"What we have is a culture in which we no longer define ourselves according to our similarities but according to our differences. We are proud of our unique qualities and want everyone else to appreciate these traits, too. ... We also devalue commonality in favor of radical uniqueness. We are more interested in freedom of expression than in commitment to unity."
I ran across this quotation in evangelical authors George Barna and Mark Hatch's interesting book Boiling Point (Regal Books, 2001). The quotation might seem to have been more appropriate to my companion piece last week on "Diversity" except that diversity seems to be about different groupings. Barna and Hatch aren't talking about diversity. They are talking about individuality. Barna and Hatch see individuality as a cultural threat; I see it as an essential component of our culture.
When I was growing up, some people worried about the threat of "conformity"-of people taking their cue for what to believe and how to live from their friends and neighbors. People were said to be "other directed" rather than "inner directed." But at the same time, the whole goal of our educational system was to produce compliant, obedient citizens, thoroughly "adjusted"-that was a key term-young social units.
I will give just one example. When I was in eighth grade, our English class made a field trip to the nearby branch library. Then at our next class we broke into working groups and were told to sketch out a floor plan of the library and show where various types of books were. I was a frequent visitor to the library and knew it well. My group got the floor plan badly wrong, a fact I pointed out. I must have done so quite vociferously because after class the teacher called me up to her desk.
"Paul," she began. "The purpose of this exercise is to learn to work with groups of other people." "But they got the floor plan all wrong," I protested. "Go to the library. You'll see." "Paul," she replied, "that doesn't matter. The purpose is to learn how to work with other people." "But they're wrong," I insisted. "It doesn't matter," she repeated. Shaken, I had the feeling that I had just gained a valuable insight into the contemporary culture.
With that background, you can see why my suspicions are raised any time I hear calls for unity or solidarity or any similar goal. Calls for national unity, religious unity, racial unity, community unity often amount to nothing more than the demand that other people agree with the speaker and do things his (or her) way. It sounds like it means "Get with the program," "Follow the Party Line," suppress your doubts, don't express disagreement.
Each Pride season just as we hear ritualistic praise for "diversity" (referring to groups not individuals), we hear equally ritualistic calls for "unity." But it is never specified what we are supposed to be united about. Early in the gay movement, I think most people took the term to urge gays to work together for the elimination of prejudice and discrimination. In other words, they didn't want unity so much as they wanted to promote involvement and cooperation on specific tasks.
Nowadays, as the gay movement has achieved more of its goals and our opponents (I trust, I hope) are on the defensive, I am not so sure what unity is about, or how it is supposed to be demonstrated. We don't seem to be in agreement on goals: Most of us support gay marriage, whether we personally want to marry or not. But there are people who oppose gay marriage as, oh, you know, the usual claptrap about patriarchal institutions, as if that could apply to two men or two women.
But we also disagree about tactics. Many people, especially gay leaders, opposed California gay couples' filing suit to obtain marriage rights. Opponents said it was the wrong time, the wrong route, guaranteed to get slapped down by the court. And it may yet-by California voters this November. Opinion was legitimately divided. That's not a bad thing; it's a good thing.
We are not of one mind about whether drag queens are entertaining expressions of gay creativity or self-promoting parasites who serve to confirm heterosexuals' views of gay men as feminine. We are not unified on whether transgenders and transsexuals are part of the gay community-particularly if they are not homosexual.
Does the fact that we are all gay produce any real "unity"? Maybe on Gay Pride Day. But otherwise, I often think the only thing that unites us is the desire to have a good time.
38 Comments for “Unity, or Else What?”
posted by bls on
I just have to ask a question here. The fact is, I don’t remembering ever hearing calls for “Diversity” or “Unity.”
Even when I was younger and actually participated in Pride things – in the 80s, mostly – I don’t remember hearing these calls. I don’t even know Pride is happening, most of the time – and when it does, all I care about is avoiding it so I won’t get stuck in traffic. Do people even go anymore?
Who is making these calls, and why are they seen as important? I don’t think anybody’s paying attention, actually, if somebody is calling for these things. We all know that gay people have all kinds of different interests and are not a monolith. So does anybody pay any attention to things like this?
I really don’t think so.
posted by gary on
I don’t know what woods “bls” has been hiding in, but here in Chicago “diversity” is the most overused word in the gay papers. And of course it is never used in regards to political thought. I would love to wear my McCain 2008 T-shirt to the “pride” parade this Sunday, but I am really not up for the insults from the “diversity” police.
posted by bls on
Well, that probably explains it. I don’t read the “gay papers,” either, and really never have; I’ve always found them to be pretty dull and one-dimensional.
I must be a bad gay, hiding in the woods, and all….
posted by comment one on
Well, what’s the alternative, gary – you go with your McCain shirt, and those that disagree with McCain’s policies say nothing negative at all, then you become the diversity police, instead of someone else. Obviously, it’s a catch 22 for everybody.
posted by gary on
bls: No disrespect meant and I agree with the gay papers being dull, etc. Sorry about the comment!
Comment One: I really cannot follow your line of reasoning. How do I become the “diversity police” by wearing a McCain T-shirt? I dont get upset at the Obama T-shirt wearers…I believe it is their right to wear one without a negative comment from anyone…..I just expect/demand the same right which I know from experience will not be given to me.
posted by comment one on
You just solved the confusion yourself. You become the diversity police by excepting to be welcomed/accepted (just because you don’t have a problem with the majority – even while they have a problem with you) Tolerance isn’t enough, which obviously doesn’t preclude criticism/insults. Again, diversity and unity create a catch 22. If it didn’t make sense this time, I give up. lol
posted by David Skidmore on
Paul Varnell says “does the fact that we are all gay produce any real “unity”? Maybe on Gay Pride Day. But otherwise, I often think the only thing that unites us is the desire to have a good time.”
Not only is that comment unduly negative, it is downright wrong. If gays’ only desire was to have a good time, you wouldn’t have gay lobby groups and other organisations that have campaigned to give us the rights we have today. You wouldn’t have this forum for starters and you certainly wouldn’t see same-sex marriage on the agenda in California.
Yes, there is a long way to go. And “we” will never be unified like the armed forces or the police. That is because the gay movement consists of many individuals and organisations with a variety of ideas and political viewpoints. And it is far more democratic than the major political parties could ever be (try wearing a “Bush = International Terrorist” t-shirt at a Republican Party convention).
But given the amorphous nature of the gay community it is quite amazing that so much has been achieved in America since the 1950s.
Btw, if someone argues against your t-shirt slogan, why not argue back or tell them to piss off?
posted by Ashpenaz on
I am against unity. I am for nonviolent coexistence. I see no reason why people have to hang out with people they don’t like.
posted by gary on
comment one: Let me get this right. I go to a gathering of people (e.g. the majority) whose buzz words for the last decade is “diversity” and “tolerance”. So of course I expect to be welcomed. Their reaction is less than “tolerant”….and suddenly that makes me the “diversity police”. Ok I give up too! 🙂
Btw Ashpenaz…I do tell them to piss off and even more if they don’t get out of my face. They get out of my face.
posted by David Skidmore on
Ashpenaz, if gay people are to have things like same-sex marriage and effective campaigns to ensure our physical safety, it does mean hanging out with people you don’t like. Gay lobby groups will always have people you don’t like. In some cases, people you loathe. But they are not friendship circles. They exist to make changes to the laws and policies which directly affect our lives.
Look at non-gay organisations. Obama and Clinton obviously can’t stand each other. However, the Democrats haven’t dominated Congress for the better part of half a century based on love and goodwill. They have done so because they realise they need to work together to achieve their aims despite their personal feelings. The same goes for gay organisations if they are to function effectively.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I would happily join a gay organization–but I’m not interested at all in LBTs. If it’s just gay, just men loving men, masculine loving masculine, count me in! But I’m not interested in unity with a bunch of people with whom I have nothing in common.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Omigod, it’s Pride Week again–the gay Kwanzaa.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Individualism is an essential element of gay culture
I don’t agree with this a bit. True, gay culture often rewards a sort of faux-individualism: “Hey, I think I’ll go out and get a tribal tattoo to show what a non-conformist I am!”
But authentic individualists don’t feel threatened by other people’s stigmatization and don’t consider themselves to be oppressed by name-calling. Yet the Gay Comm-Unity frequently encourages its “members” to think in exactly those terms: We are oppressed! They hate and persecute and spit on us.
posted by Pepe Johnson on
“they didn’t want unity so much as they wanted to promote involvement and cooperation on specific tasks”
I think this is still true, but rather than specific tasks, they want you to join specific organizations. I can think of one or two groups, that if you don’t join them, some members of the community may think you aren’t doing your part.
posted by Pepe Johnson on
I also wanted to add that I think calls for “unity” can be a double-edged sword. It’s easier to deal with people who believe as you do, but as Mr. Skidmore points out, to accomplish something “it does mean hanging out with people you don’t like.”
So one side of unity allows you to hang out and gain support from those who already believe as you do. But the negative side of unity makes people hesitate to approach those who may disagree with them. People can get too comfortable. And like people rowing a boat from only one side, we spin in circles going nowhere.
posted by Richard on
I can just see it now. Paul has a school boy group project on making an Atlantis model.
He complains and complains that the city does not exist, and thus he should not have to do anywork, but reserves the right to complain about the result.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I can just see it now. Paul has a schoolboy group project on making an Atlantis model.
He complains and complains that the city does not exist…
More like: The group is assigned to prepare a presentation about humpback whales; the group consensus (minus Paul) is that the presentation will be under the rubric Humpback Whales: Man’s Reptilian Friends, and Paul stubbornly holds his ground on the point that humpback whales are in fact mammals, not reptiles.
If Paul is accurately reporting his conversation with the teacher, then it seems to me that the teacher didn’t do a very good job in imparting a lesson about how to work in groups — the teacher should’ve said, “Paul, when you have a serious disagreement with the rest of the group, there are more effective ways of resolving the disagreement. For example, you might have… [fill in words of wisdom here]”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Also, what’s up with all this “diversity police” crap?
Here’s me at the DC Gay Pride event two weeks ago. (Safe for Work!)
This snapshot was taken by a couple of 20-something lesbians — who didn’t bat an eye at my quasi-LRC striped pachyderm T-shirt even when I explicitly told them what it was. And were delighted when I told them what “Frot” is. (Lesbian #1: “Oh, it’s like what we call scissoring!” Lesbian #2: “Or tribadism… um, TRY-badism? No, TRIB-adism… I think.”)
Anyway, I did not get insulted or spat on or otherwise hassled by any “diversity police.” The only overtly negative reaction to the Frot is hotter sandwich board was from — surprise! — the professional safer-sex educator at the Whitman-Walker HIV-prevention booth.
But later in the day I had a long and friendly conversation with a group of six or seven women, who again wanted to know what “Frot” is, and whether it was some kind of weird religious thing. (Not for me, it isn’t.) That segued into a discussion about gays and religion, and from there into the relative merits of sex-segregated vs. mixed-sex bars.
posted by comment one on
is that you, frotdawg?
http://tinyurl.com/5zhqdd
I think gary meant “diversity police” in a derisive way, but it’s actually nothing bad when you think about it. The diversity police is no more than the minority who, because they have no or very little problem with the majority (beliefs or behavior-wise), try to compel the majority to develop similar sentiments for them. Often the old “diversity police” are confronted by the new “diversity police”. I guess because “frot over anal sex” has no relevance for lesbians, the inner diversity police wasn’t awakened in them or the people promoting it. Obviously, the same didn’t hold true when the exchange was with the safer sex (ie. condoms, hence anal sex) promoters.
posted by Throbert McGee on
is that you, frotdawg?
Heh. Yep, that’s me. Haven’t been on guys4men regularly in some time, though. (But I still use “frotdawg” as an XTube handle!)
posted by Sean S. on
People who complain about “Diversity police” and “political correctness” are black-helicopter fearing paranoids. No one, amazingly enough, is dragging your ass out to join a pride parade. No one is forcing you to be friends with anyone you don’t want to be. Despite the caterwauling from John McCain supporters on this site, no one is putting a gun to your head in the voting booth either. And no one’s forcing you to have butt sex (I imagine the angry response was mostly because your sign is not only misleading, but wrong…frotting ISN’T safer, unless you’re wearing clothes…if its naked, it pretty much carries the same risk for the usual suspects of STI’s, especially genital warts, herpes, and syphilis. As it is, anal sex with a condom and proper lubrication is also equally as safe as naked frotting would be). Despite what some of the people on this comment section might think, no one honestly cares about your John McCain shirt, or any other opinion you want to express. Most people, generally, don’t hang their whole entire self-being on other peoples positions.
posted by Sean S. on
Let me correct that: As it is, anal sex with a condom and proper lubrication is also equally as safe as frotting would be with a condom or clothing. If however, you think, that you can frot naked without a condom, and imagine you are somehow invincible, you really need to rethink your sexual practices.
posted by Craig2 on
I suppose my answer is ‘depends.’ In New Zealand, there are centre-left and centre-right members of our communities, and we don’t bat an eyelid.
Whatever our views on other issues, we tend to collaborate when it comes to same-sex marriage proper, inclusive adoption reform, transgender rights and civil unions.
Sadly, because of the weakness of libertarian Republicanism, the same moves toward pragmatic,
post-Christian centre-right politics visible in Britain at the moment may not be possible in the United States, unless the Republicans suffer a cataclysmic train wreck because of their repeated pandering to the Christian Right.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Throbert McGee on
As it is, anal sex with a condom and proper lubrication is also equally as safe as frotting would be with a condom or clothing.
Did you get a passing grade in high school biology?
posted by Sean S. on
“As it is, anal sex with a condom and proper lubrication is also equally as safe as frotting would be with a condom or clothing.
Did you get a passing grade in high school biology”
Yes I did. Since you haven’t actually substantiated the claims on your sign, I’m presuming you didn’t. Last time I checked, herpes was spread by contact with skin to skin contact during an outbreak. If you’re rubbing your genitalia against someone, I’m pretty sure that constitutes touching. Same deal with genital warts, which can be spread through HPV passing through micro abrasions in your skin. So your two for zero. Gonorrhea, which is caused by bacteria, simply requires a wet, moist environment in which to live. While it often is found in the urethra, cervix, mouth, and anus due to the hospitable environment they provide, it does not necessarily live only there. Again, if your genitalia are touching, or fluids are being exchanged in which said fluids may enter such area, again, you have a problem. 3 for 0. About the only STI that frotting may provide significant safety for is HIV, but again, you’re presuming that during any potential exchange of fluids (both precum and ejaculate) that absolutely none of it gets anywhere near any abrasion, cut, nick, or opening anywhere on your body. If YOU want to play that game you go right ahead. I hope you get tested regularly.
Compare this to anal sex with a condom. Anal sex with a condom, while not diminishing entirely the problems of genital herpes/genital warts (for the reasons listed above…skin to skin contact may still occur of infected areas), does diminish the risks significantly, as well as the risks of HIV infection. The claim that the “anus is always dirty” or that it “bleeds” is nonsense; men have been having protected sex with women for years, during their periods, and have not been brought low by it. I don’t especially care if someone “Frots” or has anal sex, as long as they are wearing condoms, and are aware of the potential risks. But your sign is absolute utter nonsense, and its encouraging an invincibility that simply isn’t there.
posted by Sean S. on
Simply put, safer sex practices across the board are sufficient to keep one from getting diseases. Consistent and correct use of condoms for all penetrative sex, use of gloves or finger cots during fingering or fisting, maintaining general hygiene standards, regular testing, and not mixing drugs and alcohol into your sex life are pretty much whats necessary to keep yourself free from diseases.
The hub-bub about the rise of HIV amongst gay men ignores the other factors at play, including significant drug and alcohol abuse, as well as mental health issues in the broader community. And the rise in HIV has been seen mostly in those who have those other problems, for the obvious reason that drug abuse and alcoholism lead to generally unsafer choices in general.
posted by comment one on
“As it is, anal sex with a condom and proper lubrication is also equally as safe as frotting would be with a condom or clothing”.
Well, since we’re mentioning unsubstantiated claims, where did you get this information, Sean S?
I’ve never heard or read about any study suggesting that all sexual activities are equally safe with proper condom use.
posted by Throbert McGee on
About the only STI that frotting may provide significant safety for is HIV, but again, you’re presuming that during any potential exchange of fluids (both precum and ejaculate) that absolutely none of it gets anywhere near any abrasion, cut, nick, or opening anywhere on your body. If YOU want to play that game you go right ahead. I hope you get tested regularly.
Compare this to anal sex with a condom.
Yes, let’s do that, shall we?
It should be obvious that contact between pre-seminal fluid and cuts and abrasions is just as likely to happen during condomless FOREPLAY to anal sex with a condom as it is during condomless frot. Furthermore, the skin-to-skin contact that can spread certain infections via frot will also spread certain infections during foreplay to anal sex. Of course, if you’re taking a wrapped dick up your butt through a gloryhole then skin-to-skin contact is minimized and the condom offers some protection during anal penetration. But I have it on good authority that most guys who enjoy anal sex also enjoy quite a lot of naked skin-to-skin and genital-to-genital contact PRIOR to fucking — in other words, frot as foreplay. Therefore, for practical purposes the sexual-lifestyle options you should be comparing in terms of their relative riskiness are not “anal sex or frot,” but rather “anal sex or no anal sex.”
The only reason that anal sex with a condom might theoretically have a safety advantage over frot, especially in terms of HIV transmission, is that with a condom the ejaculated semen is contained in a neat little baggie, whereas during frot, the spooge goes everywhere. (In fact, messily jizzing “on him, not in him” is rather encouraged among frot enthusiasts.)
Thus, as you say, there is a possibility that HIV could be transmitted during frot if semen happens to land on an open cut.
At the same time, however, there also exists a possibility that on my next trip to the beach, I will be suction-cupped to death in a giant squid attack. But I’m not going to spend much time worrying about that.
And this is JUST MY OPINION, but personally, as an HIV- guy, I would feel much safer as a bukkake target for 25 HIV+ dudes (despite the tiny risk of getting infected if some cum hits me on the eyeball or shaving nick) than getting fucked in the kiester by an HIV+ man wearing a condom.
To put it another way for you, I believe that the odds of becoming infected with HIV because semen happened to land on abraded skin are significantly lower than the average odds of a condom tearing or slipping off or otherwise failing during anal intercourse.
posted by Throbert McGee on
“As it is, anal sex with a condom and proper lubrication is also equally as safe as frotting would be with a condom or clothing”.
THIS claim is beyond retarded, for the obvious reason that if a condom breaks during anal sex, you end up with semen in your rectum, whereas if for some kooky reason you were wearing condoms during frot and the other guy’s condom breaks, you will most probably end up with his semen on your hairy tummy.
posted by Sean S. on
“I’ve never heard or read about any study suggesting that all sexual activities are equally safe with proper condom use.”
Any fucking medical journal. Why do you think they recommend proper lubrication and condoms for anal sex? Because of some PC police conspiracy? No. Because it fucking works. Because many homosexual men have anal sex, safely, and without transmitting diseases. If it didn’t work we wouldn’t have seen the drop in HIV and other STI rates we did in the 90’s, the drop, may I add, that everyone is howling is being reversed now supposedly by the “Death culture” of anal sex. The “Death culture” is rampant drug and alcohol abuse, not people having anal sex.
“THIS claim is beyond retarded, for the obvious reason that if a condom breaks during anal sex, you end up with semen in your rectum, whereas if for some kooky reason you were wearing condoms during frot and the other guy’s condom breaks, you will most probably end up with his semen on your hairy tummy.”
Well no shit if something goes wrong than it won’t work. If while driving my car my brakes randomly give out I might be up shit creek as well. This is not an especially good argument.
And what are the odds that a condom breaks during sex? Evidently somewhere around 2-3% (Young Men’s Experience with Condom Breakage Laura Duberstein Lindberg, Freya L. Sonenstein, Leighton Ku and Greg Levine Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 29, No. 3 (May – Jun., 1997), pp. 128-140) Now thats for self-reported heterosexual men. In the same journal article it states that condom breakage was due mostly to improper use (putting it on reverse, using expired condoms, using uncomfortable or too tight condoms etc).
A similar study with men who have sex with men found that “The overall failure rate was 2.1/100 episodes of condom use, with 2.5 failures/100 episodes for receptive anal sex and 1.9/100 episodes for insertive anal sex.” and that “using lubricants for more than 80% of anal sex acts were significantly associated with decreased failure rates in the insertive model.”(Correlates of condom failure in a sexually active cohort of men who have sex with men. Author(s): Stone E; Heagerty P; Vittinghoff E; Douglas JM Jr; Koblin BA; Mayer KH; Celum CL; Gross M; Woody GE; Marmor M; Seage GR 3rd; Buchbinder SP).
Another study (Evaluation of a thicker condom for use as a prophylactic against HIV transmission.
Author(s): Golombok S; Sheldon J) said that “the overall breakage rate was 1.6%. This compares favorably with the breakage rates reported for condom use during anal sex in other investigations, and is similar to the breakage rate for condom use during vaginal intercourse.”
So its exactly what I said. Using condoms and lubrication during anal sex reduces your chances of getting HIV to a level that despite the hysteria is not a “Death culture”. Frankly, I don’t care what people do in their bedroom; but this nonsense that anal sex is the harbinger of doom is over-rated. Drug and alcohol abuse is whats leading to the unsafe choice of gay men to do bareback, as is also other acts(if they use intravenous drugs, use prostitution to pay for drugs etc) that exponentially increase their risk of HIV exposure.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Because many homosexual men have anal sex, safely, and without transmitting diseases. If it didn’t work we wouldn’t have seen the drop in HIV and other STI rates we did in the 90’s, the drop, may I add, that everyone is howling is being reversed now supposedly by the “Death culture” of anal sex.
Um, have I been howling about a “death culture of anal sex”? I have argued that frot is significantly safer than anal sex with a condom; why don’t you stick to debunking that argument instead of putting other people’s words in my mouth?
The “Death culture” is rampant drug and alcohol abuse, not people having anal sex.
Um, I’m not proud to say it, but in my slightly younger days, I was occasionally known to get stinking drunk and maybe smoke a bowl with a hot bear I brought home from the bar and then have a couple hours of sweaty, semi-anonymous sex. But while bringing a stranger back to one’s apartment may well be a “bad choice” made under the influence of alcohol and drugs, the “bad choice” of getting fucked bareback (or for that matter, getting fucked by a one-night-stand at all) never even crossed my mind. Why? Because the cavalier attitude that many gay men have towards anal sex — which is to say, that casual anal sex with a stranger, so long as you Use a Condom Every Time, is no more a big deal than casual handjobs with a stranger — has never been part of my thinking.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Drug and alcohol abuse is whats leading to the unsafe choice of gay men to do bareback
Drug and alcohol abuse may be part of the problem, but I would suggest that another non-trivial factor is the slow but steady destigmatization of barebacking by the gay subculture. (In some quarters, simply to say “barebacking is stupid and irresponsible” is stigmatized more than the actual act of barebacking.)
In DC, where I live, the adult video stores can’t sell DVDs that depict two guys pissing on each other’s chest (an act that presents almost zero STD risk) because it would run afoul of “obscenity” laws. Yet the shelf space given over to barebacking DVDs in which robustly muscular, healthy-looking men beg each other to “breed my cumhole!” expands a little with each year. (At one video store, I noticed that the large selection of barebacking vids were shelved right next to the vids that featured solo j/o and/or circle-jerks — how’s that for an ironic juxtaposition?)
posted by Sean S. on
“Um, have I been howling about a “death culture of anal sex”? I have argued that frot is significantly safer than anal sex with a condom; why don’t you stick to debunking that argument instead of putting other people’s words in my mouth?”
Because thats exactly what Bill Weintraub and other of the “Frot” movement have said. I don’t know what else you can take away from an organization (which, after looking elsewhere on the net, you have written approvingly of under the same pseudonym) which states on its own website to rail against the ” Anal penetration, which at present is extolled by the mainstream gay male community, is by contrast inherently unequal, unnatural, and effeminizing, and is a vector for a host of physical ills, including some which are among the most terrifying known to humankind.” I’m not quite sure how else you can take that other than being ridiculous and absurd.
And I DID debunk your argument; anal sex with condoms is safe. It is about the same as heterosexual men have with vaginal intercourse, so why the double standard? Why, if the rates of condom breakage are the same, that condoms are suddenly ineffective in anal sex but are effective in heterosexual intercourse?
There is no legitimate basis for the health scare tactics of frot supporters vis a vis anal sex with a condoms. Many gay men use safer sex practices, and guess what? They are enjoying anal sex AND are disease free. The problem is unsafe anal sex, not anal sex itself. You don’t have an actual medical basis for saying that anal sex with a condom is so incredibly risky that people should quit doing it. It’s just not there. The only argument it seems, that frot advocates like Weintraub can come up with, is some put together psycho babble bullshit about masculinity.
posted by comment one on
“Any fucking medical journal”.
Is there a good reason why you’re cursing? Did I say something that offended you? As to your suggestion to look a any medical journal, the answer to my question isn’t there. Referring me to a study that no less show a failure rate of condoms during anal sex, does not help your argument. Moreover, these “studies” prove nothing about what happens in the bedrooms of the majority of people. I’ve used condoms before, and they’ve broken often, and this is just from masturbation. In fact, I swear the MORE lube (ie. artificial lubrication) I used, the the more susceptible they were to breakage. Maybe it relates to the fact that I’m uncircumcised, I don’t know. Many people are uncircumcised though. Your theory that HIV rates went down in the 90’s due to increased condom use isn’t proven. Perhaps there was less anal sex. I can’t count how frequently now I hear gay men disavowing themselves from anal activities.
posted by comment one on
“And I DID debunk your argument; anal sex with condoms is safe. It is about the same as heterosexual men have with vaginal intercourse, so why the double standard? Why, if the rates of condom breakage are the same, that condoms are suddenly ineffective in anal sex but are effective in heterosexual intercourse”?
You didn’t debunk the argument. This nonsense about a “double standard” is a red-herring. His specific point wasn’t about anal sex over vaginal sex. It was about the physiological fact that when mistakes happen during protected anal sex, the risks are greater then than during protected frot. What medical facts do you have that contradict this? Sure, there there can be wounds and bleeding blisters all over one’s hands or body so that when a condom breaks during frottage, the virus could penetrate. However, the this would be a result of utter stupidity, not a mistake. You are the one projecting your own bizzare rage at the promotion of frot. So try checking yourself before you attempt to psychoanalyze.
posted by Sean S. on
“As to your suggestion to look a any medical journal, the answer to my question isn’t Referring me to a study that no less show a failure rate of condoms during anal sex, does not help your argument. Moreover, these “studies” prove nothing about what happens in the bedrooms of the majority of people.”
Yes they do. Unlike your later claim that you “frequently now I hear gay men disavowing themselves from anal activities.” these people, who are scientists, doctors, and statisticians, aren’t pulling just-so stories out of their ass. They actually have a real methodology and logic behind their studies and surveys. Science has a funny way of disproving bullshit claims. You have zilch, zero, nada verifiable basis that safer anal sex should be discouraged.
“Your theory that HIV rates went down in the 90’s due to increased condom use isn’t proven. Perhaps there was less anal sex.”
Yes it is. The World Health Organization, and the public health branches of numerous countries around the world, are not endorsing condoms for men who have sex with men because its a waste of time.
Let’s see what the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has to say about condom use and its effectiveness in stopping the spread of STD’s;
(http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/research/topics/STI/pdf/condomreport.pdf)
“Among participants who reported always using condoms, the summary estimate od HIV/AID’s incidence from the twelve studies was 0.9 seroconversion per 100 person years. Among those who reported never using condoms, the summary estimate of HIV/AIDS incidence from the seven studies was 6.7 seroconversions per 100 person years.Overall Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AID’s transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users.”
But the best argument is found in longitudinal studies of serodiscordant, monogamous homosexual partners, which finds, not oddly enough, that most not only continue having safer anal sex, but that they experience no seroconversion because of it.
“It was about the physiological fact that when mistakes happen during protected anal sex, the risks are greater then than during protected frot.”
But what ARE the risks of something going wrong? As I’ve demonstrated, the possibility of something “going wrong” is incredibly slim, to the point that arguing “something could go wrong” is not valid. With a chance of breakage at 1.6%, and that being REDUCED by proper use of lubrication, there is no basis for arguing that protected anal sex is demonstrably unsafe and should be discontinued.
It’s a double standard because just about everyone is in agreement that when it comes to preventing disease and pregnancy between heterosexuals, that the idea of encouraging people not to have consensual penetrative sex amongst adults is not only ludicrous, but demonstrably counter-productive. With a few exceptions, almost all consensual sexual practices can be done safely and with minimal risk to both partners, and theres no good reason to change that thinking. Especially when there is clearly a desire to engage in such practices, and theres is no legitimate basis for discouraging its safe practice.
posted by comment one on
“Yes they do”.
Yet you haven’t proven it.
“Yes it is.
Yet you haven’t proven it.
“The World Health Organization…blah blah blah”
Begging the question.
“But what ARE the risks of something going wrong”?
The word isn’t “risk”, but “odds”. That’s a game of russian roulette.
“As I’ve demonstrated, the possibility of something “going wrong” is incredibly slim, to the point that arguing “something could go wrong” is not valid”
No, the numbers games is what’s invalid. The possibility is either there or it isn’t. Quantifying may ease your nerves, but has nothing to do with the objective fact.
“With a chance of breakage at 1.6%, and that being REDUCED by proper use of lubrication, there is no basis for arguing that protected anal sex is demonstrably unsafe and should be discontinued”.
The basis is the fact that the real world doesn’t operate on the “law of averages”. Just because “science” says that 1 in 10 is gay, doesn’t mean that *I* will encounter a gay person in every group of 10. All 10 could gay or none could be gay.
Sadly, you’ve once again skated right past the main point to start this diatribe about “double standards” again. You don’t seem interested in actually rebutting that because you can’t so I’ll do like Throbert and stop engaging with you.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Although I’m not much interested in engaging with Sean any further, here’s a fun little exercise for anyone still reading.
Go to the Washington Blade website and enter “frot” into their site search. Try it again with the synonym “frottage.”
Between these two terms, you will find all of two unique articles. The oldest is the October 2003 op-ed Rethinking Gay Sex by Bill Weintraub, who advocates frot(tage) as being even safer than anal sex with a condom, and whose essay in the Blade defines “frot” for readers unfamiliar with the term. (Weintraub uses the decorous phrase “phallus-against-phallus” rubbing.)
Then, in June 2005, a column by then-editor Chris Crain uses the term “frottage” twice. That section of Crain’s column is worth quoting in full:
Gay men, who are by nature at higher risk of getting HIV, can take certain steps to lower their risk: explore safer sexual activity like oral sex and frottage; stick to being a top in anal sex if you do not want to wear a condom; remember to ask your sex partner if he has been recently tested for HIV before making a decision about condom use; limit bareback sex to monogamous relationships after you and your partner have been tested.
Gay men who already have HIV should also be hearing a message grounded in reality: explore non-risky sexual activity like oral sex and frottage; stick to being a bottom in anal sex if you do not want to wear a condom; if you really want to bareback as a top, make sure your partner knows your HIV status.
Thus, aside from printing Weintraub’s October 2003 op-ed, the only thing that the Blade has had to say about “frot(tage)” in the past decade is to suggest, in June 2005, that gay men “explore… frottage.” And what is “frottage,” exactly? Well, Crain’s editorial couldn’t spare five words to define the term (e.g., “non-penetrative penis-on-penis rubbing”; alternatively, he could’ve written “explore mutual masturbation”), so those who hadn’t heard the term had to rely on Google.
And Crain’s editorial, by the way, was intended mainly in defense of poor Andrew Sullivan, who caught flack from some fanatical quarters for having written “I?ve even enjoyed sex more since I became positive -? more depth, more intimacy.” Crain thought that Sullivan was being commendably realistic, in contrast to Sullivan’s critics.
That’s the side you’re on, Sean. Good for you!