fords are on the road? Go figure.
I think most people understand that moral behavior is a “good” in society, but look at how many GayLefties here are defending their “right” to anonymous sex on demand as their urge requires? Go figure.
keogh/lester, the simple truth is that when gay guys are younger we make stupid choices (some even reinforce that trend in voting) and we ought to learn from them. Shallow, mindless sex with a stranger done to satisfy what seems to be an uncontrollable urge is not moral when done by an adult.
And thanks Dan for correcting keogh/lester’s misunderstanding about str8 sex and the closet… but he knew I wasn’t saying that. His statement was done to isolate, inflame.
#42 – Dan –
How about us (gays) just NOT treating sex as a blood sport? LOL 🙂
If a given instance of sex is “not very” meaningful or profound – say it’s just an act of friendship – Fine. No big deal. But so much gay sex out there is divorced from even that amount of human context / human values. (Just the animal act; humans need not apply.)
P.S. And yes, probably a lot of straight sex is the same, blah blah blah. It’s a dumb side argument (if anyone wants to bring it up again) because, you know, I don’t plan my life around what straight people do.
There is a rise in the number of people seen soliciting for unsafe sex, no doubt about it. A few years ago, it was unthinkable to advertise for that. Anymore, you see a lot of guys who are seeking that. It is a disturbing trend and i’m not sure what is causing it. But if I had to guess, I would say it is the perception amongst a lot of people that AIDS is no longer a fatal disease and that it can be managed through medication.
But like I say, what would you rather spend your money on? AIDS meds or a plasma TV?
Me? I’ll take the plasma TV. And personally, I think condoms are really sexy. There is something erotic about a condom. So i’d rather use one anyway.
Time for a different perspective! I agree with most of the posters above that casual/promiscuous sex is not a good thing (morally and practically). However, I disagree that monogamy is the only alternative. I think this thread has nicely delineated the black and the white. Let’s move into the gray space between.
My partner-of-seven-years and I are “fluid monogamous”. That is we do not do anything unprotected with others.
Re: Condoms: The Leather community is, apparently, far more creative when it comes to having “sex” than the vanilla community. We’ve each, sometimes together, had several/many encounters outside our relationship over the years. I cannot remember the last time one of them included anything that required a condom. There are lots of fun things that can be done with groins that don’t involve mutual insertion. Is that clinical enough? No filter-sensitive words 🙂
Re: Empty Sex: We don’t have “sex” with strangers. For one thing, some of those alternatives can be life-threatening and require a great deal of trust. (If you let a stranger tie you up, you deserve whatever you get.) For another, it’s just not “fun”. Sex, regardless of the mechanics, is an expression of trust and caring (at least). Without that, why not just masturbate? Sometimes it’s “casual” but it is never empty. Sometimes I won’t remember a name (how does that square with “no strangers”? In that situation there is a well-known to each of us third party present), but I never forget a, uh, face. It is always someone I expect to see out-and-about even if I never intend to have another intimate encounter.
Re: Cheating: This one is harder. We have rules. The first one defines “cheating”: The other party is always told in advance and always has no-questions-asked-at-the-time veto power. It works out pretty well.
Re: Gay Marriage: I support it, tepidly; I just don’t want one for myself. For me, monogamy is one of the defining characteristics of marriage. I’m not monogamous. The rest of the syllogism is left to the reader. On the other hand, if the Domestic Partnership ammendment passes (in CO) this fall, we’re going that route.
Re: Moral Agency: I think my/our behavior is moral. I/we are not taking society into account but we are considering the effects of our actions on ourselves and anyone else involved. We discuss this regularly. We both know the other person could say “enough” and we’d close our open relationship. We also know that would cause as much resentment as the occasional badly handled outside relationship. Any third (or fourth) party knows that we are partnered and anything that happens is for “fun” not a long term relationship beyond friendship.
Not sorry for the length 🙂 I’m looking forward to responses.
i thought this was not a very interesting site if you want a good site and learn about gay sex go to http://www.familyplanning.com
This is a very important topic. Thanks, Dan, for this and your cogent contributions. I’ve read many great points from many angles. I’m not sure exactly where I go down (so to write), but I generally agree that casual sexual encounters are only healthy if nothing more is expected of them. These encounters are not inherently bad.
While most of us agree that males have a strong need for sex (while women have a strong need for intimacy, but both need both), that strength isn’t the same in all males. This is nothing profound, but there is a biological component. (The Testosterone Fairy isn’t a communist.)
I’ve also had sex because I was horny. In fact, I only have sex when I’m horny and don’t when I’m not (which isn’t very often). However, I have had sex when I was both horny and lonely. I don’t feel the least bit guilty about it, either. Just as recreational drug use only masks reality, the loneliness didn’t end. I knew it wouldn’t and didn’t expect it to and that knowledge has prevented me from being psychologically harmed from the experience. To have expected otherwise would be the definition of neurosis. I have always entered into every sexual situation with my eyes open (though occasionally a little bleary), knowing what I want and expect and communicating that to the person (male or, years ago, female) I’m with. Sex, casual or otherwise, isn’t necessarily something of which to be either proud or ashamed — this is a false choice. If sex is mindless (such as having sex with a stranger without a condom for the purpose of a supposed greater intimacy), then it like any other activity engaged in without thinking is shameful.
I disagree with the contention that my above behavior is shallow and/or uniquely selfish. All sex that is enjoyable requires a selfish component, even within the context of a long-term and loving relationship. But this is a different sex in intent, cause, effect. It is (usually) love-making and the distinction isn’t a small one. I would argue that casual sex isn’t shallow if you’ve thought through what you expect, what you need, whether the partner understands and agrees, and proper precautions are taken to neither harm yourselves or others. This kind of sexual honesty is anything but shallow. I like the balance of mrsizer’s sexual profile.
I’m new here, so I hope this doesn’t paint a huge target on my back. Many of the members here are making excellent points and I’m privileged to post my thoughts among them. However, I’ve noticed a level of nastiness that tends to manifest itself in both gay- and politically-oriented chat utilities and communities. This might be due to the importance we place both on sex and politics, it might be due to the particular members of this blog, it might be due to ‘gay bitchiness’, it might be a lot friendlier than it seems to someone like myself, a stranger – just harmless insults that are understood as such. If the latter is true, this is no way to encourage membership. Being gay is difficult. Being gay and even somewhat right-leaning is damn difficult (at least it is where I live). Is it possible for us to disagree without this level of condemnation, or is the level of condemnation in some of the posts indicative of a high level of guilt or envy (envy and contempt being siblings)? I may not agree with the politics of a left-wing member here, but he’s a gay man, undoubtedly has some of the same issues I have and as such, he’s my brother.
O.K., I’m stepping off the soapbox…putting on the Kevlar vest…
Addiction is the problem. Sex addiction. It’s a tremendous issue for the gay community. The bureaucrat was right in her comments, so don’t knock her. Gays must be offered mainstream acceptance options in this society to combat their excessive obsession with sex. Most of them are hopelessly addicted to unsafe sex. I know you all think you’re the exception, so I don’t mean you, okay?
After chatting with a guy online, he went to the man’s place “and had sex. He was lonely. He didn’t use a condom.†He was lonely and felt closer to that man “without†protection.
Which is exactly why I do not approve of government laws short-circuiting democracy to promote mandated equality for GLBTs (note: as opposed to protection from harassment, blackmail and assault). (I myself am the B, heh.) I think Europe especially suffers from a desire among the political class to be correct: they end up with an outer shell of candy-colored tolerance and an interior of rancid chocolate (the effectively disenfranchised and probably seething “massesâ€).
Ugh. I’ll take my approval and disapproval straight, thank you.