In the New York Times Magazine, a young gay man writes about young gay men being far more relationship-oriented these days:
But young gay men today are coming of age in a different time from the baby-boom generation of gays and lesbians who fashioned modern gay culture in this country - or even from me, a gay man in his early 30s. While being a gay teenager today can still be difficult and potentially dangerous (particularly for those who live in noncosmopolitan areas or are considered effeminate), gay teenagers are coming out earlier and are increasingly able to experience their gay adolescence. That, in turn, has made them more likely to feel normal. Many young gay men don't see themselves as all that different from their heterosexual peers, and many profess to want what they've long seen espoused by mainstream American culture: a long-term relationship and the chance to start a family.
The article comes complete with photographs that look like 1950s advertisements. Changing times, indeed!
42 Comments for “Young Gay Rites”
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bad news for Northdallass, this directly contradicts his lie that most gays are deviants.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The paragraph before nicely answers that question.
No wonder, then, that in our 20s so many of us moved to big-city gay neighborhoods and aggressively went about trying to make up for lost time. And no wonder that some of us ? myself included ? occasionally went overboard.
?The expectation for many years was that if you did any dating in your 20s, they were essentially ?practice relationships? where you did what heterosexual kids get to do in junior high, high school and college,? says Jeffrey Chernin, a Los Angeles psychotherapist and the author of ?Get Closer: A Gay Men?s Guide to Intimacy and Relationships.? ?But for many gay men, your 20s were about meeting a lot of different people, going out to bars with your friends and having a lot of sex. That has long been considered a rite of passage in the gay community.?
Furthermore, Priya, you claim to be a believer in monogamy; do you support this, for example?
But the Brandons suspected they were untraditional when it came to their thinking about monogamy. As they saw it, one enduring lesson of heterosexual marriage is that lifelong monogamy is unrealistic for most people ? especially men. ?Most straight people like to talk a great game about monogamy,? Brandon A. said. ?But what are they actually doing? Many of them have affairs at some point or break up because they want to sleep with somebody else. We?re two guys, we?re in our 20s, we haven?t been sexual with that many people, and to pretend like we?re never going to want to experience sex with another person until the day we die doesn?t make sense to us. We?re open to exploring our sexuality together in a way that makes us both comfortable.?
Which would explain a lot about these statistics.
Monogamous relationships in the gay community are still very much a deviation from the norm — and, as is obvious from the article, gay couples are getting married with no intention of being monogamous.
posted by Naturally Gay on
It’s a nice story, but I wonder how much like straight couples gay couples will be. Younger couples have the highest divorce rates. I hope that gay couples don’t emulate that trend, but I guess only time will tell.
Having said that, whether or not gay couples stay married or even remain monogamous shouldn’t translate into an excuse for gay couples not to be allowed to get married. There are plenty of cases of straight couples having “open” marriages, even though it is not something I agree with. Even if monogamous couples are in the minority, they should still be allowed to marry (or civil unions or whatever).
posted by Priya Lynn on
We’ve heard all those lies before Northdallass. Your hatred of gays knows no bounds. Of course as is almost always the case reality is quite different from what you claim it is.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/04/23/1863#comments
“One of the arguments from anti-gays in opposition to marriage equality is that gay people don?t want marriage anyway. But a new study from the Rockway Institute Anthony R. D?Augelli, H. Jonathon Rendina and Katerina O. Sinclair of Pennsylvania State University and Arnold Grossman of New York University suggest that not only do gay youth want to be part of a couple, they expect to be.
In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, social scientists have found that many lesbian and gay youth have expectations of spending their adult life in a long-term relationship raising children. More than 90 percent of females and more than 80 percent of males expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30. Two thirds of females and more than half of males expressed likelihood that they would raise children in the future.
As gay youth become more aware that they have the opportunity and the right to live their lives openly and with someone they love, the more they grow up expecting to do just that.”
I do believe in monogamy, unlike you who defends incestuous, polygamous, and pedophilac marriages. When I opposed them, you screamed “It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html?success=1#comments
comment at June 19, 2007, 4:02pm
posted by Priya Lynn on
And typical of Nortdallass, he never fails to attack gays while never volunteering to post the indiscretions of the straight community.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/01/012808brazil.htm
Brazil Distributes Millions Of Condoms During Carnival
by The Associated Press
Posted: January 28, 2008 – 3:00 pm ET
(Rio De Janeiro, Brazil) Health officials have begun distributing millions of condoms to fight AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases during Brazil’s five-day Carnival.
Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao launched the program at a Rio de Janeiro cultural centre, saying the government expects to hand out some 19.5 million condoms by Carnival’s end on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 6, state news service Agencia Brasil reported.
“We have to let society know the importance of prevention,” Temporao said.
Church officials in Brazil _ home to the world’s largest Roman Catholic population _ have opposed the condom program, as well as another plan to hand out morning-after pills in the city of Recife.
“The church has nothing against having fun during the Carnival, but the banalization of human sexuality is something we cannot tolerate,” Bishop Antonio Augusto Dias Duarte of the Life and Family Commission of the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops said last week.
About 80 per cent of young men polled by the Health Ministry reported using condoms, although just 40 per cent of women said they insist on it, Temporao said, without giving more details on the survey. Nearly 600,000 Brazilians are HIV positive, of whom 200,000 are being treated, he said.
The United Nations has praised Brazil’s AIDS treatment program, which provides free anti-viral medications that significantly improve life expectancy, as a global model.
posted by Brian on
Priya, I don’t think your source and quotes really have much to do with a blog that caters to independent gays or a thread that is about one gay man’s perspective about possible changing values within his community of friends and their community of friends and the friends’ friends’ community of friends.
Benoit’s perspective and the entire article is a breezy, lighter than lightness, fluff filled conversation with the reader -if the reader was at a gay cocktail party with people who think they have a life but need the validation.
Sometimes gay sterotypes aren’t funny or flattering to the rest of us.
posted by Bobby on
I find it hard to find a gay man into relationships. Straight men have to fight to get a woman to sleep with them, it takes time, patience, and when they finally get it, they rarely want to get rid of her and start searching again.
For gay men it’s easy to get sex, there’s a wide variety out there, there’s curiosity, a desire to try different men and see which one fits (sexually and in the rare case you get a second date, emotionally).
My own mother has been telling me that when I look at guys, I should try to see who they are as people, what kind of personalities they have. But I’m afraid I cannot do that, all I see is hair color, eye color, race, amount of body hair, etc. And I think lots of gays are like me.
So North Dallas Thirty makes valid points. Monogamous relationships are not the norm in our community. There’s plenty of gay couples on craiglist looking to have threesomes, there’s plenty of young people looking for casual sex. And it doesn’t matter what rules you follow, how well you play the game, what you say or don’t say, it’s a lot easier to have a platonic relationship with a straight man than to fall in love with a gay man. At least that’s my experience.
posted by Amicus on
What is the purpose of monogamy/fidelity, within the context of a relationship?
If you find that there is one, what is it that makes you thin that it will not find a way to be expressed, eventually, one way or the other?
posted by Charles Wilson on
When I saw this thread this morning I had an urge to predict what North Liar Forty would say, but I decided that he’d provide his own comic relief. And he did. Ha!
posted by tavdy on
“Which would explain a lot about these statistics.“ – North Dallas Thirty
Since HIV infection rates are typically highest in countries & states which don’t provide free condoms or fund STD awareness education, perhaps you should be aiming your vitriol at the people who can reverse those deadly policies?
“Monogamous relationships in the gay community are still very much a deviation from the norm — and, as is obvious from the article, gay couples are getting married with no intention of being monogamous.” – North Dallas Thirty
Strange that you should say that, since (when you exclude Christians, Muslims and other people of faith) many of the straight married couples I know are in open relationships – though I’ll admit it’s a pretty small group to select from since most of the married couples I know are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Sikh. In fact it seems more common among certain straight groups than it is amongst gays – amongst my friends there’s just one long-term gay couple who aren’t strictly monogamous, and even then they never “play apart” – which I don’t think really counts as infidelity.
I also thought it strange how you also chose to totally (one might almost say “consciously”) ignore the point the article made about monogamy being more desirable and respected amongst young gay couples compared to older ones. Monogamy may still be a deviation from the norm, but that’s fast changing – especially amongst younger gay people. In fact if the trends keep going the way they are, with straights becoming increasingly less monogamous, I wouldn’t be surprised if there comes a day when it’s gays who are most likely to be in stable, monogamous marriages.
posted by Hank on
“gay couples are getting married with no intention of being monogamous.”
So many people said it much better – priya, tavdy, and charles for example – but this is typical of ND’s slime. One couple said they were considering being in a non monogamous relationship – so this is evidence of the thinking of all gay people?
What rot….
posted by Brian on
“Monogamy may still be a deviation from the norm, but that’s fast changing – especially amongst younger gay people. In fact if the trends keep going the way they are, with straights becoming increasingly less monogamous, I wouldn’t be surprised if there comes a day when it’s gays who are most likely to be in stable, monogamous marriages.”
What utter bunk. Based on what survey, tavdy? Your check of the gay guys still standing up at the bar when the 3am lights come on?
Where are your statistics to support your claim that younger gays are “trending” toward monogamy? Benoit’s article and the breezy, light-weights it depicts as proof or is that “poof”? Given the track record of New York Times reporters, it’s just about as likely that Benoit made up all the conversations.
What support do you have for your ridiculous, flies in the face of reality claim that younger gays are trending toward monogamy?
posted by Pat on
The article made the point that most gay people grew up thinking either they have to marry someone of the opposite sex, or simply not marry. So, many gay people tend to have more sexual partners than straight people. Now that civil unions or marriage is becoming more and more a possibility, this may lessen the number of sexual partners and more gay people will start looking into monogamous relationships or marriage.
No, I do not have any statistics to quote. And any claim from a statistical analysis that marriage is not decreasing promiscuity is ridiculous at this point. We really won’t know until say after a couple of generations AFTER full marriage equality happens. My guess is that the gap of the level of promiscuity between gay and straight people will decrease, but still be higher for gay people.
So whether my guess is correct or not, Naturally Gay made the excellent point that it doesn’t matter what the statistics say. Let those who want to be married have that right.
As for the monogamy point, yeah, I believe married persons should be monogamous. But how would this be enforced? If a couple agrees to an open marriage, then who’s going to stop them. A lot of straight persons get married with no intention of being monogamous. The one difference is that nonmonogamous straight persons tend to cheat on their spouses, while gay persons tend to be upfront.
I find it hard to find a gay man into relationships. Straight men have to fight to get a woman to sleep with them, it takes time, patience, and when they finally get it, they rarely want to get rid of her and start searching again.
Maybe this is true in general. But I know a few straight men who don’t have a problem with finding women, and rarely do they not want to search again.
My own mother has been telling me that when I look at guys, I should try to see who they are as people, what kind of personalities they have. But I’m afraid I cannot do that, all I see is hair color, eye color, race, amount of body hair, etc. And I think lots of gays are like me.
Bobby, I think your mother is right. If you want a chance of a relationship, you do have to look beyond the physical characteristics. If you don’t want a relationship at this time, then I suppose it’s fine to not go into personality, etc. But if and when you do want a relationship, then, IMO, you have to forgo the one night stands. In other words, I really don’t think it works when you say, “well, I’m interested in this guy and I’ll sleep with him and then see if a relationship happens, because even if it doesn’t work at least I got to sleep with him.” I also think it doesn’t work if you find someone attractive and it turns out you find you don’t want a relationship, but end up sleeping with him (because again, you at least got to sleep with a hot guy). The easy way out undermines the goal of trying to find someone with a relationship.
So North Dallas Thirty makes valid points. Monogamous relationships are not the norm in our community.
I agree it’s a valid point. I guess the question is should we prevent those monogamous gay couples who do want to marry, because monogamous relationships are not the norm? And if gay children see marriage as an option growing up, and as a result lessens promiscuity, it seems that gay marriage would be a huge benefit to all.
Benoit’s perspective and the entire article is a breezy, lighter than lightness, fluff filled conversation with the reader -if the reader was at a gay cocktail party with people who think they have a life but need the validation.
I agree this wasn’t a hard-hitting rigorous example of journalism. But I found the article interesting nonetheless and I thought Benoit made some good points. As I said, any statistics now are meaningless. I’m not sure what your point is about validation. Are you referring to these couples who want to validate their relationship by marrying? If so, it seems to me that this seeking validation is not any more so than straight couples (even those who plan to remain childless) who validate their relationships by marriage.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Since HIV infection rates are typically highest in countries & states which don’t provide free condoms or fund STD awareness education, perhaps you should be aiming your vitriol at the people who can reverse those deadly policies?
Why not explain first why, in countries and states that do both, HIV and other STD rates are increasing dramatically?
Answer: Because promiscuity and unsafe sex is praised and protected in the gay community. Instead, gays and lesbians make excuses about how “straight people do it too” or blame “other countries” rather than acknowledge that unsafe and unprotected sex is not only normal, it’s rampant.
And if gay children see marriage as an option growing up, and as a result lessens promiscuity, it seems that gay marriage would be a huge benefit to all.
But, as we see, clearly, among gays and lesbians, marriage does not mean monogamy, and gays and lesbians refuse to enforce monogamy — which means it will not lessen promiscuity.
posted by Pat on
But, as we see, clearly, among gays and lesbians, marriage does not mean monogamy, and gays and lesbians refuse to enforce monogamy — which means it will not lessen promiscuity.
NDT, how’s that so? For example, I just said above that I believe that married people should be monogamous, and I’m gay. So it’s not clear at all.
In any case, we see plenty of examples among straight people that marriage does not mean monogamy.
You may be right, but there is no way that you can make such a baseless claim until a few generations AFTER gay marriage is legal.
posted by Casey on
NDT, you’re dead wrong. The simple fact is, for those of us who are younger, we’ve been lucky enough that we don’t feel as forced to give up the values we were raised with… we are less rejected by the straight society that raised us, which means that we are less inclined to have to make our own community – and frankly, the gay community of yesterday just isn’t attractive to us, nor is it as necessary. If you aren’t kicked out of the mainstream world, you tend to take on its values – and yes, damnit, we have the same dreams as our straight friends. Open your eyes – these are young guys who are saying they want to do the hard thing, commit to one other person because they love them. It surprises them, too – but that’s what marriage does. It makes you strive to do more than you thought you could, to be more than you were when you were single… it makes you grow up… and yes, so many of us want to grow up, settle down, and just live our lives. This is the fruit of what generations of gays have worked for – rather than looking for the occasional worm, why not just appreciate the harvest? You’ll be happier that way.
posted by Charles Wilson on
why not just appreciate the harvest? You’ll be happier that way.
North Liar Forty is not interested in being happy. In fact, he regards the happiness of others as a threat.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT, how’s that so? For example, I just said above that I believe that married people should be monogamous, and I’m gay. So it’s not clear at all.
Those are empty words, Pat.
You’ve already made it clear that there are no consequences for non-monogamy; indeed, you rationalize it by claiming that “straight people do it too”.
Open your eyes – these are young guys who are saying they want to do the hard thing, commit to one other person because they love them.
You have an interesting definition of “commit to one person”.
As they saw it, one enduring lesson of heterosexual marriage is that lifelong monogamy is unrealistic for most people ? especially men. ?Most straight people like to talk a great game about monogamy,? Brandon A. said. ?But what are they actually doing? Many of them have affairs at some point or break up because they want to sleep with somebody else. We?re two guys, we?re in our 20s, we haven?t been sexual with that many people, and to pretend like we?re never going to want to experience sex with another person until the day we die doesn?t make sense to us. We?re open to exploring our sexuality together in a way that makes us both comfortable.?
That doesn’t look any different than the “gay community of yesterday”, nor does it look like “being more than you were when you were single”; it looks like being just like you were when you were single, only now you’re lying. It’s “too hard” for them to sexually commit to one person; they want to be able to have marriage, but they don’t want to keep the commitment or the responsibility.
The simple fact is, for those of us who are younger, we’ve been lucky enough that we don’t feel as forced to give up the values we were raised with
Forced by whom?
Or was it more a matter of CHOOSING to give them up so that you could partake in the typical LGBT bacchanal of drugs, alcohol, and promiscuous sex?
Stop making excuses for people who choose to act like idiots. Indeed, if you want society to stop thinking of gays like that, try actually going after the gay people who do it — including these fools who are outright stating that they have no intention of being monogamous and are going to continue to have promiscuous sex whenever they darn well please.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat offers: “As I said, any statistics now are meaningless.”
Absolutely not, Pat; but I can understand why you’d like to present that theory.
It’s very easy to poll gay youth on values and concerns and practices and lifestyle disagreements with the prevailing gay community… but it won’t be done. The pro-gay media have a decidedly biased interest in NOT exposing that underbelly of the gay community… but if they did, I seriously doubt “monogamy” would be a value prized or even respected by gay youth… mostly because their role models (us) have a vocal majority who oppose “values” (unless it’s freedom to x,y,& z), oppose judgments (unless it’s self-regulating) and most-often oppose the larger societal interests. We’ll skip youth’s general inclination toward serial mistakes in lustful pursuits.
We can poll those values right now. Of course, to placate the Left, we’d need to call them “feelings” rather than values, the survey instrument would need to free of anti-diversity language, and the pollsters would need to be empathetic with the gay youth in order to solicit true responses. But we could do that right now and test if monogamy is a value… course, no one would pay for it because (drum roll) EVERYONE knows the answer to that question already.
We certainly don’t need to allow gay marriage for a decade or two before polling. The real issue is that this biased NYT piece was intended to advance the notion that monogamy is a hot issue for gay youths and that’s different than it’s ever been for older, previous generations of gays. Right. Brooklyn Bridge for sale over here.
Based on some “breezy” interviews at a cocktail party? What’s next? Like you note: that’s hardly journalism… you’re right, it’s an advocacy piece. I wonder why? Hmmmm.
And on your other question: “I’m not sure what your (Brian’s) point is about validation.” I read his comment to mean he was critical of the superficial, materialistic, shallow people presented in the article. I also thought that the writer (Benoit Denizet Lewis) was using thei journalism credentials to gain access to food and fluff the ego of his friends, I mean clients, I mean interview subjects.
Monogamy on the uptick amongst gay youth? We’d be dreaming and missing the point again of what will get us to fully-sanctioned civil unions… it ain’t lying about our community’s primary interests.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
And since this thread has moved toward the gay marriage issue, it seems the easiest way to address the greatest concerns of str8 America about what are our true intentions with civil unions would be to start being honest about monogamy as a value in our community.
To argue that “breeders” (as Bobby likes to put it) don’t do it, we ain’t gotta then… doesn’t quite get us to the assuaged moment that voters will need in granting us the rights of civil unions. “Screw the voters, let get ours via the courts” has fleeting utility.
How can we expect to secure full civil rights and privileges/benefits ascribed in society to partnered married folks unless we are honest in the portrayals of our culture, community?
We can’t. Like many have said here before, we aren’t going to make progress until we CHANGE the course and political strategies and cultural alliances gays have had for the last 20 years. And that begins by calling the spades, spades and not trying to project images which are disloyal to reality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You know, Matt, given that these new gay youth are monogamous and relationship-oriented, what I can’t figure out is why their HIV rate is up 33 percent over the past six years.
Probably because their definition of “monogamy” is like the couple I highlighted; they may be “married”, but they still have as much sex as they want with other people, because it’s wrong to “limit” themselves to just one person.
posted by Casey on
NDT – the reason why that HIV rate is up is really very simple to anybody paying attention – the number of states with a name-based, as opposed to a code-based, reporting system has increased dramatically over the last few years, and includes California and Illinois, two of the largest states. The increased numbers reflect more accurate data, not a change in infection rate – we don’t know what changes there might be in the infection rate. Anymore questions, or am I just spoiling all the fun you’re having slandering my generation as more stupid and reckless than yours by introducing facts to the discussion? http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/recent/2008/040108_b.html
posted by Bob on
Great the echo chamber’s arrived.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You need to reread the article I cited, Casey.
HIV infection is on the rise among young men who have sex with men in New York City, particularly among young blacks and Hispanics, according to preliminary data released Tuesday by the NYC Health Department.
New HIV diagnoses among MSM under age 30 have increased by 33 percent during the past six years, the agency reported today, from 374 in 2001 to almost 500 in 2006.
Furthermore, as can be easily noted in the actual CDC report, apples-to-apples comparisons are easily made by simply sticking to the reports that are marked “33 states and 5 US-dependent areas”, all of which, according to CDC’s protocol, have had a consistent names-based reporting system in place for four years and thus allow year-over-year-comparisons. The changes you refer to are visible on Table 16, where, as you’ll note, it DOESN’T do historical — only cumulative.
So let’s look at Table 1, which is consistent.
Male-to-male sexual contact? Number up for four years straight.
Age diagnosed for 15-19, 20-24, and 25-29? Also up for four years straight.
Number for men versus number for women? Up for four years straight versus down and stable — and running at about 35% of men’s amount.
The CDC’s own analysis (page 6)?
From 2003 through 2006, the estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases increased among men who have sex with men (MSM) and remained stable among adults and adolescents with HIV infection attributed to high-risk heterosexual contact (heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection) (Table 1).
And:
The estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases remained stable among persons aged 40?44 years and increased among persons aged 15?19, 20?24, 25?29, 45?49, 50?54, 55?59, 60?64, and 65 years and older.
Those are facts, Casey. For all your talk of “monogamy” and “relationships”, your generation is doing a bang-up job of continuing and endorsing promiscuity and the resulting disease spread.
Again, probably because you’ve redefined “marriage” to mean “arrangement of convenience where you continue to have sex with everyone else under the sun because it’s too hard to be monogamous”.
posted by akn on
NDT – Just wanted to pitch in my two cents —
In my opinion, rising HIV infection rates don’t seem as relevant to the article in question as you are suggesting. As you quoted from the NYC study, the increased infections are most pronounced among young blacks and hispanics, who — from what I have experienced living in NYC for the past five years — are far less likely to identify with any gay culture or even as ‘gay men’ than white gays. As a result, most safe-sex messages aimed at gay men fail to reach individual MSM who do not see themselves as gay, and those men are far more likely to engage in high-risk sex. The highly-educated, white gay men profiled in Benoit’s article are much more likely to practice safe sex, especially while in a committed relationship where protecting one’s partner is a top priority.
So if, as you suspect, marriage does little to curb promiscuity, I wouldn’t expect to see a huge rise in HIV among educated white gays. And if conversely marriage is a monagamizing force, I suspect it would have little influence among gay men of color. As with many other gay movements, the face of marriage equality is overwhelmingly white and affluent. It’s good that Benoit acknowledges this , but too bad he can’t find anything interesting to say about it before floating off into windy relationship-talk.
It really troubles me how invisible gay men of color are in all but the most niche and independent media. As much as we reject mainstream gay culture, I can personally attest that we also feel rejected. Which is not to say that gay civil rights should be universally conflated with race issues; rather it’s a problem within and unique to the collective gay experience in America, and is too rarely recognized as such.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Pat,
?But I know a few straight men who don’t have a problem with finding women, and rarely do they not want to search again.?
—They?re the exception; they?re probably very good looking. Let?s put it this way, if tomorrow I wake up straight, my sex life is over. Seducing women is a lot more complicated than telling them the size of your penis, amount of body hair, your weight, your height, and what you like to do in bed. Straight promiscuity is nothing like gay promiscuity.
?But if and when you do want a relationship, then, IMO, you have to forgo the one night stands. In other words, I really don’t think it works when you say, “well, I’m interested in this guy and I’ll sleep with him and then see if a relationship happens, because even if it doesn’t work at least I got to sleep with him.” I also think it doesn’t work if you find someone attractive and it turns out you find you don’t want a relationship, but end up sleeping with him (because again, you at least got to sleep with a hot guy). The easy way out undermines the goal of trying to find someone with a relationship.?
—I think the temptation to sleep with the guy is very strong, remember, women are used to denying sex to guys, guys are more likely to follow their instincts. The crux of your advice seems to be ?if you want guys to take you seriously, don?t have sex with them.? And it?s a very valid point.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As a result, most safe-sex messages aimed at gay men fail to reach individual MSM who do not see themselves as gay, and those men are far more likely to engage in high-risk sex.
The interesting thing, akn, is that recent studies have shown the exact opposite.
Black gay and bisexual men, especially, have been hit hard by HIV/AIDS, but another study showed them to be more likely to engage in safe-sex practices than their white counterparts.
In another CDC study, researchers examined data from 53 studies conducted from 1980 to 2006. The studies compared the safe-sex behaviors of black and white gay and bisexual men.
“Across all studies, there were no overall differences [by race] in reported unprotected receptive sex or any unprotected anal intercourse,” said the study’s lead author, Gregorio Millet, a behavioral scientist at the CDC. In fact, “among young MSM — those ages 15 to 29 — African-Americans were one third less likely than whites to report in engaging in unprotected anal intercourse,” he said.
Black gay or bisexual men were also “36 percent less likely than whites to report having as many sex partners as white MSM,” he added. Blacks in the study were also less likely to use recreational drugs, such as methamphetamine or cocaine, compared to whites.
The reason for the discrepancy, I think, is in Table 11 of the CDC report that I cited above. If you look, the rate of cases in men transmitted by gay sex is slightly more than half of the number among whites; however, black people have four times the number transmitted by high-risk heterosexual contact (basically, having sex with someone who already has HIV or is an injectable-drug user) and three times the number transmitted by injection drug use.
posted by NaturallyGay on
North Dallas Thirty – Your citing of HIV statistics doesn’t make sense to me. Does an increase in HIV transmission relate one way or another to an increase or decrease in promiscuity? The common belief, though I’m not aware of any study that backs this up and I don’t have time to look, is that gay men are engaging in riskier sexual activity because HIV/AIDS is no longer considered the frightening terminal illness that it once was. It’s the unfortunate downside of newer treatments — people are lured into a false sense of ease about contracting the disease. In the end, none of this shows an increase or decrease in the monogamous behavior of gay men.
In the end, what matters most to me is that I want a monogamous relationship. Whether it is atypical of the gay community or not does not affect what I believe is the best situation for myself. The original NYT story is a nice puff piece but nothing more.
posted by KamatariSeta on
Is there a single thread on here that doesn’t involve everyone arguing with ND30?
posted by Pat on
Those are empty words, Pat.
You’ve already made it clear that there are no consequences for non-monogamy; indeed, you rationalize it by claiming that “straight people do it too”.
Speaking of empty words.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I’m not rationalizing anything. I was making the point that not all straight people are monogamous, but yet, marriage rights aren’t being stripped away for those who do want to be monogamous.
So what should the consequences of non-monogamy be? I have an idea. If any one person in a group is non-monogamous, then NO ONE in that group should be allowed to be married. Is that what you want? If so, that’s fine. Then at least I can disagree with your argument, but see that you’re being fair and just about it.
Absolutely not, Pat; but I can understand why you’d like to present that theory.
MichiganMatt, please share it, I would like to know. I have no horse in this argument. I’ve made a guess what would happen AFTER gay marriage has been in place for a while. I freely admit that my guess may be wrong.
Sure, you can do all the statistics you want now. I have no problem with that, and not surprised by the results that come in. The fact is that most gay people, including young ones have not grown up in a culture of gay marriage and its acceptance. They have not grown up with parents saying that it’s okay to be gay, and they want them to find that special person just like their straight children and get married. You can’t do statistics on that if it hasn’t happened yet.
And furthermore, watching people inferring statistical data on this thread is like watching some teenage horror flick, but only more scary and pathetic. Mark Twain had it right about statistics.
—They?re the exception; they?re probably very good looking. Let?s put it this way, if tomorrow I wake up straight, my sex life is over. Seducing women is a lot more complicated than telling them the size of your penis, amount of body hair, your weight, your height, and what you like to do in bed. Straight promiscuity is nothing like gay promiscuity.
Bobby, I don’t think these guys are especially good looking. They do know how to work the bar room though, and know what to say. Or wait until closing time and for the hard negotiations to begin. Frankly, my observations about gay men are similar. But yes, a very good looking gay guy doesn’t need to say much in order to get sex, unless he’s very discriminating and only wants to sleep with someone who he thinks is at least as good looking as him.
Does an increase in HIV transmission relate one way or another to an increase or decrease in promiscuity?
Naturally Gay, they are related, but you cannot conclude one result from the other, no matter how hard one tries. See Mark Twain’s quote. And if statistics showed that the HIV rate has decreased, again, you cannot conclude that promiscuity has lessened. It seems like most people will infer statistics falsely if it supports their point.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
“Is there a single thread on here that doesn’t involve everyone arguing with ND30?”
Hey KamatariSeta, not EVERYone argues with North Dallas 30; just the ones who aren’t smart enough to grasp the issues… like you, Charles Wilson and so forth. I gather you think you’re everyone; so ego-centric of you.
Oh, Charles Wilson can’t debate. He’s busy fighting off yet another blog that wants to bounce him -even if the blog’s policy is to rarely bounce someone unless they’re a total jerk.
http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1489#comment-22815
posted by Tyler DeVere on
I don’t get it. I don’t get why all these people are stating their own personal experiences and assuming they’re representative of the whole.
No doubt there’s good use in discussing HIV/AIDS, monogamy, promiscuity, etc., but where’s the discussion? It seems like people just keep stating their personal experiences and treating them as the whole truth. And the small scattering of studies that have been cited here are only truly related about half the time.
Let’s accept that without scientific studies to guide us, we don’t really know the whole truth of the matter, and we’ll hindered in reaching it until we do have that guidance.
We all know there’s a wide variety in the gay community, just like all the other communities, but trying to quantify the variety is impossible until we have something reliable to base those claims on.
posted by Partrick on
Hey Michigan-Matt, not EVERYone argues with North Dallas 30; The ones who aren’t smart enough to grasp the issues don?t… like you or Ashpenaz . I gather you think you’re so smart; how ego-centric of you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I was making the point that not all straight people are monogamous, but yet, marriage rights aren’t being stripped away for those who do want to be monogamous.
Society is openly disdainful of those who cheat and sleep around within marriage, infidelity is fully allowed as a reason for divorce, and continuous promiscuity is established grounds for stripping parents of custody.
When the gay community treats non-monogamous gay couples the same way, then you will have an argument. But, as we see clear here, the gay community isn’t even able to criticize gay couples who publicly state that they want to be married but remain promiscuous.
Furthermore, as I’ve said before, I am in full support of making infidelity an automatic nullifier of a marriage — as in, the legal bond is immediately dissolved and the unfaithful spouse loses all community property and child custody.
Does an increase in HIV transmission relate one way or another to an increase or decrease in promiscuity?
Yes.
HIV is spread by having unprotected sex with multiple partners. Monogamous relationships do not spread HIV, regardless of whether or not the sex is unprotected, and your odds of getting HIV from any one sexual encounter are pretty minimal. Like anything else, the odds increase with variety of approaches and number of tries; hence, the highest rates of HIV correlate best to number of sexual partners.
In the end, what matters most to me is that I want a monogamous relationship. Whether it is atypical of the gay community or not does not affect what I believe is the best situation for myself.
More power to you.
But I assure you, a marriage certificate will not give you a monogamous relationship, any more than a driver’s license automatically makes you a good driver. It’s a matter of your choice and your decisions, and exists independent of the legal recognition.
posted by Pat on
When the gay community treats non-monogamous gay couples the same way, then you will have an argument. But, as we see clear here, the gay community isn’t even able to criticize gay couples who publicly state that they want to be married but remain promiscuous.
Then maybe we should only allow those, who criticize couples who are married and promiscuous, to be allowed to marry. Then I can get married when I want. Sounds great.
So if I understand you correctly, NDT, you believe that a straight person, who intends on being monogamous, but does not condemn those with a differing opinion on marriage and monogamy, should not get married. Is that right?
Furthermore, as I’ve said before, I am in full support of making infidelity an automatic nullifier of a marriage — as in, the legal bond is immediately dissolved and the unfaithful spouse loses all community property and child custody.
What about cases where couples (gay or straight) who agree to be in open relationships? And as I suggested above, would you only allow those who agree with you on this issue to be the only ones who are allowed to get married?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So if I understand you correctly, NDT, you believe that a straight person, who intends on being monogamous, but does not condemn those with a differing opinion on marriage and monogamy, should not get married. Is that right?
Yup.
Simple reason; since they believe that anyone can rationalize and justify promiscuity, why shouldn’t we expect them to do the same?
What about cases where couples (gay or straight) who agree to be in open relationships?
Then they don’t need to be married. Indeed, it will make life a lot easier when they get other people pregnant or give their partners the STDs they picked up from sleeping around.Indeed, Regan already argued passionately in another thread here that polyamorous relationships have bad social consequences.
Then I can get married when I want.
When have you ever criticized promiscuous married couples? If anything, you’ve been arguing that it’s OK for gays to do the same because “straight people do it too”.
posted by Pat on
Yup.
Simple reason; since they believe that anyone can rationalize and justify promiscuity, why shouldn’t we expect them to do the same?
NDT, if someone doesn’t criticize behavior that YOU object to, that automatically means that we should expect them to engage in said behavior. Is that right?
If that’s your position, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
When have you ever criticized promiscuous married couples? If anything, you’ve been arguing that it’s OK for gays to do the same because “straight people do it too”.
You’re kind of right. I don’t recall ever specifically criticizing promiscuous married couples. I have criticized promiscuity on several occasions. So I think I’m covered.
I’ve never argued that gay couples should be promiscuous because “straight people do it too.” I thought I made it clear that just as we don’t prohibit ALL straight couples from being married because of what some straight couples do, I’m saying that gay couples shouldn’t be prohibited for the same reason.
posted by NaturallyGay on
HIV is spread by having unprotected sex with multiple partners. Monogamous relationships do not spread HIV, regardless of whether or not the sex is unprotected, and your odds of getting HIV from any one sexual encounter are pretty minimal. Like anything else, the odds increase with variety of approaches and number of tries; hence, the highest rates of HIV correlate best to number of sexual partners.
Your logic doesn’t follow for me. Just because HIV rates are increasing, it doesn’t necessarily mean that promiscuity rates are increasing. In theory, monogamy could be increasing, but the people who are engaging in promiscuity could be acting in far more risky ways, which greatly increases their chances of contracting HIV. I don’t think that this is what is actually happening. I’m just making the point that rising HIV rates don’t prove anything about promiscuity either way.
posted by Pat on
Your logic doesn’t follow for me. Just because HIV rates are increasing, it doesn’t necessarily mean that promiscuity rates are increasing. In theory, monogamy could be increasing, but the people who are engaging in promiscuity could be acting in far more risky ways, which greatly increases their chances of contracting HIV. I don’t think that this is what is actually happening. I’m just making the point that rising HIV rates don’t prove anything about promiscuity either way.
Exactly, Naturally Gay. The only thing you can conclude from data that shows that HIV rates are increasing is that there is a 95% (or some higher percentage less than 100%) chance that HIV rates are increasing. It certainly could mean that the rates of promiscuity are also increasing, but that does not necessarily follow. But with diseases, there are many other factors that could account for the increase in rate. By the same token, if HIV rates decrease, you cannot necessarily conclude that promiscuity has decreased either.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
North Dallas Thirty, I left a message for you on the ‘alternative families’ link you have here.
Please check it out.
posted by Christopher? on
I have no desire to get in a tit-for-tat argument, as we end up arguing over details and miss the big picture.
The issues of marriage rights, monogamy and HIV infection are much more complex than simply boiling them down to a few statistical studies. It’s as if “studies” (while helpful at times) are the new modern Scriptures for some people. And those studies have their own fundamentalists–one in particular here.
My recent experience with guys in their early 20s is that more and more of them have expressed a desire to have a committed relationship with another guy. Even the attitude of “I’ll sleep around while I’m single until I meet the guy I want to commit to” has changed for those I’ve spoken with to “I don’t hook up, so don’t even ask–I want to date and get to know you first.” Now, my experience is simply that… just my experience, and I tend to hang with more Christian gay guys than non-Christian ones. But I think it’s a healthy sign that many in our community are “growing up” as it were. What percentage is that? I have no idea. But I don’t believe they’re statistically insignificant as some would argue… nor are they all Christians, either.
Will there always be promiscuity and hedonism in the gay community? Yep, just as there is as hedonism and promiscuity in the straight community. So, it’s a wash in my book. What matters is that there is a support mechanism for those who wish to practice monogamous relationships.
And marriage (along with its traditions and celebrations) is good for that. But that’s just my opinion.
posted by Ezequiel on
I understand why a monogamy-promiscuity discussion must end up in an STD discussion.
It is dangerous to be promiscuous, that’s ok. It is probably safe(safer) to be on a monogamous relationship, that’s ok. But there is the unfair assumption that dangerous=wrong. Also, there is the common assumption that my moral standard must be somehow proved.
I’ve in a relationship for three years now. And we did some threesomes, those activities were part of our sex life. I don’t see ourselves as promiscuous since it is something we do from time to time. I understand that some people consider that kind of behavior to be “morally wrong”, but please don’t use STD statistics to back something that doesn’t need to be backed with data. At the end of the day, if the cure for every std was found, you would still think everybody should be on a monogamous relationship. You are entitled to your opinion, but don’t try to pretend there is an explanation to it. I don’t need to rationalize everything I do with my partner either.
I found the article to present plausible arguments. Even if it is not backed with data. In my case, I had my ‘postponed adolescence’ in my early 20’s and then I settled down. Probably some would think my settling down was convenient, since I still have sex with others. But the truth is I had those encounters with my partner, it was part of our sexual life. It isn’t a “condition” any of us set on our relationship, is something we wanted to try on the second year of our relationship and something we haven’t done for a year now. I think the sexual experimentation phase in a person’s life is something good, and my parter wasn’t as lucky as I was, I was his first relationship. So when the issue came up in a conversation I thought it would be a good thing that he had the chance to have sex with other men. It is something that made sense to us, in our particular situation. I don’t see why we should stick to a generic relationship mold that wasn’t created for us. But that’s something that worked for us, and it doesn’t need to be the right thing for everybody.