I come not to praise the distinction between status and conduct, but to bury it.
Differentiating between conduct - doing homosexual things - and status - being homosexual - has been with us for most of the modern gay rights debate. That's in part because of a fundamental tenet of the law that says you can't convict someone of a crime based on their status, only their bad conduct. The government can't criminalize alcoholism, but it can convict an alcoholic of doing otherwise criminal things.
Sodomy has historically been the bad thing that homosexuals did. Theoretically, heterosexuals could also engage in the same form of bad behavior, but because sodomy has so conventionally been used against homosexuals, that has tended to be the focus of the public discussion.
In 1986, Bowers v. Hardwick seemed to erase that distinction. The majority's almost obsessive focus on the phrase "homosexual sodomy" when analyzing a law that applied to sodomy without reference to the genders of the participants, appeared to give permission to discriminate against homosexuals. If not, why spend so much time talking about homosexual sodomy when the statute didn't?
That is exactly how Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt read Bowers. In one of the pre-DADT cases of military discharge for homosexuality, Judge Reinhardt would have ruled against Sgt. Perry Watkins. The majority opinion (later overturned) had distinguished the spanking-new Bowers because that was a case about homosexual conduct, and Watkins' case was about sexual orientation as a status. They found homosexuals to be a suspect class for equal protection purposes, and ruled that the military could not constitutionally ban all homosexuals simply because of their status as homosexuals.
Judge Reinhardt found the distinction an unconvincing reading of Bowers:
I do not believe we can escape the conclusion that "homosexuals", however defined, cannot qualify as a suspect class. Even if we define the class as those who have a "homosexual orientation", its members will consist principally of active, practicing homosexuals. That the class may also include a small number of persons who are or wish to be celibate is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether the group as a whole constitutes a suspect class. I simply see no way to say that homosexuals defined broadly (by status) are a suspect class, but that the same group, if more narrowly defined (by conduct) is not. Whether the group is defined by status or by conduct, its composition is essentially the same. In short, "homosexuals" are either a suspect class or they aren't.
He concluded that the fairest reading of Bowers allowed open discrimination against homosexuals, period, and that as a judge on a court inferior to the Supreme Court, he could not depart from their ruling - or what he believed to be their bias.
I had the privilege of working in Judge Reinhardt's chambers the year after Watkins. It had caused quite a stir in his office, and I had the opportunity to discuss my own views (supporting the majority) with him. He was unshakable, and I came to believe he was right. The overreach in the Bowers majority is nothing but the conventional understanding that, whatever the specifics, homosexuals should not have sex with one another. The fact that they do have sex gives rise to all the peripheral prejudice against them. If (as Bowers ruled) the law can prohibit homosexual sex, its inferential and attendant prejudices against the group must also be permissible.
Judge Reinhardt did not personally believe it was appropriate (or constitutional) to treat homosexual sex differently than heterosexual sex:
[T]he fact that homosexuals (or persons of "homosexual orientation") engage in or seek to engage in homosexual conduct is as unremarkable as the fact that "heterosexuals" (or persons of "heterosexual orientation") engage in or seek to engage in heterosexual conduct. To pretend that homosexuality or heterosexuality is unrelated to sexual conduct borders on the absurd.
That brings me back to Sprigg/Fischer/Bahati. They want to love the sinner but hate the sin. While that's as suspect in theology as it is in law, they are free to condescend to us as a religious belief. But here in the secular world, Bowers is no longer the law, and the civil world has to take us as we are, conduct and orientation together.
It remains fashionable to dismiss Judge Reinhardt as a knee-jerk liberal (and, to be fair, he has a long track record to that effect). But Watkins stands as one crystal clear example where he knew what result he wanted, and found the fairest reading of the law did not permit that result.
Lawrence is now controlling, and Justice Scalia articulated a thought similar to that of Judge Reinhardt in his Watkins dissent. Overturning Bowers is a pivotal step for the equal protection challenge that the Watkins majority prematurely forged. Why do our lives have to be dissected into discrete legal arenas and sectors? We're whole human beings, sex and love included. Lawrence helped put our lives back together again.
Lawrence applies to criminal laws, and marriage is quite different. But Justice Scalia thought that overturning Bowers would inevitably lead to a fuller equality that would have to include marriage. I agree. We will see if Justice Scalia hews to the same kind of principled respect for his court's authority that Judge Reinhardt exhibited when he was put to the test.
38 Comments for “Doing Gay/Being Gay (Part II)”
posted by BobN on
They want to love the sinner but hate the sin.
Or so they say. The truth is that they really do hate the sinner, as well, they just can’t get away with saying it anymore.
posted by tristram on
Since Lawrence was decided, Justice Scalia has waged an unrelenting campaign to reverse the decision. Given the composition of the Supreme Court and the potential changes over the next few years, it is not inconceivable that he might succeed.
posted by Debrah on
“The truth is that they really do hate the sinner, as well, they just can’t get away with saying it anymore.”
******************************************
Now, now.
You don’t seem to be “dwelling inside the house of the Lord” today.
LOL!
posted by Throbert McGee on
As a libertarian-leaning guy, I don’t believe that the State has the smallest moral right to criminalize sodomy between consenting adults.
But as a 38-year-old American who remembers reading about “GRID” in the Stars and Stripes (or maybe it was Time magazine, or probably both) when I was still in fifth grade or so, and who subsequently watched the way that the AIDS epidemic would unfold as a bathetic, self-victimizing, and utterly unnecessary drama in the gay community, I cannot avoid the conclusion that society as a whole has a legitimate, rational interest in culturally stigmatizing the practice of anal sodomy.
Of course, adults of whatever orientation who want to engage in it should have the freedom to do so, and those who are ballsy enough to put up with the stigma should even feel free to acknowledge that they enjoy riding the Hershey Highway. But the stigma ought to endure, simply given the observably bad health effects of anal’s DE-stigmatization within the gay male subculture since the 1960s.
Consider this point: I’m not sure what percentage of gay men enjoy “watersports,” aka “golden showers” — i.e., letting a guy piss on your exposed skin or in your mouth. But I feel confident in saying that of those who DO enjoy it, at least 80% would be hugely embarrassed admitting it to friends — even in an all-gay crowd that is guaranteed to be non-judgmental. Which is to say that “yellow hanky” activities, although not seen as an EXTREME kink, nonetheless remain solidly under the penumbra of kinkiness.
On the other hand, within gay circles, there is absolutely no stigma whatsoever associated with “bottoming” — i.e., taking a dick up your ass. A man who is shy about admitting that he likes it will, in fact, most likely get some gentle teasing from his friends, because it’s utterly normative in the gay subculture that not the slightest shame must be attached to receptive anal sex.
Now, call me Mr. Spock, but I find this just a bit illogical, given that it would be virtually impossible to contract HIV (or, indeed, most other STDs, although a few may be theoretically “urine-transmissible) by letting someone pee on your chest or even drinking someone else’s urine.
On the other hand, easily 95% of all HIV transmissions via male-to-male sex have involved an “anal injection.” (And that’s if one assumes fellatio accounts for as high as 5% of male-to-male transmissions, which is debatable.)
I would also throw in the points that golden showers are entirely painless even if you’re a total “virgin” to the practice, and that (except during asparagus season!) piss doesn’t smell nearly as offensive as shit (and if the other guy has been drinking enough beer or cola that it’s “running clear,” urine has a mild and even pleasant flavor). In short, watersports would seem to have every possible advantage over anal sex, yet tinkle-play remains at least slightly kinky and embarrassing, while buttfucking is normatively vanilla.
I’m not saying that everyone OUGHT to rush out and try watersports — if the idea of your lover whizzing on you doesn’t turn you on, then it doesn’t turn you on, and there’s no sense forcing it.
I’m just saying that it’s objectively NUTS to balk at golden showers as “gross” or “unhygienic” or “perverse” if you eagerly indulge in anal sodomy. But such is the present state of gay male culture in America.
posted by Amicus on
Whether we make it illegal or not, it seems sensible that we would want to continue to stigmatize certain ‘homosexual acts’.
In short, we probably don’t want to make the goodness of homosexual sex normative, which is how the ‘gay rights’ movement could be hijacked. I’m not into telling kids to experiment. I’m not into telling fathers with families that ‘boys on the side’ is psychedelic. I’m not into the ‘down low’, as I understand it. Pederasty is out. I’m not into telling people that ‘gender difference’ has zero meaning, in the context of their unique nongay marriage.
So, it seems we can admit that gays as a suspect class makes sense insofar as it is tied for legal purposes to behavior*.
But, even though we accept that in law, we don’t have to accept that the _ethics_ for homosexuality needs to be completely devoid of discerning discriminations in interpreting which homosexual acts make sense to us as a society.
Even in societies now long gone, when homosex was socially sanctioned, it came with cultural mores about what was inbounds and what was not. The ability to shape that is what the cultural right, today, is missing in the abject fight to draw the line in a nonsensical place, a lack of vision that will only cut themselves.
The paucity of distinctly conservative dialog and action on these lines is a terrible blind spot, that really does threaten to put the whole care off the road. Sadly, the dialog stops at ‘sodomy’, the old-world political imperative that needs a new spirit for the new age.
[*even though we could quibble on philosophical grounds, e.g. are men “men” and women “women” if they don’t reproduce?]
posted by Amicus on
TM,
Interesting point that you raise that there are probably a range of acts that compromise ‘sexuality’ or can compromise a ‘sexual relationship’. That just means that there might be good definitions and poor definitions, not an outright impossibility of finding a good enough designation at law, to adequately shape our meaning of a ‘suspect class’.
Even if one is deeply kinky, that doesn’t mean you can’t find social value in a fictitious theoretical construct called ‘the gay missionary position’. The reason is the same as I argued above. No reason that societal ethics should support a statement that everyone should try as many kinks as possible. So, in balance, one can envision a society for which some on the right say ‘all kinks are perversion, except the gay missionary position’; a left who says, ‘kink is where it is all at’; and the majority who find, ‘kink here, kink there – everybody just keep it to yourself and stop moralizing’.
On the other stuff, why not just remind people to use a condom and get tested? Judging – sanctimony – is unwanted. For one, it is not preventative and, secondly, for the generation you wrote about, it is ugly.
posted by Bobby on
“I’m just saying that it’s objectively NUTS to balk at golden showers as “gross” or “unhygienic” or “perverse” if you eagerly indulge in anal sodomy. But such is the present state of gay male culture in America.”
—First of all, most “sex” involves penetration, not defecation or urination. As for anal sex, what’s so dirty about it? The romans and the greeks did it. Besides, the only people getting AIDS now are barebackers, I doubt that condom users ever get AIDS.
posted by David Link on
Adding to Bobby’s point, how come we always have to have this (unduly detailed) discussion about gay sex, but not about heterosexual sex? Again, I’d suggest those who somehow think gays invented sexual kink should go back and re-read their DeSade; or spend a minute or two on Google looking up any sexual oddity they can think of without mentioning the word “gay.”
More important for this discussion, at least, is the fact that the public policy concerns that come up with respect to specific sexual practices are, it seems to me, dramatically reduced if you institutionalize for homosexuals the relationship support we have in place for heterosexual relationships. The risk of sexual practices with strangers (gay or straight) is obviously higher than the risk of the same activity among consenting partners who want to explore their sexuality in different ways. Shouldn’t that, too, be part of our public policy thinking?
posted by Debrah on
Talk about safe sex.
Bobby, something you and the indefatigable “Throbert” will love.
This guy seems to have come up with something that can work for both gays and heteros.
Hilarious!
posted by Lymis on
Throbert,
The biggest reason that AIDS spread so rapidly among gay people at the time was precisely because society had marginalized gay people and made having stable monogamous relationships incredibly difficult. Blaming it on anal sex without including a culture that refused any of the support structures like church, marriage, public dating, legal protections, or hell, even some expectation of not being summarily fired is selective reading of history at best.
At best, you’re naively mapping today’s culture onto 70’s behavior. At worst, you are displaying some pretty appalling bigotry.
Your argument is not unlike saying that the best solution to unwed motherhood is outlawing marriage and criminalizing heterosexual sex.
AIDS was a disease – and one that not only got ignored and unfunded, but actively suppressed specifically because it was seen as a gay disease and many thought gays deserved it. Compare the response to AIDS, with all its thousands of deaths, to the complete upheaval of the over-the counter drug packaging when 6 people died because of poisoned pain pills.
You want AIDS (or GRID) to cause you to rethink something, it shouldn’t be the ability of gay people to live our lives. It should be the inability of society to see us as real people.
posted by BobN on
Basing your moral perspective of sexual acts on the transmission processes of a virus seems unwise.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Debrah, I don’t think a hollowed banana can replace a man, but thanks for the video, it was funny. Google “fleshlight” if you want to know about more expensive safe-masturbation solutions.
“The biggest reason that AIDS spread so rapidly among gay people at the time was precisely because society had marginalized gay people and made having stable monogamous relationships incredibly difficult.”
—The problem wasn’t monogamy, the problem our community was having unsafe anal sex. The problem was ignorance because the media wanted to say “gay sex is bad” instead of “barebacking is bad,” this made a lot of gays skeptic about the health warnings. Only after our community started dying in great numbers did more gays get serious about condoms.
posted by Lymis on
Bobby,
You’re right that the problem was unsafe anal sex, but the spread of the disease was definitely accelerated by the sexual culture of the time, especially in the big cities.
Again, it wasn’t the lack of safe sex, it was the lack of safe sex with infected partners.
If straight people had to be closeted or risk arrest or loss of jobs, could not get married, were not welcome in church or “polite society” and a sexually transmitted disease entered that pool, it would spread just as fast, if not faster, because of sheer numbers.
But regardless of carts and horses with this particular issue, using AIDS in the 80’s as the reason to ban openly gay servicemembers or marriage equality 30 years later is BS, pure and simple, especially since however it was being spread, it was most definitely not being dealt with by the government or society as a whole.
posted by Pat on
In short, watersports would seem to have every possible advantage over anal sex, yet tinkle-play remains at least slightly kinky and embarrassing, while buttfucking is normatively vanilla.
I don’t know. To me, there is an intimate closeness about anal sex that I just don’t see with urinating over each other. Yes, I think the latter is kinky, while the former is not. I’ll agree to disagree with anyone who thinks otherwise.
I’ll agree there are certain sexual acts that are safer than others. There is also sexual behaviors that are safer than others. For example, having anal sex with protection in a monogamous relationship is safer than other sexual acts with many partners.
I think the key is to understand the risks, take ownership and responsibility of your own behavior, then do what you think is right for you.
The spread of AIDS occurred initially because people didn’t know at first how it was spread. Unfortunately, even after it was known, people did engage in unprotected sex.
Being responsible will virtually guarantee that you won’t catch HIV. However, as long as one is having any kind of sex, there is always that small chance you can catch HIV or other STD. Heck, if you stay holed up in your house, you probably won’t get into any kind of accident. So the secret is to balance the two extremes, and enjoy life.
posted by Lymis on
Folks,
Two people who do not have HIV cannot catch it from each other no matter how much anal sex they have.
Let’s not lose sight of that. Sex does not cause HIV, like some sort of magic spell.
posted by Jorge on
That brings me back to Sprigg/Fischer/Bahati. They want to love the sinner but hate the sin. While thatâs as suspect in theology as it is in law…
Love the sinner and hate the sin has its roots directly from the Gospel, most notably in Jesus’s treatment of Mary Magdeline, who was a prostitute. I understand the hypocrisy accusation, but as a principle it’s a bedrock part of many if not all Christian theologies.
I would add that “hate the sin, love the sinner” is a necessary principle in the secular world, too. It’s a necessary part of tolerance in a diverse world for those of us who have higher standards than our peers and colleages. This can be hard to remember after years of culture wars and decades more of class warfare. We have a habit of labeling people’s morality by their behaviors, like Welfare Queens. We are divided against each other more and more by politics. Most people find refuges where politics is not everything.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The biggest reason that AIDS spread so rapidly among gay people at the time was precisely because society had marginalized gay people and made having stable monogamous relationships incredibly difficult. Blaming it on anal sex without including a culture that refused any of the support structures like church, marriage, public dating, legal protections, or hell, even some expectation of not being summarily fired is selective reading of history at best.
The “marginalization” and other cultural factors you mention also affected habitues of gay “Jack-Off Clubs”, yet men who played strictly by “J/O Club” rules both at the clubs and in their regular sex lives (meaning, no orifice-penetration at all, apart from tongue-in-mouth during French kissing) did not become infected with HIV. And note that a typical visit to a J/O Club potentially involved masturbatory contact and French kissing and semen-on-skin contact with several strangers, or even (in theory) dozens and dozens of strangers.
The J/O Club, in other words, has always been a venue for facilitating anonymous multipartner sexual contact, and the gay men who went to J/O Clubs faced the same mainstream prejudices as gay men generally — yet these clubs never became hotbeds for HIV vectoring, as bathhouses were.
So I submit, Lymis, that you’re the one reading history selectively.
P.S. Incidentally, the oldest J/O Clubs in cities like NYC and SF go back to the early ’70s — in other words, they antedate the AIDS epidemic by a margin of several years, and were not, originally, devised as a safe-sex approach. That was a “happy side benefit” that came to be understood only later.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I would further point out that in response to the public-health costs of cigarette smoking, most people have long taken for granted that ONE part of a multi-pronged solution ought to be: Discourage young people from beginning the habit in the first place.
Yet the parallel idea that young gay men should perhaps not be encouraged to learn the habit of anal “bottoming” in the first place would, I suspect, strike many of the independent thinkers here as almost a heresy, and at the very least, intrinsically homophobic.
posted by Debrah on
Careful, “Throbert”.
Don’t confuse anyone with logic.
When the double standards, obfuscation, and deliberate irresponsibility are exposed, it gets a bit tight on the cyber exchange.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Debrah:
It’s odd that the points I’m making would be the smallest bit controversial, given that many, many, many, many, many gay men don’t have anal sex at all!
posted by Throbert McGee on
Two people who do not have HIV cannot catch it from each other no matter how much anal sex they have.
This is true. But it’s also true that serodiscordant couples (meaning: one partner is HIV+, the other HIV-) who don’t have anal sex at all tend to remain serodiscordant, even if they’re regularly having unprotected fellatio. This has been observed in studies of male/male couples as well as hetero couples where the male is HIV+ and the female isn’t.
posted by Debrah on
“Throbert”–
My sense is that most gay men would disrupt hell in an attempt to push that particular act as being “a great thing”.
Again, I don’t care who practices it, it’s a horrific and unhygienic violation of the body.
A drama professor I had at university who happened to be gay had to wear a diaper toward the end of his life because his sphincter muscle simply could no longer function the way it was designed to function.
And some would try to romanticize this depressing scenario?
posted by Throbert McGee on
From Bill Weintraub’s op-ed ”Rethinking Gay Sex” in the (now defunct) Washington Blade, 10 October, 2003:
I WAS IN a relationship with an HIV-positive man for 13 years, had a passionate skin-on-skin sexual life with my lover which was pure frot, and despite his HIV and eventual death from the disease, I remained HIV negative.
Indeed, in 30 years of being an out, proud, gay man into frot, I’ve never had an STD. Let me repeat that: Despite losing far too many friends and sexual partners to AIDS, I’ve never had an STD.
Yet in the last three years of trying to put frot forward as an alternative to anal, one that would keep sex hot while stopping HIV cold, I’ve encountered a hailstorm of criticism and resistance.
[…]
Sure, promiscuity spreads STDs, and fidelity is a good idea for many reasons. But the engine that is driving the HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men isn’t promiscuity per se, but anal sex.
Interestingly, the other part of my message that would alarm religious conservatives is one that also seems to bother many gay men: the notion that sex doesn’t have to be penetrative.
The religious right is obsessed with “arguments from design.” They assert that the penis was designed to penetrate, and that therefore men who are insertive anally, while of course in violation of the Divine Plan, are nevertheless at least using the penis in a way that approximates what God intended.
The idea that sex can be both joyful and healthy while completely outside the penetrative paradigm is as scary to the religious right as it seems to be to many gay men.
For 20 years, ever since men who’d acquired HIV anally were attacked and stigmatized by homophobes, gay men have circled the wagons around anal intercourse, and treated any criticism of anal sex as a betrayal of gay life.
But times change. Sodomy is no longer a crime, and while many conservatives and religious leaders still decry any form of homosexuality, they’re also busily off in Africa attempting to help people with AIDS.
So like any other aspect of gay male life, anal sex should be open to criticism. No one’s talking about banishing anal intercourse. But it’s time gay men begin to make more realistic assessments of sexual pleasure and risk, and to acknowledge that anal sex is not the only, and indeed far from the best, way for two men to be gay.
That was 2003; now it’s 2010. Try doing a site-search on the “Independent” Gay Forum for “frottage,” or “weintraub,” or “g0y” (the last term being an entirely separate manifestation of pro-frot, anti-anal activism as a grassroots movement). You won’t get any hits, because IGF has never published an article on the subject. I think this lack of coverage is odd, because in my view — and you can feel free to disagree — the “frot movement” is the most innovative approach to HIV prevention among gay/bi men in the history of the epidemic.
posted by Throbert McGee on
A drama professor I had at university who happened to be gay had to wear a diaper toward the end of his life because his sphincter muscle simply could no longer function the way it was designed to function.
And some would try to romanticize this depressing scenario?
Deb — fecal incontinence can happen to slowly-dying people even if they’ve never had receptive anal sex, so the fact that your drama professor was gay may or may not be relevant here.
But your choice of the word “romanticized” was very appropriate. Anal sex is as popular as it is among gay men because our subculture works overtime to romanticize the practice — downplaying the disadvantages while uncritically praising its pleasures. Viz., “The prostate is the male G-spot!” and “When I get fucked, I can ejaculate without even touching my penis!” (My response to the latter is, “Sure, but why would you WANT to, except maybe once, as a parlor trick?”)
posted by Debrah on
“…..so the fact that your drama professor was gay may or may not be relevant here.”
***************************************
Point taken, “Throbert” dah-ling.
Although I believe in his case it was a contributing factor.
You really should have your own active blog……..covering such controversial subjects……..catering to everyone across the human spectrum.
Don’t waste your bon vivant essence!
posted by Bobby on
“A drama professor I had at university who happened to be gay had to wear a diaper toward the end of his life because his sphincter muscle simply could no longer function the way it was designed to function.
And some would try to romanticize this depressing scenario?”
—Throbert, that drama professor probably engaged in fisting, which is NOT anal sex. The anal muscles can contract and expand, but there are limits.
“But your choice of the word “romanticized” was very appropriate. Anal sex is as popular as it is among gay men because our subculture works overtime to romanticize the practice — downplaying the disadvantages while uncritically praising its pleasures.”
—Throbert, anal sex was popular BEFORE it was romanticized, it exists on every culture, even homophobic cultures. I even read that 20% of heterosexuals have experimented with anal sex. Dan Savage for example get letters from heterosexual males that get penetrated by their girlfriends wearing a strap-on. What’s the big deal?
posted by Jorge on
—Throbert, that drama professor probably engaged in fisting, which is NOT anal sex. The anal muscles can contract and expand, but there are limits.
This has to be the first time outside of x-rated sites I ever read about fisting from someone who’s not a dirty-mouthed homophobe.
posted by Throbert McGee on
This has to be the first time outside of x-rated sites I ever read about fisting from someone who’s not a dirty-mouthed homophobe.
From this one may deduce that you are not a public high-school student in Massachusetts.
😉
posted by Bobby on
“This has to be the first time outside of x-rated sites I ever read about fisting from someone who’s not a dirty-mouthed homophobe.”
—I know, it’s like homophobes always know everything about gay practices, I learned about fisting from the American Family Association’s website.
“From this one may deduce that you are not a public high-school student in Massachusetts. ”
—Good one, Throbert. I assume you’re referring to the incident where gay kids were taken to a conference where they heard all kinds of sex talk, including fisting. It happened a few years ago, was a major scandal and the guy responsible was fired.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I assume you’re referring to the incident where gay kids were taken to a conference where they heard all kinds of sex talk, including fisting.
Yep indeedy. Incidentally, the religious-right crowd nearly always omits the fact that all the kids attending the strictly opt-in conference were gay and out to their parents, who’d given them permission to attend.
Obviously, these details don’t fit the religious right’s “gay recruitment” narrative, and that’s why they’re omitted in the retelling — but in MY mind, the fact that these kids were already out to their parents makes the whole thing even worse. (Because the conference was undoubtedly “sold” to the parents with this: “Yes, candid discussion of gay sex practices can be awkward for parents. But wouldn’t you rather that Young Gay Johnnie gets the essential facts from caring professionals, rather than picking up dangerous misinformation on the gay street?”
I learned about fisting from the American Family Association’s website
Did the AFA happen to mention that fisting is very often “mediated” with illicit recreational drugs*? ‘Cause this seemingly relevant point was (surprise!) totally left out of the otherwise remarkably detailed info presented by the caring professionals at the Massachusetts conference.
*If you lurk for a while on fisting-related sites, you’ll sometimes see references to “the ketamine problem”, from which one may deduce that the use of Special K by the fisting “bottom” is relatively widespread, yet far from universally tolerated in that “Community.”
posted by BobN on
From this one may deduce that you are not a public high-school student in Massachusetts.
Who needs homophobic bigots to spread distortions and lies about gay people when we have folks like you.
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
Leave “Throbert”— a gifted and nakedly candid cyber gem—alone!
posted by Bobby on
“Yep indeedy. Incidentally, the religious-right crowd nearly always omits the fact that all the kids attending the strictly opt-in conference were gay and out to their parents, who’d given them permission to attend.”
—I agree, but it was wrong to mention fisting nevertheless. These kids were under the age of 18, there’s no need to be so graphic with them.
“(Because the conference was undoubtedly “sold” to the parents with this: “Yes, candid discussion of gay sex practices can be awkward for parents. But wouldn’t you rather that Young Gay Johnnie gets the essential facts from caring professionals, rather than picking up dangerous misinformation on the gay street?””
—My parents never taught me about gay sex and I did just fine. Back in my day (1990s), coming out was the big issue. Maybe things have changed but I doubt straight kids are taught how to find the g-spot or how to satisfy a woman nor are girls taught how to give the perfect BJ.
“Did the AFA happen to mention that fisting is very often “mediated” with illicit recreational drugs*? ‘Cause this seemingly relevant point was (surprise!) totally left out of the otherwise remarkably detailed info presented by the caring professionals at the Massachusetts conference.”
—No, they did mention that gays often use poppers to relax the anus for anal sex. This isn’t always true, but I’ve been with a few men that did poppers.
Now if you think fisting is common, let’s take a survey right now. Of everyone reading this thread, post if you have ever fisted or been fisted. I know I haven’t, in fact, I won’t even watch the porn that features such horrible practice.
posted by Jorge on
Please. I’m still a virgin.
posted by Bobby on
“Please. I’m still a virgin.”
—You gotta be kidding, how old are you?
posted by Throbert McGee on
it was wrong to mention fisting nevertheless. These kids were under the age of 18, there’s no need to be so graphic with them.
I agree, but at the same time I would insist: if you’re going to mention fisting AT ALL, in the interest of “candor” and “not censoring the facts,” then you should actually BE CANDID, and you should avoid SELF-CENSORSHIP that presents a misleadingly sanitized version of fisting (or any other practice). But that’s precisely what happened at “Fistinggate” — under the guise of “clinical candor,” they actually told major lies (of omission).
No, [but the AFA] did mention that gays often use poppers to relax the anus for anal sex. This isn’t always true, but I’ve been with a few men that did poppers.
Poppers are quite commonly used (and their use by others universally tolerated) in “J/O Club” settings where anal penetration is not expected (or is banned altogether), and thus the muscle-relaxing properties of poppers are irrelevant — in other words, many men use them only for their short-lived euphoric effect.
Now if you think fisting is common, let’s take a survey right now. Of everyone reading this thread, post if you have ever fisted or been fisted.
Years ago, in my mid-20s, I hooked up with a guy about 10 years older who had aspirations of someday being fisted — but he lamented (!) that his butt wasn’t “flexible” enough yet, as though he were a beginning martial artist ruing that he wasn’t yet limber enough to kick above waist level.
However, he taught me how to do the “silent duck” hand position favored by fisters, and I dutifully stuck it in him a few times to help him “practice.” (But he could only take four fingers — doing it with the thumb was still two much for him.)
At any rate, after that occasion I found excuses not to hook up with him again, ’cause the fisting thing — or even someone being excited about learning how to do it — was just too weird for me.
Apart from him, I once overheard a guy talking to his friends about how much he liked being fisted, when I was playing tourist at the big annual leather event in DC. Of course, the odds of randomly encountering a fister are going to be higher in a “leather crowd” than in the gay-male demographic generally, because leather is so entwined with S&M.
P.S. And by the way, for all the men who complain about being “invisible” when you’re over 40 — you want invisibility at ANY age, try going to a leather event in khakis and a polo shirt. (In other words, I was still in my casual-Friday work clothes.) All of a sudden I was Violet Incredible! 😀
posted by Jorge on
Young enough to be Generation Y, and old enough to worry about thinning and greying hair.
posted by Lymis on
Yet again, oddly, it is always the people who disapprove and go on at great length how disgusting they find something who are in a rush to get explicitly graphic with the details.
In one post, it is grossly inappropriate to even mention fisting, and then next minute, handy tips and tricks for the home game. Similar to all the people who pointed out the the commercials for Prop 8 about everything children would be taught in schools, and ended up piping all the talking points right into their living rooms.