Slog
News & ArtsFriday, January 29, 2010
Homo Half of All Gay Couples Non-Monogamous
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:28 AM
See? Joy was right:
New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years—about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.
And as this study will inevitably become grist for the marriage equality debate: remember, kids, you don't have to be monogamous to be married or married to be monogamous. The Clintons? The Sptizers? The Vitters, Ensigns, and Craigs? Not so monogamous, as it turns out, but still married. And half all gay couples? Monogamous and not married. Straight people have been discussing open marriage—open straight marriage—for decades (swinging, "wife swapping," multiple partners), and never once has anyone suggested that an open straight marriage isn't a "real" marriage or that a heterosexual couple who isn't monogamous shouldn't be allowed to legally marry.
Marriage is only "defined" by monogamy—and procreation and kids and religion—when bigoted straight people want to deny gay people the right to wed. They reserve for themselves the right to be non-monogamous and married and childless and married and non-religious and married... all while denying the right to wed to monogamous gay couples that do have kids.
1
"Marriage is only "defined" by monogamy—and procreation and kids and religion—when bigoted straight people want to deny gay people the right to wed."
Not quite, Mr. Savage. Those same bigoted people are against CONSENSUAL nonmonogamy as well. They're against swinging, multiple partners, and everything else, when the couple does it together or with one another's permission. They prefer the hypocrisy of an affair, the inevitable discovery of that affair, the public self-flagellation of the adulterer, and the forgiveness of the humilated spouse who got cheated on.
I don't know why, but it's true. Better to be miserable and not admit it, I guess, than happy and honest with yourself.
Not quite, Mr. Savage. Those same bigoted people are against CONSENSUAL nonmonogamy as well. They're against swinging, multiple partners, and everything else, when the couple does it together or with one another's permission. They prefer the hypocrisy of an affair, the inevitable discovery of that affair, the public self-flagellation of the adulterer, and the forgiveness of the humilated spouse who got cheated on.
I don't know why, but it's true. Better to be miserable and not admit it, I guess, than happy and honest with yourself.
2
Cheating in marriage, even with 'permission', carries a high social cost.
Hence Monogamy within marriage is one of the ideals society has encouraged.
No, not every couple is monogamous.
But infidelity usually carries sanctions, just ask Edwards or Spitzer or Bill Clinton.
And, yes, the stigma of adultery is greatly lessening in society. The enlightened response will be to renew support for fidelity. Abandoning any expectation of fidelity and blithely skipping to Gommorah will lead to increased social chaos.
Remember, the common thread on "Every Child..." is the absence of a stable monogamous married couple.
Hence Monogamy within marriage is one of the ideals society has encouraged.
No, not every couple is monogamous.
But infidelity usually carries sanctions, just ask Edwards or Spitzer or Bill Clinton.
And, yes, the stigma of adultery is greatly lessening in society. The enlightened response will be to renew support for fidelity. Abandoning any expectation of fidelity and blithely skipping to Gommorah will lead to increased social chaos.
Remember, the common thread on "Every Child..." is the absence of a stable monogamous married couple.
3
Dan's droning drumbeat that marriage should not carry any expectation of monogamy confirms the assertion of those who claim that homosexual marriage will be a first step toward destroying the institution.
5
"As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to destroy the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research."
6
"Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns.
"They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage."
"They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage."
7
For those who see marriage as nothing more than a a vehicle for procuring regular hassle-free sex then cheating makes sense and need not be a problem.
8
Anyone who has ever worked in a hotel bar knows that monogamy isn't particularly popular in the world of heterosexual marriage, either. In fact, I think the real reason why conventions were invented was to get away from the spouse and get laid.
Basically, it's OK to have a little something on the side. But it's not OK to talk about it.
Basically, it's OK to have a little something on the side. But it's not OK to talk about it.
9
1. Of course, this does mean that half of gay couples ARE monogamous. But, hey, yeah, focus on the other half who aren't.
2. Don't bother to focus on the author's consensual comment and continue to blur it and compare it with cheating.
What a tool.
2. Don't bother to focus on the author's consensual comment and continue to blur it and compare it with cheating.
What a tool.
10
New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years
How does following 556 MALE couples say anything at all about relationships among lesbians?
How does following 556 MALE couples say anything at all about relationships among lesbians?
11
And Dan's original post said...
Studies of male couples in long-term relationships have found that most gay male couples do allow for some "outside sexual contact".
50% is not most - it's half.
Studies of male couples in long-term relationships have found that most gay male couples do allow for some "outside sexual contact".
50% is not most - it's half.
12
They don't call it "cheating" because those couples are straight, they call it cheating because those couples are in relationships that are presumably supposed to be monogamous. Presumably, one of the partners in the relationship did not know/approve of the other's extramarital sex.
Now, if you have a straight couple who have an agreement between themselves that they would like to be polyamorous, that's not cheating. There is no expectation of monogamy.
Gay people can cheat too if they have sex with someone other than their partner without the partner's consent. Monogamy is based upon the decision of the people in a relationship, not those people's sexual orientation.
Now, if you have a straight couple who have an agreement between themselves that they would like to be polyamorous, that's not cheating. There is no expectation of monogamy.
Gay people can cheat too if they have sex with someone other than their partner without the partner's consent. Monogamy is based upon the decision of the people in a relationship, not those people's sexual orientation.
13
@ #2 - And you're probably of the same mindset as that guy Blankenhorn, from the Prop 8 Trial that believes, even if a man has 5 wives, it is still "one man and one woman."
He doesn't believe gays should marry either.
That's how crazy people like you think.
He doesn't believe gays should marry either.
That's how crazy people like you think.
14
@2: Can you back any of that up with actual research demonstrating this "high social cost?" No? Didn't think so.
And don't tell me you honestly believe that if all the couples in the "Every Child" posts had been monogamous the abuses wouldn't have happened. The most pertinent key factor in those is unstable people, not a lack of monogamy.
And don't tell me you honestly believe that if all the couples in the "Every Child" posts had been monogamous the abuses wouldn't have happened. The most pertinent key factor in those is unstable people, not a lack of monogamy.
15
@#2
Cheating in marriage carries a high social cost because the people in them are pretending to be monogamous and then, well, cheating.
There may be a social cost, but hardly as much, if the "cheated on" spouse were to calmly say, "Yes, I know, I've met her, and she's a lovely woman. My boyfriend likes her, too."
Cheating in marriage carries a high social cost because the people in them are pretending to be monogamous and then, well, cheating.
There may be a social cost, but hardly as much, if the "cheated on" spouse were to calmly say, "Yes, I know, I've met her, and she's a lovely woman. My boyfriend likes her, too."
16
In my experience--both personal and among male couples I know--I carte blanche "we're open!" is a recipe for disaster. That said, I think a "you touch anohter man once I'm out the door--no discussion!" ultimatum is a recipe for disaster too.
Also, I think there is an interesting sort of irony that some of the most successful gay male couples I know operate in sort of a 1950s couple "a little cheating now and then is forgiven and expected just so long as you never forget she's just a cheap slut and I'm you're wife and don't be too obvious or embarass me with it publicly" arrangement. Oddly, I think both scenarios sometimes were realistic that "men will be men"--but a clear boundary is still there in terms of who/when/how often can be occasionally looked passed.
Also, I think there is an interesting sort of irony that some of the most successful gay male couples I know operate in sort of a 1950s couple "a little cheating now and then is forgiven and expected just so long as you never forget she's just a cheap slut and I'm you're wife and don't be too obvious or embarass me with it publicly" arrangement. Oddly, I think both scenarios sometimes were realistic that "men will be men"--but a clear boundary is still there in terms of who/when/how often can be occasionally looked passed.
17
It would be interesting to see what a National survey would say because let's face it, taking a survey from San Fransisco is a little bias.
And it shouldn't be a surprise that an open relationship lasts longer - you're pretty much allowed to do anything you want...
And it shouldn't be a surprise that an open relationship lasts longer - you're pretty much allowed to do anything you want...
19
The study's conclusion should have been:
"This study confirmed that 50% of partnered gay men surveyed appear to exhibit the same, non-monogamous behavior as heterosexual men, because despite the differences in sexual orientation, they are all men."
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
"This study confirmed that 50% of partnered gay men surveyed appear to exhibit the same, non-monogamous behavior as heterosexual men, because despite the differences in sexual orientation, they are all men."
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
20
Gay MALE couples. That was who they studied. Why does the Times bring out a lesbian couple to represent them? Were they too scared that treating nonmonogamous desire as a male phenomenon would offend readers, for one reason or another?
21
14
15
You girls must be behind in your 'Savage Love' reading-
just last week there was a heartbreaking story from the guy married 9 years with 2 young children who let his wife have a fling and now the marriage is kaput.
And him with 2 months left before his dissertation is done!
15
You girls must be behind in your 'Savage Love' reading-
just last week there was a heartbreaking story from the guy married 9 years with 2 young children who let his wife have a fling and now the marriage is kaput.
And him with 2 months left before his dissertation is done!
22
One of the best things about being in a relationship (ONE of the best parts) is that I don't have to date anymore. Its not that I don't have to remain attractive and interesting for my own self-esteem and my husband's benefit, but who wants to be on the prowl / flirty and fabulous / ready and available in perpetuity....not to mention into ones 40s? The non-monogamous impulse might not fade with age, but the options certainly do...both for who I attract and who I desire...
I think non-monogamy is worthy of consideration and discussion, but I can't imagine it working for me. That doesn't mean I begrudge you the thrill. Not all of us can (or should) be successful sex kittens.
I think non-monogamy is worthy of consideration and discussion, but I can't imagine it working for me. That doesn't mean I begrudge you the thrill. Not all of us can (or should) be successful sex kittens.
23
"never once has anyone suggested that an open straight marriage isn't a "real" marriage or that a heterosexual couple who isn't monogamous shouldn't be allowed to legally marry."
Well that's half right. Certainly no (sane) person even on the right has suggested that non-monogamous straights be disallowed from marriage legally, but many absolutely would say that an open straight marriage isn't a "real" marriage, even if they wouldn't dare to try to challenge it legally. Especially people who bizarrly feel that people getting married is a threat to marriage (still haven't worked my brain around it, as hard as I try) would be likely to say that an open marriage is essentially an invalid marriage.
Well that's half right. Certainly no (sane) person even on the right has suggested that non-monogamous straights be disallowed from marriage legally, but many absolutely would say that an open straight marriage isn't a "real" marriage, even if they wouldn't dare to try to challenge it legally. Especially people who bizarrly feel that people getting married is a threat to marriage (still haven't worked my brain around it, as hard as I try) would be likely to say that an open marriage is essentially an invalid marriage.
24
@17 is right. I think the study reflects a strong regional bias -- having lived in the Bay Area, I'd say that gay men there are more likely to be in open relationships than gay men in Seattle.
25
I think that deriding monogamous relationships--Dan, you do at least come off this way--is as stupid as is deriding non-monogamous ones. Some people simply aren't wired for this sort of thing, due to cultural background, personal history, or personal tastes and desires. Not one bit of it is damning in either way, but I think it's healthier to celebrate them all. If it works for you and yours: cheers, go nuts, whether that's only one partner for 40 years or a free sidebar pass every 40 days.
Personally, I've always been a one-gal kind of guy. I also watched my father utterly destroy my family, multiple lives, and multiple friendships with multiple affairs, so that may be a factor, but we're nothing but the sum of our experiences. I've never once been unhappy nor uncomfortable with who I am. I'm as normal as Dan is.
Maybe a better way to use evidence like this to piss on the bigot parade is to point out the real truth, when they say that "50% of gays will wreck marriage, here's why..."
What percentage of Americans are gay men? 5%? Less? I have no idea. OK, now half of those--in one metro area, which itself has a statistically disproportionate gay population than the rest of the nation--is arguably not within 'your' norms. Now find a religious group or some other minority with comparable mathematical representation and protection in the US. Use that.
Personally, I've always been a one-gal kind of guy. I also watched my father utterly destroy my family, multiple lives, and multiple friendships with multiple affairs, so that may be a factor, but we're nothing but the sum of our experiences. I've never once been unhappy nor uncomfortable with who I am. I'm as normal as Dan is.
Maybe a better way to use evidence like this to piss on the bigot parade is to point out the real truth, when they say that "50% of gays will wreck marriage, here's why..."
What percentage of Americans are gay men? 5%? Less? I have no idea. OK, now half of those--in one metro area, which itself has a statistically disproportionate gay population than the rest of the nation--is arguably not within 'your' norms. Now find a religious group or some other minority with comparable mathematical representation and protection in the US. Use that.
26
Isn't this a "forest for the trees" scenario?
I take away from the article that gay couples communicate more with their partners about their wants/needs, thus leading to an open discussion so that both parties are on level ground.
It isn't that sexual promiscuity leads to better relationships, nor fidelity, but open honesty from the beginning.
And for the record, personally I'm on the side of monogamy. I'm not one of the typical multiple-partner guys. FwBs never work for me. I'm loyal to one person - but no one I've been with felt the same.
I take away from the article that gay couples communicate more with their partners about their wants/needs, thus leading to an open discussion so that both parties are on level ground.
It isn't that sexual promiscuity leads to better relationships, nor fidelity, but open honesty from the beginning.
And for the record, personally I'm on the side of monogamy. I'm not one of the typical multiple-partner guys. FwBs never work for me. I'm loyal to one person - but no one I've been with felt the same.
27
"— about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners."
Am I the only one who was amazed that EVERY couple that admitted outside affairs had permission?
And that the other half have NEVER cheated?
Amazing!
I'm sure someone cheating would admit it for the sake of science, after all...
Am I the only one who was amazed that EVERY couple that admitted outside affairs had permission?
And that the other half have NEVER cheated?
Amazing!
I'm sure someone cheating would admit it for the sake of science, after all...
28
Yes, the numbers are kind of wonky. I don't think it necessarily means 50% are completely "OPEN" relationships.
Having watched Dan & Joy discuss the issue, I think Joy's point stands. Men are more able (generally) to seperate sex from love to a greater degree. I mean, I know my feelings of insecurity/jealousy/possessiveness would come out way more if my partner suddenly decided to do Wednesday night movie & dinner night with another guy than if I heard about a one-night blow job that happened on a business trip with some dude he'll/I'll never see again. In that scenario is our relationship suddenly an "open" one? I think maybe the physical sex act isn't as much of a deal-breaker with many gay male couples: but that still doesn't mean there is no such thing as cheating.
Having watched Dan & Joy discuss the issue, I think Joy's point stands. Men are more able (generally) to seperate sex from love to a greater degree. I mean, I know my feelings of insecurity/jealousy/possessiveness would come out way more if my partner suddenly decided to do Wednesday night movie & dinner night with another guy than if I heard about a one-night blow job that happened on a business trip with some dude he'll/I'll never see again. In that scenario is our relationship suddenly an "open" one? I think maybe the physical sex act isn't as much of a deal-breaker with many gay male couples: but that still doesn't mean there is no such thing as cheating.
29
I find myself reading a lot of Dan's articles and having really nothing to say except - "hmm... funkay..."
Quick, someone provide me with an opinion or something...
Quick, someone provide me with an opinion or something...
30
No, that's "Half of All Gay Male Couples in the Bay Area Non-Monogamous.
This study doesn't say anything about all male couples everywhere, and I'm sure the numbers are very different in smaller towns, not to mention different cultures. Not that there's anything wrong with open relationships, and not that many male couples' relationships aren't open, but it's much more helpful to be precise.
This study doesn't say anything about all male couples everywhere, and I'm sure the numbers are very different in smaller towns, not to mention different cultures. Not that there's anything wrong with open relationships, and not that many male couples' relationships aren't open, but it's much more helpful to be precise.
33
Oh god...I really hope it only applies to SF Bay Area..........
I thought gay people fight for marriage to destroy the myth and stereotypes that gay people can't be monogamous? But if even gay people themselves actually doing what the bigots thought that we are, then what's the use of fighting for marriage? Not that I think that straight people can't be in an open relationships.
I'm imagining that in the future, people would call me stupid because I wanted to have a monogamous relationships. Since it has been scientifically researched that gay couple should not be monogamous to last. *sigh*
I'm just hoping that this news doesn't make it to my country, since many gay people here committed suicides because they are too heart broken with their partner's non-monogamous behavior. I can't imagine the damage will bring to them if they found out about it. It could lead them to turn their backs against gay rights, militantly.
I need to know what kind of people lived in the SF Bay Area.*sigh*
I thought gay people fight for marriage to destroy the myth and stereotypes that gay people can't be monogamous? But if even gay people themselves actually doing what the bigots thought that we are, then what's the use of fighting for marriage? Not that I think that straight people can't be in an open relationships.
I'm imagining that in the future, people would call me stupid because I wanted to have a monogamous relationships. Since it has been scientifically researched that gay couple should not be monogamous to last. *sigh*
I'm just hoping that this news doesn't make it to my country, since many gay people here committed suicides because they are too heart broken with their partner's non-monogamous behavior. I can't imagine the damage will bring to them if they found out about it. It could lead them to turn their backs against gay rights, militantly.
I need to know what kind of people lived in the SF Bay Area.*sigh*
35
See, this is the problem with this type of reporting. The study only applies to male couples in a part of the world where there's a particular kind of gay culture, and it really can't be extrapolated because it wasn't designed to do so.
Although white, English-speaking, Western gay male culture is generally quite sexually permissive, that's certainly not the case everywhere. Among some groups monogamy is valued more highly than among others, and there's also the issue of the effects the larger society has on people's sexual behaviour: even in the States I doubt many small-town gay men have open relationships.
Although white, English-speaking, Western gay male culture is generally quite sexually permissive, that's certainly not the case everywhere. Among some groups monogamy is valued more highly than among others, and there's also the issue of the effects the larger society has on people's sexual behaviour: even in the States I doubt many small-town gay men have open relationships.
37
I agree with Dingo.
But who started this and make it like, this is some sort of the things ALL gay people do anyway?
Was it Dan?
But who started this and make it like, this is some sort of the things ALL gay people do anyway?
Was it Dan?
38
@25. True. True.
Lack of monogamy is the easy way out. Of course you want to. It is the intimacy and loyalty that arises out of monogamy that creates a marriage. It is unfortunate that some will never know much beyond their corporeal and lower mind desires. The communion that arises from loyalty is a virtue sweeter than any.
Lack of monogamy is the easy way out. Of course you want to. It is the intimacy and loyalty that arises out of monogamy that creates a marriage. It is unfortunate that some will never know much beyond their corporeal and lower mind desires. The communion that arises from loyalty is a virtue sweeter than any.
39
@38 when I was a little, I always envy those old couples who stay committed with each other until the very end. I always wanted to be a couple like that, that's why I'm fighting for gay marriage, I want to be like those couples.
And here we are, some years later saying that if I want to be like those old couples, I should go and have sex with another men.
And here we are, some years later saying that if I want to be like those old couples, I should go and have sex with another men.
40
I agree with Ms. tetocat #12 and others. If you ask your partner if you can screw the neighbor's gardener and your partner says, "have at him" how is that "cheating"?
I'm quickly seeing that Hetero-couples don't seem to have a clue about successful relationships and are now investigating Gay relationships to see where to make improvements.
I'm quickly seeing that Hetero-couples don't seem to have a clue about successful relationships and are now investigating Gay relationships to see where to make improvements.
41
@3 Precisely, and Savage should be commended for his honesty in his accurate assertion in this and in the previous related post. For all that he wrongly advocates, Dan has his moments when he speaks the truth about the lifestyle he has chosen to live and that is a respectable quality in him that we should admire.
By stating the truth about the incompatibility of homosexuality with monogamy he's just saying something that all including homosexuals know. While its true that straight people can be just as flawed when it comes to monogamy, unlike gays there is a social expectation of straight couples who are married to adhere to monogamy. That social expectation arises because generally it is the norm for heterosexual couples to have children due to nature (unlike with homosexuals) and there needs to be a solidification and exclusivity in order for them to be able to set proper societal examples unto their kids. Because kids need and only learn thru consistency. That consistency which is a product of exclusivity is not something that most gay men are able to adhere to. Not because self identified gays are bad people but because as Dan has cited:
“but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
The "it" is poly relationships, multiple partners. Such relationships are fine for adults who want to pursue them but a child seeing such behavior will always be emotional unstable.
By stating the truth about the incompatibility of homosexuality with monogamy he's just saying something that all including homosexuals know. While its true that straight people can be just as flawed when it comes to monogamy, unlike gays there is a social expectation of straight couples who are married to adhere to monogamy. That social expectation arises because generally it is the norm for heterosexual couples to have children due to nature (unlike with homosexuals) and there needs to be a solidification and exclusivity in order for them to be able to set proper societal examples unto their kids. Because kids need and only learn thru consistency. That consistency which is a product of exclusivity is not something that most gay men are able to adhere to. Not because self identified gays are bad people but because as Dan has cited:
“but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
The "it" is poly relationships, multiple partners. Such relationships are fine for adults who want to pursue them but a child seeing such behavior will always be emotional unstable.
42
@ 33/39
Your post spoke the truth. It is irresponsible journalism to not imagine the hurt this type of propaganda will create.
I have faith in your dream, Uki, and it will happen.
Your post spoke the truth. It is irresponsible journalism to not imagine the hurt this type of propaganda will create.
I have faith in your dream, Uki, and it will happen.
43
@40 then why getting married if life after marriage is just the same as dating scenes?
benefits?
If benefits are the concern, then gay people don't need marriage, just put them on civil union.
benefits?
If benefits are the concern, then gay people don't need marriage, just put them on civil union.
44
Notice, too, that so far, everyone is interpreting "non-monogamous" to mean things like cheating, "anything goes" etc. Generally the implication is that this is something they are going out and doing separately.
What about couples that have three-ways, as in always having sex together, but sometimes adding someone else in. That is just as non-monogamous.
It isn't as clear, but it also looks like a lot of people are assuming that the others are one-time tricks or anonymous or otherwise casual things, as though there's no possibility that these couples are having sex with friends or longer-term situations.
Actually, what I see most people doing is once again, mapping stereotypical straight behavior and attitudes onto gay people rather than pay any attention to what the gay people might actually be doing or thinking.
What about couples that have three-ways, as in always having sex together, but sometimes adding someone else in. That is just as non-monogamous.
It isn't as clear, but it also looks like a lot of people are assuming that the others are one-time tricks or anonymous or otherwise casual things, as though there's no possibility that these couples are having sex with friends or longer-term situations.
Actually, what I see most people doing is once again, mapping stereotypical straight behavior and attitudes onto gay people rather than pay any attention to what the gay people might actually be doing or thinking.
45
#38 You really believe you can't feel intimacy and loyalty with your partner if the relationship is open? You've clearly had bad relationships...
Not everyone wants monogamy
Not everyone wants polyamory
How about we live and let live?
How about the bigots stop using people doing as they will without harming others as an excuse to treat certain people as less than human?
Not everyone wants monogamy
Not everyone wants polyamory
How about we live and let live?
How about the bigots stop using people doing as they will without harming others as an excuse to treat certain people as less than human?
47
@42 This news is like opening a pandora box........and from the post at #41, it seems that my worst fear have happened.
48
45 said it pretty good about letting it live... I'm tired of the right bitching about open relationships being the devil and I'm tired of Dan bitching about monogamy being the devil... I think a lot of people fall somewhere in the middle anyway...
49
Shall we temper this a little with some statistics about heterosexuals?
* 50% of "opposite marriages" end in divorce.
* There's a 50-50 chance that one partner or the other in an "opposite relationship" will cheat.
* A 2002 study of opposite marriages showed that 27% of people who reported being happy in their marriage also admitted to having an affair.
* 44 percent of husbands and 25 percent of wives have had extramarital intercourse undisclosed to their partner.
* a survey of 16,000 university students in 53 countries showed that 20% of long term relationships began when one or both partners were with someone else.
* 10-15% of children are conceived during an affair.
* Rubin observed no differences in marital adjustment between couples in open marriages and couples in sexually monogamous marriages.
* Rubin and Adams reported no differences in marital satisfaction between couples in open marriages and couples in sexually monogamous relationships.
* Gilmartin found no differences in marital satisfaction between sexually open and sexually monogamous couples.
* A study by Bergstrand and Willams found couples in open marriages had higher levels of satisfaction than couples in the general population.
* Wolf found that 76 percent of openly married couples described the quality of their relationships as "better than average" or "outstanding."
*Dixon observed that 80 percent of wives in open marriages rated their marital compatibility as "excellent" or "good," and 76 percent of the wives rated their sexual satisfaction as "excellent" or "good."
* Of 1092 people involved in swinging style open marriages 80-90 percent said they were happier with their marriages after they started swinging. Nearly half of people who said they were "very happy" with their marriages before swinging claimed to be even happier with their marriages after swinging. Open marriage can in some cases increase marital satisfaction.
More...
* 50% of "opposite marriages" end in divorce.
* There's a 50-50 chance that one partner or the other in an "opposite relationship" will cheat.
* A 2002 study of opposite marriages showed that 27% of people who reported being happy in their marriage also admitted to having an affair.
* 44 percent of husbands and 25 percent of wives have had extramarital intercourse undisclosed to their partner.
* a survey of 16,000 university students in 53 countries showed that 20% of long term relationships began when one or both partners were with someone else.
* 10-15% of children are conceived during an affair.
* Rubin observed no differences in marital adjustment between couples in open marriages and couples in sexually monogamous marriages.
* Rubin and Adams reported no differences in marital satisfaction between couples in open marriages and couples in sexually monogamous relationships.
* Gilmartin found no differences in marital satisfaction between sexually open and sexually monogamous couples.
* A study by Bergstrand and Willams found couples in open marriages had higher levels of satisfaction than couples in the general population.
* Wolf found that 76 percent of openly married couples described the quality of their relationships as "better than average" or "outstanding."
*Dixon observed that 80 percent of wives in open marriages rated their marital compatibility as "excellent" or "good," and 76 percent of the wives rated their sexual satisfaction as "excellent" or "good."
* Of 1092 people involved in swinging style open marriages 80-90 percent said they were happier with their marriages after they started swinging. Nearly half of people who said they were "very happy" with their marriages before swinging claimed to be even happier with their marriages after swinging. Open marriage can in some cases increase marital satisfaction.
50
Personally, I don't care if people wanted to have an open relationships or an exclusive monogamous. I just don't want this research is being made as a generalization of what ALL gay people do.
And I obviously don't want this research is being used as a justification of someone cheating, and then calling me a stupid guy for being monogamous.
And I obviously don't want this research is being used as a justification of someone cheating, and then calling me a stupid guy for being monogamous.
51
I don't know, it seems to me people are looking at this like if you aren't monogamous until "death do you part" you're in a polyamorous relationships and exposing any children they may have to the swinging door of in-and-out partners. Those gay couples I know who aren't monogamous in the strictest sense of the word usually are still pretty monogamous-ish. You know, maybe the occasional naughty 3-way on vacation or the expectation that if an indiscretion happens they'll talk it through (the other partner may even be titillated by it) rather than packing their bags and throwing them out the door.
52
@41: What, you think that two guys in an open relationship have their fuck buddy over for dinner when the kids are around? I'm no expert of the sexual habits of people in open relationships, but I imagine that they do the same thing as any sexually active people who have kids: have someone else babysit. Homosexuality is not incompatible with monogamy any more than heterosexuality; it's just that homosexual men tend to be less hung up about exclusivity because, since they are both men, they have a very good grasp of how their boyfriends' sexual drives work and hence tend to be more understanding.
Stupid cuntwhorebitch that you are.
Stupid cuntwhorebitch that you are.
53
PS: Dan's original point still is what really is important here. Even when a straight couple ISN'T monogamous we don't come and snatch away their legal protections of marriage.
I mean I think even loveschild would agree Hillary Clinton should have the right to make hospital decisions for Bill? Even though their marriage is not monogamous...LC correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to speak for you.
Also, there are probably a LOT of elderly Greatest Generation couples in their 80s and 90s right now where the man maybe was perhaps not strictly monogamous during those years 1941-1945 when halfway around the world. I don't think that marriage is an lesser or second-class in it's worth because there wasn't strict monogamy for all 65 yrs.
I mean I think even loveschild would agree Hillary Clinton should have the right to make hospital decisions for Bill? Even though their marriage is not monogamous...LC correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to speak for you.
Also, there are probably a LOT of elderly Greatest Generation couples in their 80s and 90s right now where the man maybe was perhaps not strictly monogamous during those years 1941-1945 when halfway around the world. I don't think that marriage is an lesser or second-class in it's worth because there wasn't strict monogamy for all 65 yrs.
54
@49 Heterosexuals, even those who do become involved in relationships outside of their marriage still see the act of having an intimate relationship with another person ( no matter the duration of such relationship) other than their spouse as cheating. They know it is something wrong and that in the long run is not in their best interest nor for their families. That's not the case with the vast majority of homosexuals. Homosexuals collectively have been shown to have a lower threshold for acknowledging ( if they even do so at all ) cheating in a relationship because their lives are not centered around the same expectations as those of heterosexuals. That's what the NY Times article explained. That's why the institution of marriage is meant specifically for the stability of those needs of heterosexual couples.
55
This just proves that straight people are better liars.
Oh, and that Uki and Loveschild are so happy to be better than everyone else.
Oh, and that Uki and Loveschild are so happy to be better than everyone else.
56
@53 Please tell me where Hillary or Bill have declared that they have an open relationship?
Bill cheated and he has denied it. He hasn't declared that he's in an open marriage with Hillary.
Bill cheated and he has denied it. He hasn't declared that he's in an open marriage with Hillary.
57
@54, We need to protect the institution of marriage by making Christian marriage illegal. Subjecting children to Christianity does irreparable damage to them. When children see this sort of behavior practiced by their parents they begin to think that this deviant lifestyle is an acceptable behavior. I fear for Children raised around that sort of filth.
58
@53, that is exactly Dan's point.
I am much more concerned about the research that Dan is giving to gain that conclusion. He should giving a research about non-monogamous heterosexual couple, if he wanted to make that conclusion.
Why would you post a research about same sex relationships when in the end, you are talking about the heterosexual? What's the point?
I think Dan's argument, the research presented, and the title of this thread (The one that i'm very concerned), are not cohesive.
I am much more concerned about the research that Dan is giving to gain that conclusion. He should giving a research about non-monogamous heterosexual couple, if he wanted to make that conclusion.
Why would you post a research about same sex relationships when in the end, you are talking about the heterosexual? What's the point?
I think Dan's argument, the research presented, and the title of this thread (The one that i'm very concerned), are not cohesive.
59
#56: Bill has cheating with many women: Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, etc. There was one as recently as 2006. Hillary knows about it. That is not monogamy in it's strictest sense, but do you think they should be denied the rights of marriage?
Again, where do you draw the line? What about a straight couple where the man cheats regularly on his foreign-born wife but she stays with him to stay in the country and get her Green Card? Is that worse than a US/non-US gay male couple who has a threesome once or twice a year? Who deserves the legal protection and citizenship rights of marriage more? Right now the cheating hetero man gets them.
It just gets muddy to me, but it is obvious the legal rights of marriage have NOTHING to do with keeping your dick in your pants.
Again, where do you draw the line? What about a straight couple where the man cheats regularly on his foreign-born wife but she stays with him to stay in the country and get her Green Card? Is that worse than a US/non-US gay male couple who has a threesome once or twice a year? Who deserves the legal protection and citizenship rights of marriage more? Right now the cheating hetero man gets them.
It just gets muddy to me, but it is obvious the legal rights of marriage have NOTHING to do with keeping your dick in your pants.
60
@52 Kids are not stupid, certainly not in these days. They do recognize when their parents are doing things that are odd when compared to the parents of their peers. But of course if people like you have their way poly behavior would be the norm.
Why do you use such filthy language that you know denigrates women ?
Why do you use such filthy language that you know denigrates women ?
61
@57 I am with you
@56 No declaration of an open relationship, but clearly non-monogamous and both partners are aware of it. Yet somehow they still have the right to marry and the right to decide to stay together after the cheating occurred. I would ask if you are intentionally obnoxious or just stupid, but I have been reading your posts for quite some time now.
@56 No declaration of an open relationship, but clearly non-monogamous and both partners are aware of it. Yet somehow they still have the right to marry and the right to decide to stay together after the cheating occurred. I would ask if you are intentionally obnoxious or just stupid, but I have been reading your posts for quite some time now.
62
@55, huh? I'm gay.....don't lump me together with loveschild. I don't share his/her thoughts.
I'm just concerned about the research being presented here.
I'm just concerned about the research being presented here.
63
@59 Just because some choose to stray away from the intended purpose of the institution of marriage that does not mean that the institution doesn't and hasn't worked for many others.
Those who have misused it like Bill and Edwards for example, know that what they have done is wrong, they're not advocating for redefinitions, they're know it is them who failed not the institution.
Those who have misused it like Bill and Edwards for example, know that what they have done is wrong, they're not advocating for redefinitions, they're know it is them who failed not the institution.
64
#63: So the issue is the intent, then? If a male/male couple INTENDS to me monogamous, but stay together when that doesn't work out all the time, is that better to you?
Just trying to understand, here. Like I said, most gay male couples I know who aren't monogamous in the strictest sense still aren't having multiple partners walk in and out of the bedroom, sex parties, "feel free to fuck anything you want" agreements, etc. They just are less hung up on the physical exclusivity part. There is cheating, and then there is cheating.
Just trying to understand, here. Like I said, most gay male couples I know who aren't monogamous in the strictest sense still aren't having multiple partners walk in and out of the bedroom, sex parties, "feel free to fuck anything you want" agreements, etc. They just are less hung up on the physical exclusivity part. There is cheating, and then there is cheating.
65
I am very fortunate to still have both sets of grandparents, although they are growing frail at 90+ years. So we are talking 70 years of marriage, 70 years of building a life and a family together. Beautiful.
Truth. One couple was monogamous and the other was not. Does that lessen one's 70 year marriage, or lessen the life and the family they built together? Nope. That would be silly and mean spirited. Like refusing equal federal and state benifits under the law, because marriage equality would protect same-sex couples who may or may not be 100% monogamous and are honest about it.
I take my hat off to every couple who aspires to be married and seeks to build a life and family together. It is a hell of a lot of work, but it is worth it in my opinion.
Truth. One couple was monogamous and the other was not. Does that lessen one's 70 year marriage, or lessen the life and the family they built together? Nope. That would be silly and mean spirited. Like refusing equal federal and state benifits under the law, because marriage equality would protect same-sex couples who may or may not be 100% monogamous and are honest about it.
I take my hat off to every couple who aspires to be married and seeks to build a life and family together. It is a hell of a lot of work, but it is worth it in my opinion.
66
@ 63, then why doesn't Hilary just divorce Bill's ass?
Listen up, child. If non-monogamy, whether in "open" marriages or where the husband has gone sneaking off like Tiger Woods, is a reason to deny marriage equality to gays, then it means that the institution HAS failed for straights because so many involved cheating. Many marriages survive this, but if we listen to you then we should do away with it for straights based on the sheer numbers. And you know it's a huge number because EVERYONE knows someone who has cheated, whether it was a friend, the parents of a friend, a coworker, a sibling, or even yourself. (I'm talking about people in our own lives, not celebrities.)
Most of us have encountered such a story several times over the years. So just on the anecdotal evidence alone, many marriages if not a majority involve non-monogamy. Granting marriage equality will do nothing to change this.
Got it, child?
Listen up, child. If non-monogamy, whether in "open" marriages or where the husband has gone sneaking off like Tiger Woods, is a reason to deny marriage equality to gays, then it means that the institution HAS failed for straights because so many involved cheating. Many marriages survive this, but if we listen to you then we should do away with it for straights based on the sheer numbers. And you know it's a huge number because EVERYONE knows someone who has cheated, whether it was a friend, the parents of a friend, a coworker, a sibling, or even yourself. (I'm talking about people in our own lives, not celebrities.)
Most of us have encountered such a story several times over the years. So just on the anecdotal evidence alone, many marriages if not a majority involve non-monogamy. Granting marriage equality will do nothing to change this.
Got it, child?
67
@66 lol, you expect far too much from her. She won't ever get it. Enforced, willful stupidity is rarely changed by logic.
68
Your headline says "Half of All Gay Couples Non-Monogamous" when it should have said "Half of Gay Male Couples in the San Francisco Bay Area Who Agreed to Participate in a Single Study are Non-Monogamous". Sure, that's a bit of a mouthful, but I think the distinctions are pretty crucial, because:
A. It goes without saying that there is a big difference in the sexual behavior of men and women in general, and between gay men and lesbians specifically
B. Gay male sexual culture in the San Francisco area is different than in most of the rest of the country, because the city has been a magnet for unconventional people and "free love" types (straight, gay, and in-between) since the mid-19th century
C. The kind of people who would agree to participate in a three-year longitudinal study about their private sex lives are likely to have different attitudes about sex than the kind of people who would refuse to participate
A. It goes without saying that there is a big difference in the sexual behavior of men and women in general, and between gay men and lesbians specifically
B. Gay male sexual culture in the San Francisco area is different than in most of the rest of the country, because the city has been a magnet for unconventional people and "free love" types (straight, gay, and in-between) since the mid-19th century
C. The kind of people who would agree to participate in a three-year longitudinal study about their private sex lives are likely to have different attitudes about sex than the kind of people who would refuse to participate
69
That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
That's a bit of an odd comment by Hoff. It makes it seem as if the only extramarital relationships straight people have don't involve consent. To be sure, many straight people in relationships do cheat on each other but many others have consensual open relationships, just like gays & lesbians.
That's a bit of an odd comment by Hoff. It makes it seem as if the only extramarital relationships straight people have don't involve consent. To be sure, many straight people in relationships do cheat on each other but many others have consensual open relationships, just like gays & lesbians.
70
p.s. Don't anybody get the wrong idea, I don't care if people are monogamous or not. It simply ain't none of my business. But that inaccurate headline gave me a someone is wrong on the internet headache.
71
@65 The reason it is not lessen Kim is because they made a conscious decision to accept the social policy of one of our basic and most fundamental institution of our nation. And due to their acceptance of those norms regardless of the duration or their persistence they engendered the existence of your family, which is precisely one of the primary purposes of marriage in our nation in the first place.
Those who don't want to observe such social norms are still free to do so in our society regardless of who they want to go to bed with. Likewise those who want to can do so regardless of who they want to go to bed with. The rules are equally applied to both heterosexuals and those who self identify as homosexuals.
Those who don't want to observe such social norms are still free to do so in our society regardless of who they want to go to bed with. Likewise those who want to can do so regardless of who they want to go to bed with. The rules are equally applied to both heterosexuals and those who self identify as homosexuals.
72
New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
This also seems odd to me. The study followed only male couples yet somehow this reveals just how common open relationships are among gay menand lesbians?
I'd be very interested to know if open relationships are as common among lesbian couples as they are among gay couples. My guess is that they aren't.
Open relationships seem a lot more fair to me when they're by gay or lesbian couples because both people in the relationship have a relatively equal opportunity for having sex with other people. But since it's so much easier for a woman to find willing men for sex than it is for a man to find willing women, an open straight relationship has always struck me as a not-so-good deal for the guy.
This also seems odd to me. The study followed only male couples yet somehow this reveals just how common open relationships are among gay menand lesbians?
I'd be very interested to know if open relationships are as common among lesbian couples as they are among gay couples. My guess is that they aren't.
Open relationships seem a lot more fair to me when they're by gay or lesbian couples because both people in the relationship have a relatively equal opportunity for having sex with other people. But since it's so much easier for a woman to find willing men for sex than it is for a man to find willing women, an open straight relationship has always struck me as a not-so-good deal for the guy.
73
@66 Are high profile celebrities the only ones that should be counted ?
For these people who seek the limelight the problem resides in their own psychological short fallings not in the institution of marriage that has been a vehicle properly used for procreation, child rearing and family stability by many in our nation.
Shouldn't Hillary be able to decide if she wants to forgive her husband ? Nobody is forcing them to stay together. But by doing so they have accepted and recognize what marriage means tho, and that as public figures their indiscretions will be scrutinized and if they stray it can harm (as it has) any future further political aspirations.
For these people who seek the limelight the problem resides in their own psychological short fallings not in the institution of marriage that has been a vehicle properly used for procreation, child rearing and family stability by many in our nation.
Shouldn't Hillary be able to decide if she wants to forgive her husband ? Nobody is forcing them to stay together. But by doing so they have accepted and recognize what marriage means tho, and that as public figures their indiscretions will be scrutinized and if they stray it can harm (as it has) any future further political aspirations.
74
@71 -- I propose that allowing gays to marry and allowing them to act publically as accepted, equal members of society will lower the percentage of gay men who accept non-monogamous behavior in their spouses.
I propose that fifty years of normalcy will make gay men just as boring as straight men.
Can't you see: They want what we have. They don't want to force us to live like they do.
I propose that fifty years of normalcy will make gay men just as boring as straight men.
Can't you see: They want what we have. They don't want to force us to live like they do.
75
@70, yes, i think you're right. It is not right to wrote "Half of ALL Gay Couples Non-Monogamous", when the research was only showing some hundreds in a specific place with such history.
Now I wonder about heterosexuals couple in SF Bay area.....
Now I wonder about heterosexuals couple in SF Bay area.....
76
Exactly, child @73. So let's let our LGBT brothers and sisters enjoy the same wonderful institution. They can only strengthen it by their participation.
77
@74 Gay advocacy groups claiming to represent all homosexuals ( something not true ) seek societal approval of their relationships on par with those of heterosexuals because they want to redefine the meaning of marriage until the institution finally reflects their lifestyle. They do this while not being honest ( as Dan has been ) with themselves nor with the rest of the population about the difference in which they view relationships when contrasted with the straight population. Because they know if they succeed the institution of marriage will no longer be appealing to future generations, which is their end game.
Where that not the case they would accept the full benefits in domestic partnerships and civil unions and respect the differences between their lifestyle and the societal value placed on the institution of marriage by the rest of the population in this nation.
Where that not the case they would accept the full benefits in domestic partnerships and civil unions and respect the differences between their lifestyle and the societal value placed on the institution of marriage by the rest of the population in this nation.
78
Oh please, try and keep your mind off of sex for awhile, Loveschild.
Sex is not the primary purpose of marriage. We do not celebrate 70 years of marriage, because two people shagged and the end result was one of my parents. Who then shagged with another person and I was the outcome. They are not to be celebrated because I'm here speaking to a deaf person. No. Sex and the possible outcome of offspring is not why we toast them. We toast them because they chose to build a life together and succeeded. They stood by each other in the best of times and the worst of times: the death of a child, horrific accident, the Great Depression, WW II, a stoke and they stand together now. We toast them for the legacy of perseverence and hard work. The example of loving another when the other is acting unlovely and offensive.
Frankly your obsession that they should be honored because I'm their penultimate achievement is offensive. A marriage is not sex, it is not a dick and a vajayjay, it is not shagging so one can pound their chest pride and say we made that. Maybe, that is all your marriage is to you, your permission to shag and pat yourself on the back because you popped out three kids. If it is, then bummer. Marriage and life are more than that to me.
Since you seem to always have sex on the brain and your own sex life is not enough to satisfy you. Here is a book suggestion for you, written by devout Christains for Christians, in particular for those we married their HS sweethearts. The Gift of Sex, A Guide to Sexual Fulfillment by Clifford and Joyce Penner.
Sex is not the primary purpose of marriage. We do not celebrate 70 years of marriage, because two people shagged and the end result was one of my parents. Who then shagged with another person and I was the outcome. They are not to be celebrated because I'm here speaking to a deaf person. No. Sex and the possible outcome of offspring is not why we toast them. We toast them because they chose to build a life together and succeeded. They stood by each other in the best of times and the worst of times: the death of a child, horrific accident, the Great Depression, WW II, a stoke and they stand together now. We toast them for the legacy of perseverence and hard work. The example of loving another when the other is acting unlovely and offensive.
Frankly your obsession that they should be honored because I'm their penultimate achievement is offensive. A marriage is not sex, it is not a dick and a vajayjay, it is not shagging so one can pound their chest pride and say we made that. Maybe, that is all your marriage is to you, your permission to shag and pat yourself on the back because you popped out three kids. If it is, then bummer. Marriage and life are more than that to me.
Since you seem to always have sex on the brain and your own sex life is not enough to satisfy you. Here is a book suggestion for you, written by devout Christains for Christians, in particular for those we married their HS sweethearts. The Gift of Sex, A Guide to Sexual Fulfillment by Clifford and Joyce Penner.
79
@76 False, it is precisely because they have a completely diametrically opposed and conflicting view of marriage that they will weaken it to the point of doin away with it socially.
80
@Uki and others:
First of all, we're all clear that Dan's blog is...uh, a blog, right? And not a reputable news source purporting to be unbiased?
Hokay. Now here's something I don't understand: why do so many of you seem to think that saying "non-monogamy is normal" is the same thing as saying "monogamy is not normal"??
Why are you taking such personal offense at the fact that others live their lives differently from you? Or that Dan is pointing out the reality that others live differently from you?
No one is prescribing a lifestyle for you. And as far as I know (and I've been reading a long time) Dan has never attempted to prescribe a lifestyle for anyone.Dan is advocating honesty in relationships, and if you're being honest with yourself then you'll realize that, sorry, not everyone is inherently monogamous. The fact that society continues to push the idea that monogamy is universal creates an environment in which people hide their sexual proclivities from their partners, and that's how we get cheating.
Monogamous people, wouldn't you rather a potential partner be honest with you about their monogamy status? Because as you are all quick to point out, yes, there are plenty of happily monogamous people out there to be had. Dan is advocating that we merely recognize the existence of non-monogamy so that the monogamous and non-monogamous crowds can be honest with each other and pair up properly so as to prevent cheating.
Nobody is saying you're abnormal or unnatural or less than, you whiny bunch of pussies.
First of all, we're all clear that Dan's blog is...uh, a blog, right? And not a reputable news source purporting to be unbiased?
Hokay. Now here's something I don't understand: why do so many of you seem to think that saying "non-monogamy is normal" is the same thing as saying "monogamy is not normal"??
Why are you taking such personal offense at the fact that others live their lives differently from you? Or that Dan is pointing out the reality that others live differently from you?
No one is prescribing a lifestyle for you. And as far as I know (and I've been reading a long time) Dan has never attempted to prescribe a lifestyle for anyone.Dan is advocating honesty in relationships, and if you're being honest with yourself then you'll realize that, sorry, not everyone is inherently monogamous. The fact that society continues to push the idea that monogamy is universal creates an environment in which people hide their sexual proclivities from their partners, and that's how we get cheating.
Monogamous people, wouldn't you rather a potential partner be honest with you about their monogamy status? Because as you are all quick to point out, yes, there are plenty of happily monogamous people out there to be had. Dan is advocating that we merely recognize the existence of non-monogamy so that the monogamous and non-monogamous crowds can be honest with each other and pair up properly so as to prevent cheating.
Nobody is saying you're abnormal or unnatural or less than, you whiny bunch of pussies.
81
@79 - and honestly, Loveschild you know so much about gays you must be the gayest gay who ever gayed. I'm so incredibly sick of you telling me about myself. The absolute, unmitigated fucking arrogance.
82
79: And that is where you are both blind and deaf. They don't have a diametrically opposed and conflicting view of marriage. They share the same view, marriage is a legal binding contract between two individuals to build and share a life. To work towards common goals, to share a dream, to nurture, to love one another through the best and worst of times. Let go of the lie that it is only about sex.
83
"...you don't have to be monogamous to be married or married to be monogamous."
Indeed. Nor does it matter if you are gay or straight.
About 25 years ago, when I was still in high school, a cousin of my mom's generation was killed in a car accident coming home late on a Friday night. I was kind of puzzled about why he was driving alone so late at night. After eavesdropping on the hushed whispers of the adults in my family, I discovered that he and his wife had an "arrangement." On Fridays, he would go out carousing, have sex with mistresses, and have his own fun. She was completely aware of it. (Sadly, her Friday nights consisted of being the baby sitter. She did not have her own opportunities to go out and have her own fun.)
Of course, some might say this is a cautionary tale, that he'd be alive today if he wasn't doing that. But he could just as easily been killed coming home from work, or the whole family could have been if they had all gone out late together. The point is, not all heterosexual marriages are monogamous, and not all nonmonogamy in heterosexual marriages is "cheating."
Indeed. Nor does it matter if you are gay or straight.
About 25 years ago, when I was still in high school, a cousin of my mom's generation was killed in a car accident coming home late on a Friday night. I was kind of puzzled about why he was driving alone so late at night. After eavesdropping on the hushed whispers of the adults in my family, I discovered that he and his wife had an "arrangement." On Fridays, he would go out carousing, have sex with mistresses, and have his own fun. She was completely aware of it. (Sadly, her Friday nights consisted of being the baby sitter. She did not have her own opportunities to go out and have her own fun.)
Of course, some might say this is a cautionary tale, that he'd be alive today if he wasn't doing that. But he could just as easily been killed coming home from work, or the whole family could have been if they had all gone out late together. The point is, not all heterosexual marriages are monogamous, and not all nonmonogamy in heterosexual marriages is "cheating."
84
Let's be sure to remember Companionate Marriage is historically quite new (and most gay relationships still follow that model). Only 125 years ago in Victorian US/UK it was socially acceptable for men to cheat and sleep around with prostitutes. So long as it wasn't women of their own class (that would be scandalous and cause messy jealousies) men were expected to have larger sexual desires than women.
85
@82 Are those who choose to be in same sex relationships unable to express "love one to another" in this nation ?
You know well they do, because you know that in other places those who want to seek same sex relationships are not even allowed to identify themselves as homosexuals. And not only can they do so here but are even afforded benefits in accordance with their reality.
Also Kim are you denying the importance of gender ? The complementing of the two sexes that has occurred since the beginning of humanity is of no importance to you and you believe it should be of no importance to the rest of society ?
You know well they do, because you know that in other places those who want to seek same sex relationships are not even allowed to identify themselves as homosexuals. And not only can they do so here but are even afforded benefits in accordance with their reality.
Also Kim are you denying the importance of gender ? The complementing of the two sexes that has occurred since the beginning of humanity is of no importance to you and you believe it should be of no importance to the rest of society ?
86
I'm no braniac LC, but I understand this so maybe you can to. Non-monogamous sex occurs in 50% of hetero marriages and 50% of gay partnerships, whether consensual or not. 50% of hetero marriages end in divorce.
And, since most gays CAN'T marry YET, that would be 99.99999999999999999999999% hetero?
I know I'm repeating myself, but what again is the percentage of gays to straights?
So, WHOOOOOOOO is really responsible for the burden on society and family instability?
I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And, since most gays CAN'T marry YET, that would be 99.99999999999999999999999% hetero?
I know I'm repeating myself, but what again is the percentage of gays to straights?
So, WHOOOOOOOO is really responsible for the burden on society and family instability?
I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
87
What is the point of this end game? Why do they want future generation to not be married?
Because they know if they succeed the institution of marriage will no longer be appealing to future generations, which is their end game.
What is the point of this end game? Why do they want future generation to not be married?
88
@ 85, take that point up with God, child. He's the one making people attracted to the same sex.
Kim @ 82 FTW.
Kim @ 82 FTW.
89
I propose an experiment for anyone who believes people in same sex relationships are fully able to express their love everywhere in this nation:
Visit any other place in this nation that isn't on the West Coast with someone of the same sex for three days. Hold hands with that person publically.
Report your findings.
Are those who choose to be in same sex relationships unable to express "love one to another" in this nation?
I propose an experiment for anyone who believes people in same sex relationships are fully able to express their love everywhere in this nation:
Visit any other place in this nation that isn't on the West Coast with someone of the same sex for three days. Hold hands with that person publically.
Report your findings.
90
Loveschild wrote:
Heterosexuals, even those who do become involved in relationships outside of their marriage still see the act of having an intimate relationship with another person ( no matter the duration of such relationship) other than their spouse as cheating.
This is clearly untrue, as was demonstrated in #49. What the article Dan linked to explained is that opposite couples are more likely to see sex outside the relationship engaged in without the express consent of the other partner as unforgivable. However, it's beyond argument that many heterosexual couples are indeed non-monogamous by mutual agreement, and that many others are non-monogamous because one or both parters cheat.
Loveschild wrote: They know it is something wrong and that in the long run is not in their best interest nor for their families. That's not the case with the vast majority of homosexuals. Homosexuals collectively have been shown to have a lower threshold for acknowledging ( if they even do so at all ) cheating in a relationship because their lives are not centered around the same expectations as those of heterosexuals. That's what the NY Times article explained. That's why the institution of marriage is meant specifically for the stability of those needs of heterosexual couples.
I know you have difficulty with advanced English, but this is not what the article said at all. The research shows that true monogamy, meaning 100% sexual faithfulness, is extremely rare and that a particular subset of male same-sex couples are more likely to acknowledge that fact and have mutually agreed upon open relationships than they are to regard all outside sex as unforgivable.
The social expectation is that human couples should mate for life to the sexual exclusion of all others. The reality is that comparatively few couples do so, although a majority maintain a public fiction of exclusivity.
Loveschild wrote: Gay advocacy groups . . . seek societal approval of their relationships on par with those of heterosexuals because they want to redefine the meaning of marriage until the institution finally reflects their lifestyle.
No. Same-sex couples want to be able to marry because they want equality, dignity, and the benefits and security of legal marriage. They don't give a fuck how anyone else wants to run their marriage. What they want is to be able to make medical and end of life decisions for their spouse; to have protection for their children; to live with the person they love. All these things and countless others are denied to same-sex couples who are denied marriage.
Where that not the case they would accept the full benefits in domestic partnerships and civil unions and respect the differences between their lifestyle and the societal value placed on the institution of marriage by the rest of the population in this nation.
Separate but equal is not equal. As a black person you should know that.
are you denying the importance of gender ? The complementing of the two sexes that has occurred since the beginning of humanity is of no importance to you and you believe it should be of no importance to the rest of society ?
Loveschild, you are probably the least qualified person posting here to discuss this subject. Since I have absolutely no confidence that you fully understand the concept of "gender," I'm not even going to bother trying to explain the differences between gender, sex, and sexuality which would be an essential starting point for understanding this topic.
More...
Heterosexuals, even those who do become involved in relationships outside of their marriage still see the act of having an intimate relationship with another person ( no matter the duration of such relationship) other than their spouse as cheating.
This is clearly untrue, as was demonstrated in #49. What the article Dan linked to explained is that opposite couples are more likely to see sex outside the relationship engaged in without the express consent of the other partner as unforgivable. However, it's beyond argument that many heterosexual couples are indeed non-monogamous by mutual agreement, and that many others are non-monogamous because one or both parters cheat.
Loveschild wrote: They know it is something wrong and that in the long run is not in their best interest nor for their families. That's not the case with the vast majority of homosexuals. Homosexuals collectively have been shown to have a lower threshold for acknowledging ( if they even do so at all ) cheating in a relationship because their lives are not centered around the same expectations as those of heterosexuals. That's what the NY Times article explained. That's why the institution of marriage is meant specifically for the stability of those needs of heterosexual couples.
I know you have difficulty with advanced English, but this is not what the article said at all. The research shows that true monogamy, meaning 100% sexual faithfulness, is extremely rare and that a particular subset of male same-sex couples are more likely to acknowledge that fact and have mutually agreed upon open relationships than they are to regard all outside sex as unforgivable.
The social expectation is that human couples should mate for life to the sexual exclusion of all others. The reality is that comparatively few couples do so, although a majority maintain a public fiction of exclusivity.
Loveschild wrote: Gay advocacy groups . . . seek societal approval of their relationships on par with those of heterosexuals because they want to redefine the meaning of marriage until the institution finally reflects their lifestyle.
No. Same-sex couples want to be able to marry because they want equality, dignity, and the benefits and security of legal marriage. They don't give a fuck how anyone else wants to run their marriage. What they want is to be able to make medical and end of life decisions for their spouse; to have protection for their children; to live with the person they love. All these things and countless others are denied to same-sex couples who are denied marriage.
Where that not the case they would accept the full benefits in domestic partnerships and civil unions and respect the differences between their lifestyle and the societal value placed on the institution of marriage by the rest of the population in this nation.
Separate but equal is not equal. As a black person you should know that.
are you denying the importance of gender ? The complementing of the two sexes that has occurred since the beginning of humanity is of no importance to you and you believe it should be of no importance to the rest of society ?
Loveschild, you are probably the least qualified person posting here to discuss this subject. Since I have absolutely no confidence that you fully understand the concept of "gender," I'm not even going to bother trying to explain the differences between gender, sex, and sexuality which would be an essential starting point for understanding this topic.
91
85: You know that things are not equal under the law. Don't try and turn this into being allowed to love who they want. This is about equality, as you are well aware.
Loveschild I do not share your obsession with dicks and vaginae. I do not share your obsession with the sex lives of others. I see people for their character.
Marriage is not about sex. Sex has it's place if the couple wants it, but it of itself does not make a marriage. It is your poverty that you need to be patted on the back for having a vagina and a uterus. It is your poverty that you believe you deserve special privilege for said vagina, because you shagged with your sweetheart and produced three more mouths for the earth to feed. Sorry, can't pat you on the back for that. Just like I don't pat myself on the back, because I shagged and have added two people to this earth as well. You're not special, you're not deserving of special rights and privileges, you chose to pass your genetic makeup on, but the earth did not need, want or require it. I think society would be much better off providing and protecting the families that already exists, and not Loveschild's personal utopia. We have an over populated planet, dwindling natural resources for fuel, dwindling amount of fresh water, global warming, dying oceans, natural disasters, wars and if Uganda has it's way a new genocide to deal with, etc. No, I think it is time to end all forms of injustice and inequality legally, economically, via health care, via education, etc. To end all forms of violence and oppression. It is time to make peace. Therefore I do not think it is societies job to reward you and pat you on the back because you have a vagina and you fell in love with someone who has a dick. Your family is no more important than mine, than Dan's, or anyone else's. Your family is only special to you, just as mine is special to me, time to realize you aren't special other than to those you are intimately acquainted with, the earth itself does not care or require your presence here. Society will survive without you as well.
The world is not about you. Society is not about you. Time to grow up and get over yourself. Time to put away childish ideas.
More...
Loveschild I do not share your obsession with dicks and vaginae. I do not share your obsession with the sex lives of others. I see people for their character.
Marriage is not about sex. Sex has it's place if the couple wants it, but it of itself does not make a marriage. It is your poverty that you need to be patted on the back for having a vagina and a uterus. It is your poverty that you believe you deserve special privilege for said vagina, because you shagged with your sweetheart and produced three more mouths for the earth to feed. Sorry, can't pat you on the back for that. Just like I don't pat myself on the back, because I shagged and have added two people to this earth as well. You're not special, you're not deserving of special rights and privileges, you chose to pass your genetic makeup on, but the earth did not need, want or require it. I think society would be much better off providing and protecting the families that already exists, and not Loveschild's personal utopia. We have an over populated planet, dwindling natural resources for fuel, dwindling amount of fresh water, global warming, dying oceans, natural disasters, wars and if Uganda has it's way a new genocide to deal with, etc. No, I think it is time to end all forms of injustice and inequality legally, economically, via health care, via education, etc. To end all forms of violence and oppression. It is time to make peace. Therefore I do not think it is societies job to reward you and pat you on the back because you have a vagina and you fell in love with someone who has a dick. Your family is no more important than mine, than Dan's, or anyone else's. Your family is only special to you, just as mine is special to me, time to realize you aren't special other than to those you are intimately acquainted with, the earth itself does not care or require your presence here. Society will survive without you as well.
The world is not about you. Society is not about you. Time to grow up and get over yourself. Time to put away childish ideas.
92
90/Dingo: What the article Dan linked to explained is that opposite couples are more likely to see sex outside the relationship engaged in without the express consent of the other partner as unforgivable.
Actually, the article did not say that. It said...
...about 50 percent of those [gay couples] surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners. That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
The way that is written, it's comparing straight people cheating on each other (i.e no mutual consent) with gay couples having open relationships with mutual consent.
Now, it very well may be that gay couples are more willing to overlook or forgive cheating than straight couples but there's nothing in the article to support that. Personally, I'd think that if a gay couple had an agreement to be monagamous and one of the guys fucked around behind the other's back, the cheated-on person would be just as likely to feelt hurt, betrayed and/or pissed off as the cheated-on person in a straight relationship.
Actually, the article did not say that. It said...
...about 50 percent of those [gay couples] surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners. That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
The way that is written, it's comparing straight people cheating on each other (i.e no mutual consent) with gay couples having open relationships with mutual consent.
Now, it very well may be that gay couples are more willing to overlook or forgive cheating than straight couples but there's nothing in the article to support that. Personally, I'd think that if a gay couple had an agreement to be monagamous and one of the guys fucked around behind the other's back, the cheated-on person would be just as likely to feelt hurt, betrayed and/or pissed off as the cheated-on person in a straight relationship.
93
And, Loveschild although I answered you. I suspect that you do not know what gender means. You were referring to your dick and vagina obsession. This is likely another huge waste of time on your behalf, because you have your mind made up. Still, I'm going to take a page from Uriel's book, lovely guy that he is, and risk giving you some understanding of how I understand gender for the understanding of any person foolish enough to read what I type without a previously made up mind. I am by no means an authority, but my understanding isn't limited to dicks and vaginae.
The human body expresses biological sex in four different ways, the first being genetic. Genetic males carry an X and a Y chromosome, genetic females two X chromosomes. Intersex persons might have a single X chromosome (known as XO) or some combination of three or more X and Y chromosomes.
Second, being gonadal. Gonadal males possess testes, gonadal females possess ovaries; intersex persons might possess undescended testes or streak ovaries.
Third, by hormone production and hormone reception. Those persons who possess testosterone or DHT in the body are hormonal males. Estrogen and progesterone are found in hormonal females, and intersex persons might have levels of any of these hormones that are either high or low...or they might not have the receptors that allow the body to recognize the hormones that are present.
Fourth, being morphological features. Morphological sex is expressed by the presence, in males, of the Wolffian duct and a penis. Females will possess a Mullerian duct and a vagina. Intersex persons might possess both a Wolffian and a Mullerian duct or incomplete internal sexual organs--or none of the above--and an enlarged clitoris, a "micro-penis", or a shallow and fused vagina.
Now for gender perception. The gender of a person is perceived in two parts: Part one, which is derived from the perception of whether you appear to others to be male or female. Part two, gender identity, which is based on your own perception of yourself as male, female, neither, or both.
Sexuality, or sexual orientation, starts with an individual's gender identity, then proceeds to the gender of the individuals one finds themselves spontaneously attracted to.
Yes, I know in this instance you didn't ask for the science side, so if you go off on me for sharing my education (like you did last time, even when you were the one who asked about it), I will give you grace.
More...
The human body expresses biological sex in four different ways, the first being genetic. Genetic males carry an X and a Y chromosome, genetic females two X chromosomes. Intersex persons might have a single X chromosome (known as XO) or some combination of three or more X and Y chromosomes.
Second, being gonadal. Gonadal males possess testes, gonadal females possess ovaries; intersex persons might possess undescended testes or streak ovaries.
Third, by hormone production and hormone reception. Those persons who possess testosterone or DHT in the body are hormonal males. Estrogen and progesterone are found in hormonal females, and intersex persons might have levels of any of these hormones that are either high or low...or they might not have the receptors that allow the body to recognize the hormones that are present.
Fourth, being morphological features. Morphological sex is expressed by the presence, in males, of the Wolffian duct and a penis. Females will possess a Mullerian duct and a vagina. Intersex persons might possess both a Wolffian and a Mullerian duct or incomplete internal sexual organs--or none of the above--and an enlarged clitoris, a "micro-penis", or a shallow and fused vagina.
Now for gender perception. The gender of a person is perceived in two parts: Part one, which is derived from the perception of whether you appear to others to be male or female. Part two, gender identity, which is based on your own perception of yourself as male, female, neither, or both.
Sexuality, or sexual orientation, starts with an individual's gender identity, then proceeds to the gender of the individuals one finds themselves spontaneously attracted to.
Yes, I know in this instance you didn't ask for the science side, so if you go off on me for sharing my education (like you did last time, even when you were the one who asked about it), I will give you grace.
94
92: that portion of the article is poorly written. It's obvious that having sex outside the relationship with your partner's consent cannot be considered cheating. So yes, the consent is key. Comparing people having sex with their partners' knowledge and consent to people cheating on their partners is pointless: what can it show except that cheating means not having your partner's consent?
Personally, I'd think that if a gay couple had an agreement to be monagamous and one of the guys fucked around behind the other's back, the cheated-on person would be just as likely to feelt hurt, betrayed and/or pissed off as the cheated-on person in a straight relationship.
I agree.
Personally, I'd think that if a gay couple had an agreement to be monagamous and one of the guys fucked around behind the other's back, the cheated-on person would be just as likely to feelt hurt, betrayed and/or pissed off as the cheated-on person in a straight relationship.
I agree.
95
Here's an interesting research........this one from Canada, from 2006.
http://www.gaycouplesinstitute.org/blog/…
http://www.gaycouplesinstitute.org/blog/…
96
rewind:
Sorry, I forgot to put quotation marks around the science part. Although, I am quoting my own paraphrase job from a previous post. To make matters worse I can't remember the name of the source from which I was trying to summarize and paraphrase. I am not so well educated on the subject and am indebted to others. So sorry!
Any geneticists out there or other specialists? Feel free to kick my molecular and microbiology tush. I'm open to becoming better educated.
Sorry, I forgot to put quotation marks around the science part. Although, I am quoting my own paraphrase job from a previous post. To make matters worse I can't remember the name of the source from which I was trying to summarize and paraphrase. I am not so well educated on the subject and am indebted to others. So sorry!
Any geneticists out there or other specialists? Feel free to kick my molecular and microbiology tush. I'm open to becoming better educated.
97
@80 "Now here's something I don't understand: why do so many of you seem to think that saying "non-monogamy is normal" is the same thing as saying "monogamy is not normal"??
Because that is exactly what Dan et al. say constantly. Look it up.....
"Nobody is saying you're abnormal or unnatural or less than, you whiny bunch of pussies." Uh --- who's being whiny?? mirror check, dude....
Because that is exactly what Dan et al. say constantly. Look it up.....
"Nobody is saying you're abnormal or unnatural or less than, you whiny bunch of pussies." Uh --- who's being whiny?? mirror check, dude....
99
Roma commented @ 72:
"an open straight relationship has always struck me as a not-so-good deal for the guy."
1. Unwanted pregnancies ( Something which same sex pairs don't need to worry about ).
2. Neglecting their children ( since most straight women are also mothers ) due to a reasonable inability on their part of striking a balance between their family and their lovers and finding the time and energy to do so.
3. STD's which women are more susceptible to..
Seem to me far more of a shortchange 'deal' than what the men get out of it.
100
@90 - as I said, I've been reading for 10 years now and I've never read anything like that. I have however, read thousands of people's misinterpretations of what Dan is saying. I'm not sure how I would "look up" a specific passage where non-monogamy is advocated as opposed to discussed. Key words seem a little redundant.
But feel free to link me to some of these instances, which you obviously remember clearly enough to make the distinction.
As for my last line...teh jokes: get them.
But feel free to link me to some of these instances, which you obviously remember clearly enough to make the distinction.
As for my last line...teh jokes: get them.
102
"and never once has anyone suggested that an open straight marriage isn't a "real" marriage."
As someone in a long term open relationship, I have to argue with this. I can't tell you how many people say my relationship isn't valid because it's open, even though my partner and I live together and raise a child together. No matter how you cut it, gay open marriages are going to get even less credibility than gay monogomous ones. It's like being a black lesbian in a wheelchair. The further away from WASP you get, the harder your life will be.
I just wrote about this yesterday!
http://www.letseatcake.org
As someone in a long term open relationship, I have to argue with this. I can't tell you how many people say my relationship isn't valid because it's open, even though my partner and I live together and raise a child together. No matter how you cut it, gay open marriages are going to get even less credibility than gay monogomous ones. It's like being a black lesbian in a wheelchair. The further away from WASP you get, the harder your life will be.
I just wrote about this yesterday!
http://www.letseatcake.org
103
@102:
If'n it's so hard, why make that choice???? The benefits outweigh the hardships, right???
Jus' curious...
If'n it's so hard, why make that choice???? The benefits outweigh the hardships, right???
Jus' curious...
104
Would be curious to know if these gay couples have children. We live in the Bay Area and are a monogamous gay couple with 4 children. Barely have time for sex with each other, much less with someone else.
105
From a sex-positive perspective, I'd like to clarify a few points.
a. As has been mentioned above, not all couples who are monogamous by arrangement honor their exclusivity.
b. Similarly, not all openly polyamorous‡ couples necessarily act on their agreed-upon freedom.
c. An open relationship is not necessarily a completely OPEN relationship. Most relationships in which polyamory is negotiated is limited, from something as elementary as no-one I know or don't ask, don't tell to only those of whom I expressedly approve, only on weekends, only out of town, no penetration, et. al.
d. As cheating is by definition non-negotiated, all incidents of cheating are completely OPEN.
In the meantime, I, for one, very much would like to see some stats on lesbian relationships. Lesbians may be stereotypically monogamous (and violent), but my (purely anecdotal) experiences have demonstrated quite the opposite.
And none of this says anything of polyfidelity.
‡ Incidentally, I agree that polyamory is a horrid pastiche of Greek and Latin. It should be polyeroticism (not polyphilia) or multiamory. Sadly, polyamory is presently the conventional opposite of monogamy.
a. As has been mentioned above, not all couples who are monogamous by arrangement honor their exclusivity.
b. Similarly, not all openly polyamorous‡ couples necessarily act on their agreed-upon freedom.
c. An open relationship is not necessarily a completely OPEN relationship. Most relationships in which polyamory is negotiated is limited, from something as elementary as no-one I know or don't ask, don't tell to only those of whom I expressedly approve, only on weekends, only out of town, no penetration, et. al.
d. As cheating is by definition non-negotiated, all incidents of cheating are completely OPEN.
In the meantime, I, for one, very much would like to see some stats on lesbian relationships. Lesbians may be stereotypically monogamous (and violent), but my (purely anecdotal) experiences have demonstrated quite the opposite.
And none of this says anything of polyfidelity.
‡ Incidentally, I agree that polyamory is a horrid pastiche of Greek and Latin. It should be polyeroticism (not polyphilia) or multiamory. Sadly, polyamory is presently the conventional opposite of monogamy.
106
@98: I suggest you learn how to spell Beelzebub correctly, you thundering idiot. If only all bigots were as mentally deficient as you, we on the tolerant side of things would have nothing to worry about, as you would all have starved to death from trying to eat with your ears.
@52: One, I call you a cuntwhorebitch because you are, Loveschild. I mean no offense to any other woman but you. (Well, maybe Ann Coulter.) And if I seriously was a misogynist, do you think I'd comically lump them into one word? If you absolutely must know, I use that filthy language because a friend of mine coined the word and I find it perfectly fitting for a hoity-toity, holier-than-thou, self-righteous bigot like you. ?Preguntas?
What makes you think that kids will instinctively know that their parents are swingers? If they're old enough to pick up on it, they're old enough to probably already know about sex. There's nothing wrong with kids KNOWING how babies are made when they're twelve.
@52: One, I call you a cuntwhorebitch because you are, Loveschild. I mean no offense to any other woman but you. (Well, maybe Ann Coulter.) And if I seriously was a misogynist, do you think I'd comically lump them into one word? If you absolutely must know, I use that filthy language because a friend of mine coined the word and I find it perfectly fitting for a hoity-toity, holier-than-thou, self-righteous bigot like you. ?Preguntas?
What makes you think that kids will instinctively know that their parents are swingers? If they're old enough to pick up on it, they're old enough to probably already know about sex. There's nothing wrong with kids KNOWING how babies are made when they're twelve.
107
Well, now I understand why HIV is rising high among gay men.
I guess because gay men are being more adventurous with more people and thus making themselves more at risk.
It's funny how this debate have never been about STD and HIV. A look at the statistics of HIV on Bay Area would give an insight of the impact of this particular lifestyle.
Monogamy and open relationships are not just some compatibility choices. There are disease-related risks involved in choosing a certain lifestyle.
I guess because gay men are being more adventurous with more people and thus making themselves more at risk.
It's funny how this debate have never been about STD and HIV. A look at the statistics of HIV on Bay Area would give an insight of the impact of this particular lifestyle.
Monogamy and open relationships are not just some compatibility choices. There are disease-related risks involved in choosing a certain lifestyle.
108
107
Homosexual men account for 59% of all new AIDS cases in the US, and thus, at 1.6% of the population, are 37X as likely to get AIDS as a normal American.
Homosexual men account for 59% of all new AIDS cases in the US, and thus, at 1.6% of the population, are 37X as likely to get AIDS as a normal American.
109
In the San Francisco Public Health District the figure is 88X the average AIDS infection rate...
110
@108: According to the CDC, the rate is 53% of all NEW cases. You err in making it seem like it's all about lifestyle. This disproportionate rate is due in some extent to the fact that anal sex is more likely than vaginal or oral sex to pass HIV between partners, as the anus easily develops small tears. Since gay men are more likely than any other major demographic to have buttsecks, it stands to reason that those of them who engage in risky sex would be more susceptible to infection than heterosexuals or lesbians who engage in similar poor-life-choice behavior.
What strikes me as interesting is that you draw a line between gays and "normal Americans". Are you trying to say that gays are un-American? I suppose you're likely to think that Jews and Muslims are, too; if there's one predictable thing about bigots, they almost never confine their intolerance to just ONE group.
What strikes me as interesting is that you draw a line between gays and "normal Americans". Are you trying to say that gays are un-American? I suppose you're likely to think that Jews and Muslims are, too; if there's one predictable thing about bigots, they almost never confine their intolerance to just ONE group.
111
Of course gay men are more likely to get HIV. With the entire culture and community being underground for decades when the actual outbreak started, and with HIV being formerly known as Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID), safe sex was not on everyone's mind back then. Probably has something to do with being openly derided as a sociopathic child rapist in the media, but what do I know?
If you want a more modern explanation- gay guys are well, guys. Come on. On a base level, we're programming to be mass-child-producing neanderthals. Sleeping around exacerbates this. Lots of people make stupid decisions. Stupid decisions have painful consequences. Tada.
If you want a more modern explanation- gay guys are well, guys. Come on. On a base level, we're programming to be mass-child-producing neanderthals. Sleeping around exacerbates this. Lots of people make stupid decisions. Stupid decisions have painful consequences. Tada.
112
I am reluctant to join this particular discussion, but I think that another perspective is necessary. I am a monogamous gay man. All of my relationships have been monogamous - as in, cheating (having sex with someone else behind my back) is grounds for ending the relationship. I have tried the threesome thing, didn't work for me or my partner.
I have also raised children who are happy, well adjusted and successful - my two oldest are a nurse and a pharmacist. They got lots of love and security, and were not burdened with more information about their parents' sex life than we deemed appropriate.
I don't condemn anyone in an open relationship, and I fully support their right to marry as being just as valid as mine - which is just as valid, by the way, as a straight marriage any day.
With all that said, the notion that having open relationships is why HIV infection rates are higher among gay men and the notion that these open relationships are how we gays are plotting to destroy marriage are equally repugnant. Nobody WANTS to get HIV. Not one gay couple I know gives a fig about destroying heterosexual marriage - they just want a marriage of their own. I applaud Uki's desire to have a monogamous relationship, but I think he should respect that not everybody has the same desires - the way he wants that respect for himself.
As for Loveschild: I cannot believe that any person who had ever had a healthy adult relationship of any kind could be so hateful toward everyone else with one. Is your username a freudian slip sort of admission that you're actually a closet child molester out to destroy all relationships between consenting adults?
I have also raised children who are happy, well adjusted and successful - my two oldest are a nurse and a pharmacist. They got lots of love and security, and were not burdened with more information about their parents' sex life than we deemed appropriate.
I don't condemn anyone in an open relationship, and I fully support their right to marry as being just as valid as mine - which is just as valid, by the way, as a straight marriage any day.
With all that said, the notion that having open relationships is why HIV infection rates are higher among gay men and the notion that these open relationships are how we gays are plotting to destroy marriage are equally repugnant. Nobody WANTS to get HIV. Not one gay couple I know gives a fig about destroying heterosexual marriage - they just want a marriage of their own. I applaud Uki's desire to have a monogamous relationship, but I think he should respect that not everybody has the same desires - the way he wants that respect for himself.
As for Loveschild: I cannot believe that any person who had ever had a healthy adult relationship of any kind could be so hateful toward everyone else with one. Is your username a freudian slip sort of admission that you're actually a closet child molester out to destroy all relationships between consenting adults?
113
105/Uriel-238: In the meantime, I, for one, very much would like to see some stats on lesbian relationships. Lesbians may be stereotypically monogamous (and violent), but my (purely anecdotal) experiences have demonstrated quite the opposite.
Interesting. I had no idea there was a stereotype about lesbians being violent.
Interesting. I had no idea there was a stereotype about lesbians being violent.
116
110
Normal would be the 98.4% of the population that do not infect each other with AIDS at 37X the "normal" rate.
Normal would be the 98.4% of the population that do not infect each other with AIDS at 37X the "normal" rate.
117
111
Of course NOT, dear.
This statistic is from now.
New infections.
After 25 years of intensive education and outreach and Savage Love.
Of course NOT, dear.
This statistic is from now.
New infections.
After 25 years of intensive education and outreach and Savage Love.
118
113
there's not
poor Uri was bitch-slapped by a burly butch on the back of a city bus when he was 18 and he's never forgotten....
there's not
poor Uri was bitch-slapped by a burly butch on the back of a city bus when he was 18 and he's never forgotten....
119
There are many reasons why men who have sex with men (not just gay men) in North America have historically been more susceptible to HIV infection, and why some areas have seen an increase in cases of seroconversion in this population, but, #114-118, it's obvious that you're not familiar with the extremely complex issues and the research that's been done in this area because it's obvious you don't properly understand them.
120
119
"men who have sex with men (not just gay men)" (!?!)
gay doesn't mean what you think it does....
"men who have sex with men (not just gay men)" (!?!)
gay doesn't mean what you think it does....
121
119
It's obvious that a lot of "men who have sex with men" (not that there's anything WRONG with that....) are not familiar with the extremely complex issues, either.
perhaps you could enlighten us all?
It's obvious that a lot of "men who have sex with men" (not that there's anything WRONG with that....) are not familiar with the extremely complex issues, either.
perhaps you could enlighten us all?
122
Ok LC @ 77 you've found us out. I married my husband and have a non-monogamous relationship for the sole purpose of ultimately destroying the institution of marriage. And then for your comment @99-I have one word for you-condom! You can look at wikipedia for what that means. Why don't you just have the guts to say that you don't like homosexuals.
ps: Kim in Portland-Next time I'm in your lovely city I would LOVE to by you a drink!
ps: Kim in Portland-Next time I'm in your lovely city I would LOVE to by you a drink!
123
@111
From SeattlePI
Dec 14, 2009
AIDS, other STDs rising among local gay men
By CHRIS GRYGIEL
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
Despite education and outreach efforts, the number of gay men contracting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases has been increasing for much of this decade.
The cut would come as incidents of sexually transmitted diseases like Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and Syphilis among men who have sex with men (MSM) have risen to levels not previously seen since the early- to mid-1980s, according to a report presented to the health board last week.
There were more than 1,200 cases of gonorrhea in this group, according to the report - the most cases since 1981-1982. There were almost 400 cases of syphilis in the MSM group - and incidents of this disease in the past several years have been the highest the health department has seen in almost 30 years.
In addition, HIV diagnoses among the MSM group has been increasing about 8 percent a year since 2001 - while the number of HIV cases due to high-rest heterosexual contact and injection drug rose has been consistent or dropping during that period, according to the Public Health report.
Wood said the increase in sexually transmitted diseases among men who have sex with men has happened even though the county has outreach programs in place.
"We've got a problem with risk behavior continuing to occur despite all of the efforts that we've put into it ," Wood said.
From SeattlePI
Dec 14, 2009
AIDS, other STDs rising among local gay men
By CHRIS GRYGIEL
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
Despite education and outreach efforts, the number of gay men contracting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases has been increasing for much of this decade.
The cut would come as incidents of sexually transmitted diseases like Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and Syphilis among men who have sex with men (MSM) have risen to levels not previously seen since the early- to mid-1980s, according to a report presented to the health board last week.
There were more than 1,200 cases of gonorrhea in this group, according to the report - the most cases since 1981-1982. There were almost 400 cases of syphilis in the MSM group - and incidents of this disease in the past several years have been the highest the health department has seen in almost 30 years.
In addition, HIV diagnoses among the MSM group has been increasing about 8 percent a year since 2001 - while the number of HIV cases due to high-rest heterosexual contact and injection drug rose has been consistent or dropping during that period, according to the Public Health report.
Wood said the increase in sexually transmitted diseases among men who have sex with men has happened even though the county has outreach programs in place.
"We've got a problem with risk behavior continuing to occur despite all of the efforts that we've put into it ," Wood said.
124
@11
"In addition, HIV diagnoses among the MSM group has been INCREASING about 8 percent a year since 2001 -
while the number of HIV cases due to HIGH-RISK HETEROSEXUAL CONTACT and INJECTION DRUG USE has been DROPPING during that period, according to the Public Health report."
did you catch that?
HIV among MSM group HAS BEEN INCREASING
(at 8% a year for a DECADE.
compounded annually...)
Among people who engage in even
HIGH-RISK HETEROSEXUAL CONTACT
and
INJECTION DRUG USE
the rate of AIDS is steady or dropping.......
"In addition, HIV diagnoses among the MSM group has been INCREASING about 8 percent a year since 2001 -
while the number of HIV cases due to HIGH-RISK HETEROSEXUAL CONTACT and INJECTION DRUG USE has been DROPPING during that period, according to the Public Health report."
did you catch that?
HIV among MSM group HAS BEEN INCREASING
(at 8% a year for a DECADE.
compounded annually...)
Among people who engage in even
HIGH-RISK HETEROSEXUAL CONTACT
and
INJECTION DRUG USE
the rate of AIDS is steady or dropping.......
125
124
So you're saying a crack whore and her junkie pimp would be more responsible parents than two college educated yuppie gays?
Wow-
Who would have guessed?.....
So you're saying a crack whore and her junkie pimp would be more responsible parents than two college educated yuppie gays?
Wow-
Who would have guessed?.....
126
#120/121: "men who have sex with men (not just gay men)" (!?!)
gay doesn't mean what you think it does....
Let me try to put this in a way that won't be confusing. "Gay" is a specific sexual identity, not an indication of who does what with what genitalia; you can be gay without ever even having sex. Here are just two examples: A man who identifies as bisexual isn't gay even if he has sex with men. A man who has sex with other men when in prison, and only when in prison, and otherwise has sex only with women is not gay. Get it? This is why researchers use the term MSM.
It's obvious that a lot of "men who have sex with men" (not that there's anything WRONG with that....) are not familiar with the extremely complex issues, either.
That's quite likely; people aren't always aware of why they behave the way they do or believe the things they do.
perhaps you could enlighten us all?
I can do one better: if you're truly interested in this topic, and not just trying to get a rise out of people on an internet message board, then why don't you enlighten yourself? There's no shortage of freely available information online, which will lead you to enough paper-based research to keep you reading for the foreseeable future.
I will give you some suggestions to get you started, however:
* societal and cultural disapproval of homosexuality influences the way that people behave and how they identify; people who aren't out as gay are less likely to have access to information and support that helps them to make better choices
* there is a lack of information on safer sex targeted at the most at-risk groups like non-whites and young men and women. Yes, even taking into consideration the efforts made to educate the gay community.
* funding for education regarding HIV has been lost, reduced and redirected
* the current generation of young gay men didn't live through the AIDS crisis of the 80s, and there's an increasing tendency to view HIV as a chronic illness manageable by medication; studies have been done examining HIV-related drug advertising that promotes this notion
* "condom fatique" (aka "safe-sex fatigue") has been studied as a phenomenon relating to increasing rates of HIV seroconversion
Happy reading.
More...
gay doesn't mean what you think it does....
Let me try to put this in a way that won't be confusing. "Gay" is a specific sexual identity, not an indication of who does what with what genitalia; you can be gay without ever even having sex. Here are just two examples: A man who identifies as bisexual isn't gay even if he has sex with men. A man who has sex with other men when in prison, and only when in prison, and otherwise has sex only with women is not gay. Get it? This is why researchers use the term MSM.
It's obvious that a lot of "men who have sex with men" (not that there's anything WRONG with that....) are not familiar with the extremely complex issues, either.
That's quite likely; people aren't always aware of why they behave the way they do or believe the things they do.
perhaps you could enlighten us all?
I can do one better: if you're truly interested in this topic, and not just trying to get a rise out of people on an internet message board, then why don't you enlighten yourself? There's no shortage of freely available information online, which will lead you to enough paper-based research to keep you reading for the foreseeable future.
I will give you some suggestions to get you started, however:
* societal and cultural disapproval of homosexuality influences the way that people behave and how they identify; people who aren't out as gay are less likely to have access to information and support that helps them to make better choices
* there is a lack of information on safer sex targeted at the most at-risk groups like non-whites and young men and women. Yes, even taking into consideration the efforts made to educate the gay community.
* funding for education regarding HIV has been lost, reduced and redirected
* the current generation of young gay men didn't live through the AIDS crisis of the 80s, and there's an increasing tendency to view HIV as a chronic illness manageable by medication; studies have been done examining HIV-related drug advertising that promotes this notion
* "condom fatique" (aka "safe-sex fatigue") has been studied as a phenomenon relating to increasing rates of HIV seroconversion
Happy reading.
127
@Alleged (114-116): Your comments make infinitesimally little sense. Gay men ARE more likely to have anal sex than say, heterosexual men, because heterosexual men, for the most part, have vaginal sex to occupy most of their time. For gay men, anal and oral are really the only two choices. My point was that BECAUSE gay men tend to have anal sex (I don't know what "gay lifestyle" you're talking about), they are more at risk that vaginal-sex-having men, if each were to have unprotected sex with an HIV-positive partner. STEEEERIKE!
I said that gay men are more likely to engage in anal sex than straight men, which is true. (It's even intuitive!) I said nothing about oral sex, which is actually fairly safe in terms of the risk of catching HIV from a positive partner. STEEEERIKE!
So...a gay man who has only had two or three sexual partners, is currently in a stable, monogamous relationship, and is HIV-negative is not a normal American? I see nothing wrong with drawing a line between HIV-positives and -negatives (for statistical purposes), but you're just trying to paint gay men as plague-carrying filth. Fuck you. STEEEERIKE!
You're out, and without triple posting. Thank you for playing. Bai bai.
I said that gay men are more likely to engage in anal sex than straight men, which is true. (It's even intuitive!) I said nothing about oral sex, which is actually fairly safe in terms of the risk of catching HIV from a positive partner. STEEEERIKE!
So...a gay man who has only had two or three sexual partners, is currently in a stable, monogamous relationship, and is HIV-negative is not a normal American? I see nothing wrong with drawing a line between HIV-positives and -negatives (for statistical purposes), but you're just trying to paint gay men as plague-carrying filth. Fuck you. STEEEERIKE!
You're out, and without triple posting. Thank you for playing. Bai bai.
128
It's math class time, folks.
If we were to take Mr. Responsible Journalism Allegedly's figure that a mere 1.6% of the population were gays, and apply it to the Bay Area population of 6.958 million‡, that would be ~111,300 gays, about enough to occupy Castro Street and Market from Castro to Church. By Allegedly's model, the rest of San Francisco, and all of the Bay Area is gay free.
I've heard numbers regarding the average number of gays as being between 5% (the miserly figure, used by conservatives) and 10% (the generous figure used by gay activists), either of which might not or might (respectively) include outed bisexuals. Considering conservative churches universally inflate their numbers, it may just be conservatives can't count. Nor do they take into effect that the Castro District's legendary status (along with San Francisco's fine weather) draws gays from the rest of the planet, bolstering their population here. Castro is huge.
So lets say that all of California's ~5000 HIV cases‡ happen in San Francisco, on Market and Castro streets (including prenatal cases, transmission by drug use and high risk heterosexual contact) That means 4% of the population of these streets are infected, and the rest of California's 37 million are clean.
‡ 2007 values.
If we were to take Mr. Responsible Journalism Allegedly's figure that a mere 1.6% of the population were gays, and apply it to the Bay Area population of 6.958 million‡, that would be ~111,300 gays, about enough to occupy Castro Street and Market from Castro to Church. By Allegedly's model, the rest of San Francisco, and all of the Bay Area is gay free.
I've heard numbers regarding the average number of gays as being between 5% (the miserly figure, used by conservatives) and 10% (the generous figure used by gay activists), either of which might not or might (respectively) include outed bisexuals. Considering conservative churches universally inflate their numbers, it may just be conservatives can't count. Nor do they take into effect that the Castro District's legendary status (along with San Francisco's fine weather) draws gays from the rest of the planet, bolstering their population here. Castro is huge.
So lets say that all of California's ~5000 HIV cases‡ happen in San Francisco, on Market and Castro streets (including prenatal cases, transmission by drug use and high risk heterosexual contact) That means 4% of the population of these streets are infected, and the rest of California's 37 million are clean.
‡ 2007 values.
129
@126
That's pretty convoluted for an answer that "won't be confusing"....
Let me put it in a way that isn't confusing:
Males who have sex with males are engaging in homosexual behavior.
See?
We don't have to delve into the desires of their heart, or worry about their mysterious odorless invisible unmeasurable "orientation".
Just what they "do".
That's pretty convoluted for an answer that "won't be confusing"....
Let me put it in a way that isn't confusing:
Males who have sex with males are engaging in homosexual behavior.
See?
We don't have to delve into the desires of their heart, or worry about their mysterious odorless invisible unmeasurable "orientation".
Just what they "do".
130
@126
"* there is a lack of information on safer sex targeted at the most at-risk groups like non-whites and young men and women. Yes, even taking into consideration the efforts made to educate the gay community."
And yet, if you read @123, you'll see that even the "most high-risk groups" have gotten their act together and their HIV is flatlined and declining, while the self-indulgent homosexuals continue to infect themselves (and the innocent bystanders who have the misfortune to share their lives...) at astronomically irresponsible rates, despite millions on "outreach" and "education" ( oh yes, Millionsin "funding for education regarding HIV has been lost, reduced and redirected" . . . *sob!* )
"* there is a lack of information on safer sex targeted at the most at-risk groups like non-whites and young men and women. Yes, even taking into consideration the efforts made to educate the gay community."
And yet, if you read @123, you'll see that even the "most high-risk groups" have gotten their act together and their HIV is flatlined and declining, while the self-indulgent homosexuals continue to infect themselves (and the innocent bystanders who have the misfortune to share their lives...) at astronomically irresponsible rates, despite millions on "outreach" and "education" ( oh yes, Millionsin "funding for education regarding HIV has been lost, reduced and redirected" . . . *sob!* )
131
@127
Yes.
It IS intuitive.
But, like many cliches, wrong.
Dan is always reminding slog that not all, or even most, homosexuals engage in anal sex. And that the practices of heteros and homos are not that different.
I think you are being a little harsh to characterize homosexuals as "plague-carrying filth".
And are distorting the CDC statistics I cited.
Statistics that, as @126 points out, lots of homosexuals are unaware of or ignore.
(Statistics that Dan has never addressed...)
Just trying to get the word out.
Yes.
It IS intuitive.
But, like many cliches, wrong.
Dan is always reminding slog that not all, or even most, homosexuals engage in anal sex. And that the practices of heteros and homos are not that different.
I think you are being a little harsh to characterize homosexuals as "plague-carrying filth".
And are distorting the CDC statistics I cited.
Statistics that, as @126 points out, lots of homosexuals are unaware of or ignore.
(Statistics that Dan has never addressed...)
Just trying to get the word out.
132
#129: I'm sorry you can't understand complex concepts even when presented simply, but this isn't really the place to get that kind of help. Your assertion that "Males who have sex with males are engaging in homosexual behavior" is correct, but you still seem unable to grasp the rather simple point that the simple act of engaging in homosexual behaviour does not make or mean that someone is gay. The claim that everyone who engages in homosexual behaviour is gay is simply false. This is why we use the phrase men who have sex with men: because we strive for accuracy and specificity, not generalizations and misinformation.
Similarly, your claim in #130 that even the "most high-risk groups" have gotten their act together and their HIV is flatlined and declining, while the self-indulgent homosexuals continue to infect themselves (and the innocent bystanders who have the misfortune to share their lives...) at astronomically irresponsible rates, despite millions on "outreach" and "education" is also false. Your position (that gay men are responsible for the spread of HIV and reducing transmission of the virus among gay men would reduce its spread in the general population) is dangerous and misleading. The fact, as UNAIDS has reported, is that HIV is firmly established in the general population. Although subpopulations at high risk may continue to contribute disproportionately to the spread of HIV, sexual networking in the general population is sufficient to sustain an epidemic, independent of subpopulations at higher risk of infection. Also, while they have risen in some areas, in many parts of North America and Western Europe, transmission rates between MSMs has remained constant or fallen in the last 8 years, while in most parts of the world, heterosexual sex remains the primary method of transmission of HIV. So yes, you should be concerned that funding for education regarding HIV has been lost, reduced and redirected.
So if, as you claim in 131, you're "Just trying to get the word out," you're doing a piss poor job. But as I said below, if you were truly interested in the subject you'd be reading the research, not just spouting off your own uninformed opinions and biases.
More...
Similarly, your claim in #130 that even the "most high-risk groups" have gotten their act together and their HIV is flatlined and declining, while the self-indulgent homosexuals continue to infect themselves (and the innocent bystanders who have the misfortune to share their lives...) at astronomically irresponsible rates, despite millions on "outreach" and "education" is also false. Your position (that gay men are responsible for the spread of HIV and reducing transmission of the virus among gay men would reduce its spread in the general population) is dangerous and misleading. The fact, as UNAIDS has reported, is that HIV is firmly established in the general population. Although subpopulations at high risk may continue to contribute disproportionately to the spread of HIV, sexual networking in the general population is sufficient to sustain an epidemic, independent of subpopulations at higher risk of infection. Also, while they have risen in some areas, in many parts of North America and Western Europe, transmission rates between MSMs has remained constant or fallen in the last 8 years, while in most parts of the world, heterosexual sex remains the primary method of transmission of HIV. So yes, you should be concerned that funding for education regarding HIV has been lost, reduced and redirected.
So if, as you claim in 131, you're "Just trying to get the word out," you're doing a piss poor job. But as I said below, if you were truly interested in the subject you'd be reading the research, not just spouting off your own uninformed opinions and biases.
133
@131: I'm not saying that most homosexuals have anal sex. I'm saying that male homosexuals AS A GROUP tend to have more anal sex than heterosexual men.
I quote myself: "you're just trying to paint gay men as plague-carrying filth".
I didn't characterize gay men as plague-carrying filth. YOU did, but drawing a line between gays and "normal Americans".
How am I distorting any statistics? Name me one statistic of yours, and one misleading comment I made about it. I double dog dare you.
I should also mention that not all men who have sex with other men are gay. As Dingo keeps pointing out, some of them are bisexual, some of them are horny prisoners with no other options apart from Palmela Handerson, and some of them are actually gay.
Crawl back into your hole, Alleged.
I quote myself: "you're just trying to paint gay men as plague-carrying filth".
I didn't characterize gay men as plague-carrying filth. YOU did, but drawing a line between gays and "normal Americans".
How am I distorting any statistics? Name me one statistic of yours, and one misleading comment I made about it. I double dog dare you.
I should also mention that not all men who have sex with other men are gay. As Dingo keeps pointing out, some of them are bisexual, some of them are horny prisoners with no other options apart from Palmela Handerson, and some of them are actually gay.
Crawl back into your hole, Alleged.
134
133
So are you saying that men who choose to engage in homosexual behavior are just making a lifestyle choice, that they can take it or leave it, that it is not what they innately ARE?
So are you saying that men who choose to engage in homosexual behavior are just making a lifestyle choice, that they can take it or leave it, that it is not what they innately ARE?
135
132
OK. If you wish to reserve the term "Gay" for some self serving definition that is fine, the rest of us will merely observe that men who engage in homosexual behavior are homosexuals.
OK. If you wish to reserve the term "Gay" for some self serving definition that is fine, the rest of us will merely observe that men who engage in homosexual behavior are homosexuals.
136
135
ITT, lumping together sexual inclination with sexual horizons.
Some people are just sexually charged and don't really care what's attached to the hole they're humping. They stick the opposite gender as the first best option, the same gender as the second best, and their hand as the third best. Others just like a switch every once in a while.
ITT, lumping together sexual inclination with sexual horizons.
Some people are just sexually charged and don't really care what's attached to the hole they're humping. They stick the opposite gender as the first best option, the same gender as the second best, and their hand as the third best. Others just like a switch every once in a while.
137
132
Homosexuals ARE responsible for the spread of HIV.
25 years ago in America it was confined to homosexuals.
The "lifestyle" allowed it to incubate and get a foothold.
And spread to the rest of the population. Thanks.
25 years later homosexuals still don't seem to get the message.
Or get it but don't care.
Yes, it is established in the wider population and will sustain itself there. Thanks again.
But if homosexuals, at one fiftieth (1/50) of the population, got their act together just half as well as the rest of the population (including the hookers and junkies...) the AIDS rate would immediately be cut in half.
HALF.
Let that sink in.
You may continue to sugar coat and obfuscate but that just shows that you also don't get it or don't care.
So, yeah, you're proof that we're doing a piss poor job getting the word out.....
Homosexuals ARE responsible for the spread of HIV.
25 years ago in America it was confined to homosexuals.
The "lifestyle" allowed it to incubate and get a foothold.
And spread to the rest of the population. Thanks.
25 years later homosexuals still don't seem to get the message.
Or get it but don't care.
Yes, it is established in the wider population and will sustain itself there. Thanks again.
But if homosexuals, at one fiftieth (1/50) of the population, got their act together just half as well as the rest of the population (including the hookers and junkies...) the AIDS rate would immediately be cut in half.
HALF.
Let that sink in.
You may continue to sugar coat and obfuscate but that just shows that you also don't get it or don't care.
So, yeah, you're proof that we're doing a piss poor job getting the word out.....
138
Alleged: Did you read a word I wrote? Definitions:
Homosexual: someone who feels sexually and romantically attracted to those of the same gender as themselves.
Bisexual: someone who feels sexually/romantically attracted to both genders.
Heterosexual: someone who feels sexually and romantically attracted only to those of the opposite gender from themselves.
Now, straight (heterosexual) men may have sex with other men in prison or while really high without feeling actually attracted to them. It's for the same reasons that men have sex with women they find physically repulsive: at some level of not-gettin'-any or some level of inebriation, most men are willing to stick their dick in anything warm and squishy. If a man in prison is nailing his cellmate, chances are unless he's gay or bi, he's closing his eyes and pretending that his dick is actually up the ass of his favorite porn star. Homosexuals and bisexuals don't do that, because they are actually attracted to those of their gender.
Any questions? Or are you done wasting people's time here, Alleged?
Homosexual: someone who feels sexually and romantically attracted to those of the same gender as themselves.
Bisexual: someone who feels sexually/romantically attracted to both genders.
Heterosexual: someone who feels sexually and romantically attracted only to those of the opposite gender from themselves.
Now, straight (heterosexual) men may have sex with other men in prison or while really high without feeling actually attracted to them. It's for the same reasons that men have sex with women they find physically repulsive: at some level of not-gettin'-any or some level of inebriation, most men are willing to stick their dick in anything warm and squishy. If a man in prison is nailing his cellmate, chances are unless he's gay or bi, he's closing his eyes and pretending that his dick is actually up the ass of his favorite porn star. Homosexuals and bisexuals don't do that, because they are actually attracted to those of their gender.
Any questions? Or are you done wasting people's time here, Alleged?
139
138
So you ARE saying that men who choose to engage in homosexual behavior are just making a lifestyle choice, that they can take it or leave it, that it is not what they innately are....
So you ARE saying that men who choose to engage in homosexual behavior are just making a lifestyle choice, that they can take it or leave it, that it is not what they innately are....
140
139
Stimulating yourself into having a stiffy and wiggling your hips doesn't equate to being sexually attracted to someone.
Or the blessing of being bisexual.
Stimulating yourself into having a stiffy and wiggling your hips doesn't equate to being sexually attracted to someone.
Or the blessing of being bisexual.
141
#134/135:
You're either very stupid or being deliberately obtuse. I am not "reserving gay for some self-serving definition," and no matter how much you insist it is so, the fact is that not all men who engage in homosexual behavior are homosexuals.
Imagine, if you will, a gay man who by some bizarre circumstance is incarcerated in a women's prison. If that man engages in sex with women while in prison, but only and always has sex with men when he has a choice of partners, would you consider him to be straight? Certainly when he's having sex with women he's engaging in heterosexual behaviour, but to call a man who consistently chooses other men as sexual partners, except in a very narrowly defined circumstance (when no other men are available) "straight" is obviously to be inaccurate.
# 137 wrote:
Homosexuals ARE responsible for the spread of HIV. 25 years ago in America it was confined to homosexuals.
HIV probably entered the US in the 1960s, likely by way of Haiti, and most likely due to straight sex tourism in Haiti by Americans. HIV was first recognized among gay men in the US, but it has NEVER, as you outrageously and ignorantly claim, been "confined to homosexuals," and while it spread easily among gay men because unprotected anal sex is a highly efficient method of transmission, it was also prevalent among women, sex workers of both sexes, IV drug users, people using blood products, and newborn babies, which is why the original name GRIDS ( "Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome"), which was coined in 1982, was replaced by the name AIDS in the same year (within months, in fact).
You expose your ignorance more with every post. My advice to you, unless you want to make yourself look even dumber, is not even to bother trying to debate me on this subject, because it's abundantly clear you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
More...
You're either very stupid or being deliberately obtuse. I am not "reserving gay for some self-serving definition," and no matter how much you insist it is so, the fact is that not all men who engage in homosexual behavior are homosexuals.
Imagine, if you will, a gay man who by some bizarre circumstance is incarcerated in a women's prison. If that man engages in sex with women while in prison, but only and always has sex with men when he has a choice of partners, would you consider him to be straight? Certainly when he's having sex with women he's engaging in heterosexual behaviour, but to call a man who consistently chooses other men as sexual partners, except in a very narrowly defined circumstance (when no other men are available) "straight" is obviously to be inaccurate.
# 137 wrote:
Homosexuals ARE responsible for the spread of HIV. 25 years ago in America it was confined to homosexuals.
HIV probably entered the US in the 1960s, likely by way of Haiti, and most likely due to straight sex tourism in Haiti by Americans. HIV was first recognized among gay men in the US, but it has NEVER, as you outrageously and ignorantly claim, been "confined to homosexuals," and while it spread easily among gay men because unprotected anal sex is a highly efficient method of transmission, it was also prevalent among women, sex workers of both sexes, IV drug users, people using blood products, and newborn babies, which is why the original name GRIDS ( "Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome"), which was coined in 1982, was replaced by the name AIDS in the same year (within months, in fact).
You expose your ignorance more with every post. My advice to you, unless you want to make yourself look even dumber, is not even to bother trying to debate me on this subject, because it's abundantly clear you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
142
@139: You are not even reading what I'm saying, Alleged. SOME men won't have sex with other men except under extreme circumstances (e.g., really high/drunk, in prison). We call them heterosexual men. SOME men enjoy having sex with men and feel truly attracted to them. We call them homosexual if they don't feel attracted to women, bisexual if they do.
Metaphor:
Suppose Bob really doesn't like okra (I may think he's crazy, but it's his opinion). However, if he's starving (or if he's had a few and has temporarily forgotten what okra even is) and all he has is a can of okra in tomato sauce, he'd eat it. He might pretend that he's eating broccoli instead (Bob loves broccoli), but he'll eat it.
Enter Joe. Joe loves okra; he eats it at least twice a week. He just loves the taste of each pod that passes his lips, no matter if it's plain or with some sort of sauce on it.
Would you say that Bob and Joe can be considered the same in their culinary palates, just because both of them will eat okra if it's all they have? If you think so, you're an idiot.
No, I am not trying to joke about the slightly phallic shape of an okra pod. The choice of okra is coincidental.
Metaphor:
Suppose Bob really doesn't like okra (I may think he's crazy, but it's his opinion). However, if he's starving (or if he's had a few and has temporarily forgotten what okra even is) and all he has is a can of okra in tomato sauce, he'd eat it. He might pretend that he's eating broccoli instead (Bob loves broccoli), but he'll eat it.
Enter Joe. Joe loves okra; he eats it at least twice a week. He just loves the taste of each pod that passes his lips, no matter if it's plain or with some sort of sauce on it.
Would you say that Bob and Joe can be considered the same in their culinary palates, just because both of them will eat okra if it's all they have? If you think so, you're an idiot.
No, I am not trying to joke about the slightly phallic shape of an okra pod. The choice of okra is coincidental.
143
@141
Ah-
more sugar coating and obfuscation.
HIV was first "recognized" among gay men...
In July 1981 Dr Curran of the CDC was reported as follows:
"Dr. Curran said there was no apparent danger to non homosexuals from contagion. 'The best evidence against contagion', he said, 'is that no cases have been reported to date outside the homosexual community or in women'" - The New York Times
Of course, that soon changed.....
Ah-
more sugar coating and obfuscation.
HIV was first "recognized" among gay men...
In July 1981 Dr Curran of the CDC was reported as follows:
"Dr. Curran said there was no apparent danger to non homosexuals from contagion. 'The best evidence against contagion', he said, 'is that no cases have been reported to date outside the homosexual community or in women'" - The New York Times
Of course, that soon changed.....
144
"For a few at first, their awareness of AIDS began with the publishing of a little noticed entry on page two of the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of June 5, 1981, where a strange outbreak of killer pneumonia was spreading among gay men."
145
On June 5th, 1981 the CDC reports that in the period October 1980-May 1981, 5 young men, all active homosexuals, were treated for biopsy-confirmed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia at 3 different hospitals in Los Angeles, California. Two of the patients died. All 5 patients had laboratory-confirmed previous or current cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and candidal mucosal infection.
On July 4th, 1981, the CDC reports that during the past 30 months, 26 cases of Kaposi Sarcoma have been reported among Gay males, and that eight have died, all within 24-months of diagnosis.
On July 4th, 1981, the CDC reports that during the past 30 months, 26 cases of Kaposi Sarcoma have been reported among Gay males, and that eight have died, all within 24-months of diagnosis.
146
143: that you would quote what anyone said about HIV in 1981 as relevant today only shows the depth of your ignorance.
We're no further along than we were several dozen posts ago: either you're a troll trying to get a rise out of people (strongly suggested by the fact that you don't bother reading what people say) or you're truly ignorant about the HIV epidemic. Either way, you've been given more than ample guidance for further reading.
We're no further along than we were several dozen posts ago: either you're a troll trying to get a rise out of people (strongly suggested by the fact that you don't bother reading what people say) or you're truly ignorant about the HIV epidemic. Either way, you've been given more than ample guidance for further reading.
147
In July 1981, the New York Times reported an outbreak of a rare form of cancer among gay men in New York and California, first referred to as the "gay cancer"; but medically know as Kaposi Sarcoma. About the same time, Emergency Rooms in New York City began to see a rash of seemingly healthy young men presenting with fevers, flu like symptoms, and a pneumonia called Pneumocystis......
148
@Alleged:
@143: You realize that even the CDC had trouble identifying the cause of what we now call AIDS? Here is a link to a 1982 article, describing how even when HIV was in the process of even being described, the opportunistic infections that characterize AIDS were being seen in many people who were not MSM, including women.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml…
Just because HIV was more easily transmitted amongst gay men does not mean that it was even confined to gay men.
In conclusion: you are a bigoted idiot.
@143: You realize that even the CDC had trouble identifying the cause of what we now call AIDS? Here is a link to a 1982 article, describing how even when HIV was in the process of even being described, the opportunistic infections that characterize AIDS were being seen in many people who were not MSM, including women.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml…
Just because HIV was more easily transmitted amongst gay men does not mean that it was even confined to gay men.
In conclusion: you are a bigoted idiot.
149
@141
"...it spread easily among gay men because unprotected anal sex is a highly efficient method of transmission,"
Anal sex is a highly efficient method of transmission of all STDs. And other diseases caused by intestinal bacteria getting into the bloodstream. So that two people with no STDs engaging in anal sex still have a high probability of causing infection. Condoms make it only marginally less dangerous. Why does nature innately bestow sexual desires upon people that can only be expressed by perverting the purpose of the rectum and spreading disease?
That seems a little mean.
"...it spread easily among gay men because unprotected anal sex is a highly efficient method of transmission,"
Anal sex is a highly efficient method of transmission of all STDs. And other diseases caused by intestinal bacteria getting into the bloodstream. So that two people with no STDs engaging in anal sex still have a high probability of causing infection. Condoms make it only marginally less dangerous. Why does nature innately bestow sexual desires upon people that can only be expressed by perverting the purpose of the rectum and spreading disease?
That seems a little mean.
152
@149: "perverting the purpose of the rectum"
That is my new favorite quote-out-of-context.
BTW, as you were so eager to mention, gay men don't JUST have buttsecks. There is always the oral option.
But for that matter, why does nature innately bestow sexual desires upon people that make them attracted to other people's feet? It's because nature is weird that way; not all of our natural traits are advantageous to us. Why do guys have breast tissue which can become dangerously cancerous? Why do we have appendices which are liable to become infected and rupture? Why do we have such poorly designed backs which are adapted to quadrupedal posture?
Mother Nature is not sentient or conscious; it's just the way the world works.
That is my new favorite quote-out-of-context.
BTW, as you were so eager to mention, gay men don't JUST have buttsecks. There is always the oral option.
But for that matter, why does nature innately bestow sexual desires upon people that make them attracted to other people's feet? It's because nature is weird that way; not all of our natural traits are advantageous to us. Why do guys have breast tissue which can become dangerously cancerous? Why do we have appendices which are liable to become infected and rupture? Why do we have such poorly designed backs which are adapted to quadrupedal posture?
Mother Nature is not sentient or conscious; it's just the way the world works.
153
Dan describes elaborate preparations and precautions one must take to perform anal sex "right". (in other words, in order not to get shit and E.Coli and other virulent nasties all over and inside yourself...)
Cave men didn't have access to condoms and lubricants and enema supplies...
It seems unlikely that such a bizzare unhealthy practice would be the result of a biologically genetic state of being.
Cave men didn't have access to condoms and lubricants and enema supplies...
It seems unlikely that such a bizzare unhealthy practice would be the result of a biologically genetic state of being.
155
@153
It's always hysterical when Dan gets all piss panicky over E.Coli in hamburger meat, when each cubic mm (size of a pinhead) of feces has 52,557,270 E.Coli bacteria in it....
It's always hysterical when Dan gets all piss panicky over E.Coli in hamburger meat, when each cubic mm (size of a pinhead) of feces has 52,557,270 E.Coli bacteria in it....
156
152
No one ever seems to recognize frot, despite the cult fanaticism some people have towards it being an alternative for anal. It limits most (herpes says hi) STD transition considerably more than even oral. Being non-penetrative doesn't make it the most popular, but it's still simultaneous stimulation and notable.
No one ever seems to recognize frot, despite the cult fanaticism some people have towards it being an alternative for anal. It limits most (herpes says hi) STD transition considerably more than even oral. Being non-penetrative doesn't make it the most popular, but it's still simultaneous stimulation and notable.
157
In reference to @5:
The actual, unmanipulated quote from the 01-28-2010 New York Times reads:
"As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research."
The bolded word was changed to "destroy" by the unregistered poster.
Not that it matters, of course, since in this context, opponents of gay marriage use "rewrite" as a synonym for"destroy" in an attempt to portray the legal and constitutionally private relations between consenting adults as if they were somehow the cutting edge of a systematic conspiracy against the nation. Fat chance
The actual, unmanipulated quote from the 01-28-2010 New York Times reads:
"As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research."
The bolded word was changed to "destroy" by the unregistered poster.
Not that it matters, of course, since in this context, opponents of gay marriage use "rewrite" as a synonym for"destroy" in an attempt to portray the legal and constitutionally private relations between consenting adults as if they were somehow the cutting edge of a systematic conspiracy against the nation. Fat chance
159
@154: By your logic, Mother Nature has it in for us all. There are so many things we feel driven to do by our urges that are quite bad for us, and anal sex pales in comparison to accumulating unhealthy amounts of fat tissue in terms of health consequences. But both are things that we commonly feel urges to do. Apparently, this means that Mother Nature hates fags...but no comment yet on people who get hungry.
@153: "biologically genetic state of being": try not to use this when you're attempting to sound smart and on-top-of-things. It makes you sound like a wacko spiritualist. So what if there's no gene making us want to nail someone up the ass? There's no gene that makes us want to put a chicken inside a duck inside a turkey, either. And yet we have the delicious Turducken. Call it unnatural if you want, but we are thinking, sapient beings (more or less), and are no longer subject to what our genome has designed for us to do.
@155: Did you count them? That's an awfully precise number. And just so you know, Escherichia coli is usually quite benign. There are just a few strains (rarely if ever found in the human GI tract) that cause illness.
@152: Valid...as a heterosexual male, I'm not incredibly well-informed about what gay guys like to do. And like most heterosexual males, I try not to think about it too much unless there is some real reason to do so. (No, I have no idea why straight guys are so nervous about the topic of gay sex; it's one of those subconscious things.)
@153: "biologically genetic state of being": try not to use this when you're attempting to sound smart and on-top-of-things. It makes you sound like a wacko spiritualist. So what if there's no gene making us want to nail someone up the ass? There's no gene that makes us want to put a chicken inside a duck inside a turkey, either. And yet we have the delicious Turducken. Call it unnatural if you want, but we are thinking, sapient beings (more or less), and are no longer subject to what our genome has designed for us to do.
@155: Did you count them? That's an awfully precise number. And just so you know, Escherichia coli is usually quite benign. There are just a few strains (rarely if ever found in the human GI tract) that cause illness.
@152: Valid...as a heterosexual male, I'm not incredibly well-informed about what gay guys like to do. And like most heterosexual males, I try not to think about it too much unless there is some real reason to do so. (No, I have no idea why straight guys are so nervous about the topic of gay sex; it's one of those subconscious things.)
160
The Gay=Aids troll on here (yet another douchenozzle that is too gutless to register) seems to ignore AIDS in Africa which is predominantly a heterosexual disease.
161
157
BWAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA
BWAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HA
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHA
163
@159
"So what if there's no gene..."
You must be new here.
Dan is always trying to convince himself that homosexuality is an innate genetic trait. Like race. And that denying him the "right" to homosexual marriage is like forbidding inter-racial marriage.
Yeah. We know. It's crazy...
We keep trying to explain to Dan that it's just a filthy disgusting perverted habit he picked up in Chicago.
As Obama would tell him, it's like goat fucking or child molesting or eating poop.
But his head is pretty far up his ass and he can't hear.
But, yeah, you're right.
There's no "gay" gene.
And; as wise, thinking, sapient beings we can to act with appropriate judgment; and make rational behavior choices, that don't condemn us to catching easily avoided deadly diseases...
"So what if there's no gene..."
You must be new here.
Dan is always trying to convince himself that homosexuality is an innate genetic trait. Like race. And that denying him the "right" to homosexual marriage is like forbidding inter-racial marriage.
Yeah. We know. It's crazy...
We keep trying to explain to Dan that it's just a filthy disgusting perverted habit he picked up in Chicago.
As Obama would tell him, it's like goat fucking or child molesting or eating poop.
But his head is pretty far up his ass and he can't hear.
But, yeah, you're right.
There's no "gay" gene.
And; as wise, thinking, sapient beings we can to act with appropriate judgment; and make rational behavior choices, that don't condemn us to catching easily avoided deadly diseases...
164
163
Of course, if there WAS a "Gay" gene, it would be an evolutionarily fatal genetic defect.
Because if there WERE an innate biological state of being called "homosexuality" it's defining characteristic would be the absence of the drive and ability to reproduce.
All entities that had this defective gene would not reproduce and the gene would die with them.
*sob!*
But cheer up-
We know that homosexuality is not an innate trait.
It is not what people ARE.
It is what they "do".
Sometimes....
Because "Homosexuals" can,
and overwhelmingly do, at some point,
engage in heterosexual sex.
(really. ask Dan...)
Long term relationships.
Marriage (actual marriage...).
Have kids.
Because homosexuals are not genetic freaks or defects.
Of course, if there WAS a "Gay" gene, it would be an evolutionarily fatal genetic defect.
Because if there WERE an innate biological state of being called "homosexuality" it's defining characteristic would be the absence of the drive and ability to reproduce.
All entities that had this defective gene would not reproduce and the gene would die with them.
*sob!*
But cheer up-
We know that homosexuality is not an innate trait.
It is not what people ARE.
It is what they "do".
Sometimes....
Because "Homosexuals" can,
and overwhelmingly do, at some point,
engage in heterosexual sex.
(really. ask Dan...)
Long term relationships.
Marriage (actual marriage...).
Have kids.
Because homosexuals are not genetic freaks or defects.
165
"And; as wise, thinking, sapient beings we can to act with appropriate judgment; and make rational behavior choices, that don't condemn us to catching easily avoided deadly diseases... "
Like wearing condoms.
And now that you consider child molesting a "habit," just as harmless as two mature individuals having consensual sex, and have shown no comprehension or care for the damage it does to children, you may want to seek some help. Make it super sized.
Like wearing condoms.
And now that you consider child molesting a "habit," just as harmless as two mature individuals having consensual sex, and have shown no comprehension or care for the damage it does to children, you may want to seek some help. Make it super sized.
166
Which is why the whole tortured "Gay" definition thing above is such a bunch of hooey.
What is "The Gay"?
You can't see it.
Or smell it.
You just have to take my word for it.
And people that have "Gay" sex?
Not Gay.
Youth counselors that have sex with 16 year old young men?
Not Gay.
Married men with wife and kids and a boyfriend on the side?
Not Gay.
Men having sex in prison?
Not Gay.
Drive a pickup? Vote Republican? Wear socks with loafers?
Not Gay...
Most "Gays" have engaged in heterosexual behavior.
Many "Gays" have reformed and renounced the lifestyle.
Many famous people live entire lives as heterosexual then suddenly discover that they "Are" "Gay". Meredith Baxter. Dumbledore.
Forgive us if we must call BULLSHIT....
If we don't buy that this ethereal quality of "The Gay" is innately hard wired in, and yet, no one seems to have any fucking idea who has it and who doesn't. Anymore. Or yet. Or still...
If we decline to change the definition of Marriage and the structure of the Family to accommodate this innate trait. That isn't.
What is "The Gay"?
You can't see it.
Or smell it.
You just have to take my word for it.
And people that have "Gay" sex?
Not Gay.
Youth counselors that have sex with 16 year old young men?
Not Gay.
Married men with wife and kids and a boyfriend on the side?
Not Gay.
Men having sex in prison?
Not Gay.
Drive a pickup? Vote Republican? Wear socks with loafers?
Not Gay...
Most "Gays" have engaged in heterosexual behavior.
Many "Gays" have reformed and renounced the lifestyle.
Many famous people live entire lives as heterosexual then suddenly discover that they "Are" "Gay". Meredith Baxter. Dumbledore.
Forgive us if we must call BULLSHIT....
If we don't buy that this ethereal quality of "The Gay" is innately hard wired in, and yet, no one seems to have any fucking idea who has it and who doesn't. Anymore. Or yet. Or still...
If we decline to change the definition of Marriage and the structure of the Family to accommodate this innate trait. That isn't.
168
165
53% of all new AIDS cases agree:
wearing condoms works GREAT!
and you'll have to take the whole molestation thing with your Fierce Advocate...
53% of all new AIDS cases agree:
wearing condoms works GREAT!
and you'll have to take the whole molestation thing with your Fierce Advocate...
169
@163: Dan hasn't been going on about a "gay gene", you fuckwit. Neither has anyone else here. Just because there's no gene for something doesn't mean it's not innate. Sexual orientation is determined in utero by hormone levels in the fetal brain and may be to some extent influenced by the mother's hormonal fluctuations. There is no gene shown to be responsible for personality, but people can't really change the way they are. And please, stop living in your fantasy world where Obama hates gay people.
@164: Ever heard of a recessive gene? But that's beside the point; not all biologically innate characteristics are genetically linked. It's not just our genes that are important: it's how they're expressed early in life and how our bodies develop. If everything was genetic, then the identical twin (exact same genome) of a schizophrenic would also suffer from the disorder. But in fact, the opposite tends to be true.
So...you are entirely unfamiliar with the concept of being closeted. Let me put it this way: adolescents who are slowly realizing that they are gay are often uncomfortable with it. So what do they do? They sometimes engage in exaggeratedly heterosexual behavior in the hopes that it will change them. But if you twits knew a single thing about neurochemistry, you might know that sexual preference is typically fixed and immutable. So eventually they come to terms with who they are and out themselves to friends and family.
@165: Okay, people should use condoms. It's common sense, and you're often asking for trouble if you don't (whether UTIs or unwanted pregnancy). Your point?
Where the fuck did anyone call pedophilia a habit? You are out of your ever-loving mind. If you are hearing voices or reading words that are not there, you may want to seek psychiatric assistance. And since you think that sexual preference is changeable: BY READING THIS YOU HAVE RENDERED YOURSELF GAY FOR THE NEXT THIRTY-TWO DAYS.
@166: You guys are so weird! We define homosexuality for you over and over, and you continue to scream "WHAT'S THE DEFINITION, ANYWAY?"
A homosexual is someone who is attracted sexually and romantically only to those of his/her gender.
A bisexual is sexually or romantically attracted to both genders.
A heterosexual is sexually attracted only to those not of his/her gender.
Your list of four "not gay" scenarios:
Pederast, may be of any sexuality.
Probably bisexual, possibly closeted gay.
May be of any sexuality, but due to the makeup of population, usually heterosexual.
Who the fuck knows? Vote republican, though, and if you're gay you're probably closeted.
By the way, if you've ever read the actual Harry Potter books, you'll know that Dumbledore knew about his orientation from a fairly young age (hence his youthful infatuation with Grindelwald).
You have also used up your quota of "scare quotes".
@167: Both of you are actually quite slow indeed, not to mention touched-in-the-head. Dingo and I have been defining homosexuality for about a full day now and you two still haven't parsed it.
More...
@164: Ever heard of a recessive gene? But that's beside the point; not all biologically innate characteristics are genetically linked. It's not just our genes that are important: it's how they're expressed early in life and how our bodies develop. If everything was genetic, then the identical twin (exact same genome) of a schizophrenic would also suffer from the disorder. But in fact, the opposite tends to be true.
So...you are entirely unfamiliar with the concept of being closeted. Let me put it this way: adolescents who are slowly realizing that they are gay are often uncomfortable with it. So what do they do? They sometimes engage in exaggeratedly heterosexual behavior in the hopes that it will change them. But if you twits knew a single thing about neurochemistry, you might know that sexual preference is typically fixed and immutable. So eventually they come to terms with who they are and out themselves to friends and family.
@165: Okay, people should use condoms. It's common sense, and you're often asking for trouble if you don't (whether UTIs or unwanted pregnancy). Your point?
Where the fuck did anyone call pedophilia a habit? You are out of your ever-loving mind. If you are hearing voices or reading words that are not there, you may want to seek psychiatric assistance. And since you think that sexual preference is changeable: BY READING THIS YOU HAVE RENDERED YOURSELF GAY FOR THE NEXT THIRTY-TWO DAYS.
@166: You guys are so weird! We define homosexuality for you over and over, and you continue to scream "WHAT'S THE DEFINITION, ANYWAY?"
A homosexual is someone who is attracted sexually and romantically only to those of his/her gender.
A bisexual is sexually or romantically attracted to both genders.
A heterosexual is sexually attracted only to those not of his/her gender.
Your list of four "not gay" scenarios:
Pederast, may be of any sexuality.
Probably bisexual, possibly closeted gay.
May be of any sexuality, but due to the makeup of population, usually heterosexual.
Who the fuck knows? Vote republican, though, and if you're gay you're probably closeted.
By the way, if you've ever read the actual Harry Potter books, you'll know that Dumbledore knew about his orientation from a fairly young age (hence his youthful infatuation with Grindelwald).
You have also used up your quota of "scare quotes".
@167: Both of you are actually quite slow indeed, not to mention touched-in-the-head. Dingo and I have been defining homosexuality for about a full day now and you two still haven't parsed it.
170
@venmolash
165 is a reply to 163. It should make more sense in context, and I was not saying that pedophilia was habit, but attacking the original statement that called it one. I think I can last 32 days, though.
@168
The magic taint that you think spawns during gay sex is deterred by condoms fairly well. And if your assumptions came from the CDC like your statistics did... well... You wouldn't really be a troll.
Especially the part about Complacency about Risk and Social Discrimination Issues, if we're reading the same pdf. Condoms work wonders, but most countries are still ignorant about STDs. People think pregnancy is the only thing to worry about, and we know there's NO problems with unwanted pregnancies... My high school health class three years ago covered HIV/AIDS for, at best, 5 minutes and I can't remember an instance since where it been brought up in any other major way.
165 is a reply to 163. It should make more sense in context, and I was not saying that pedophilia was habit, but attacking the original statement that called it one. I think I can last 32 days, though.
@168
The magic taint that you think spawns during gay sex is deterred by condoms fairly well. And if your assumptions came from the CDC like your statistics did... well... You wouldn't really be a troll.
Especially the part about Complacency about Risk and Social Discrimination Issues, if we're reading the same pdf. Condoms work wonders, but most countries are still ignorant about STDs. People think pregnancy is the only thing to worry about, and we know there's NO problems with unwanted pregnancies... My high school health class three years ago covered HIV/AIDS for, at best, 5 minutes and I can't remember an instance since where it been brought up in any other major way.
171
@170: My sincere apologies; I had thought you were that ass bastard Alleged. May I suggest signing up, though? Not to be pushy, but, like you said, the anonymous posting does get a wee bit confusing. Ciao.
172
I will say that as someone who has the distinct displeasure to diagnose many gay men with new HIV infections and stds, that I no longer believe that lack of outreach is a sufficient explanation. All these men knew how HIV was transmitted before they got infected. Just the other day I treated a 27 year old for his second episode of disseminated syphilis, and he openly talked out shooting IV crystal and how he was finally getting his syphilis treated because it was getting hard to hide the lesions at his job.
As a gay man myself, I guess I had a vested interest in believing that we were just as responsible as anyone else, and that all those horrible infections were the result of marginalization, of misinformation, of a conspiracy of deliberate neglect, etc. You know what? These things aren't the main problem. We all live with risk, and we all take risks sometimes - but numbers like these can't be explained away by a few mishaps. The problem is character. And as we all know, character can't be fixed.
As a gay man myself, I guess I had a vested interest in believing that we were just as responsible as anyone else, and that all those horrible infections were the result of marginalization, of misinformation, of a conspiracy of deliberate neglect, etc. You know what? These things aren't the main problem. We all live with risk, and we all take risks sometimes - but numbers like these can't be explained away by a few mishaps. The problem is character. And as we all know, character can't be fixed.
173
If you're a person whose job it is to deal with people newly diagnosed with and seeking treatment for STIs, #172, then I sincerely hope you get out of that field as soon as possible. I can understand the personal view that someone who abuses drugs is a fool, but your job as someone in the medical community is not to judge patients personally, and anyone who sees being infected with HIV as a character flaw shouldn't have anything to do with people who may be in that unfortunate position.
174
Actually, @173, our job is to treat all patients with the same standard of medical care, even when we have very negative (or positive) feelings toward an individual. It is not to eschew personal views altogether, as long as we keep our mouths shut on the job. Even the ethics geeks (who sit behind desks all day and opine and never actually treat patients themselves) realize that it's simply not possible to force oneself to have no opinion. Sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of situation.
For the record, I don't see "being infected with HIV as a character flaw" in and of itself. I live with someone who is positive. But I do think how you get there can indicate something about your character, and the surge of young gay men getting infected over the last 5 years (all of whom know the facts) simply don't care and probably never will.
For the record, I don't see "being infected with HIV as a character flaw" in and of itself. I live with someone who is positive. But I do think how you get there can indicate something about your character, and the surge of young gay men getting infected over the last 5 years (all of whom know the facts) simply don't care and probably never will.
175
@173
Do you think someone who knowingly engages in high risk behavior and refuses to use protection has a character flaw?
Do you think someone with an STD who does not use protection and places others at risk has a character flaw?
Do you think someone who knowingly engages in high risk behavior and refuses to use protection has a character flaw?
Do you think someone with an STD who does not use protection and places others at risk has a character flaw?
176
Isn't that what I said, #174? That your job isn't to have a personal opinion of patients and your opinions shouldn't come into the care you give them?
For the record, I don't see "being infected with HIV as a character flaw" in and of itself. I live with someone who is positive. But I do think how you get there can indicate something about your character, and the surge of young gay men getting infected over the last 5 years (all of whom know the facts) simply don't care and probably never will.
The more you keep saying the worse you sound.
For the record, I don't see "being infected with HIV as a character flaw" in and of itself. I live with someone who is positive. But I do think how you get there can indicate something about your character, and the surge of young gay men getting infected over the last 5 years (all of whom know the facts) simply don't care and probably never will.
The more you keep saying the worse you sound.
177
@176
Do you think someone who knowingly engages in high risk behavior and refuses to use protection has a character flaw?
Do you think someone with an STD who does not use protection and places others at risk has a character flaw?
.
Do you think someone who knowingly engages in high risk behavior and refuses to use protection has a character flaw?
Do you think someone with an STD who does not use protection and places others at risk has a character flaw?
.
178
@Alleged: Not everyone who contracts HIV has character flaws explaining it. People might catch HIV from a one-time very unlucky drunken hook-up. Does one drunken hook-up make someone a bad person? Not unless you're a fanatic. Suppose someone is in a committed relationship with an HIV-negative person and does not use protection. Well, what if their partner makes a Poor Life Choice and cheats on them with someone who does have HIV (without knowing it), or uses a dirty needle to do drugs? If they then catch it from their scumbag of a sexual partner, does that make them a bad person? It's a little bit ridiculous to condemn anyone who happens to be exposed to a destructive illness. It's like saying that anyone who catches mononucleosis is a slut; there are ways to catch it besides those bodily fluids. STFU.
179
@178
Do you think someone who knowingly engages in high risk behavior and refuses to use protection has a character flaw?
Do you think someone with an STD who does not use protection and places others at risk has a character flaw?
.
Do you think someone who knowingly engages in high risk behavior and refuses to use protection has a character flaw?
Do you think someone with an STD who does not use protection and places others at risk has a character flaw?
.
180
Nope, @ 176, that's not what you said. You said:
1) "your job as someone in the medical community is not to judge patients personally"
and
2) anyone who sees being infected with HIV as a character flaw shouldn't have anything to do with people who may be in that unfortunate position."
But you did not say:
" your opinions shouldn't come into the care you give them." In fact, you didn't even consider the possibility that they couldn't.
And that's my issue with you. Of course it isn't my job to judge patients personally - who gets paid for that? But I do it anyway. All of us do, about everyone. Now, 'judge' is one of those terms that people willfully throw out there because it has a lot of secondary meanings ( 'pass a sentence upon the guilty' or 'come to a formal opinion after consideration,' etc.). The nuance of medical ethics is that you should never, ever let your opinion of someone or their contact affect the level of care that you give them. So I don't. My young man with syphilis and hiv who'd been going to bathhouses for weeks and only decided to get treatment when his lesions spread to his face? Who has ruined his own health and quite likely that of many others? Who knew he had syphilis (because he'd already had it before) and kept having sex without condoms? I treated him with 2.4 million units of bicillin and referred him to our substance abuse and HIV and mental health clinics, where they'd treat him for free. I offered to help him contact his partners (he said no thanks). So I treated him prophylactically for a potential Jarish-Herxheimer reaction and sent him home. I treated him right. But I do not think of him as a good, honorable person. Fucked up at best, unbelievably cruel at worst.
And that's the assumption you're making: that even thinking negatively about someone is the same thing as mistreating them. It's an assumption I see among the non-medical populace a lot, especially among people who seroconverted doing something stupid when they should have known better.
More...
1) "your job as someone in the medical community is not to judge patients personally"
and
2) anyone who sees being infected with HIV as a character flaw shouldn't have anything to do with people who may be in that unfortunate position."
But you did not say:
" your opinions shouldn't come into the care you give them." In fact, you didn't even consider the possibility that they couldn't.
And that's my issue with you. Of course it isn't my job to judge patients personally - who gets paid for that? But I do it anyway. All of us do, about everyone. Now, 'judge' is one of those terms that people willfully throw out there because it has a lot of secondary meanings ( 'pass a sentence upon the guilty' or 'come to a formal opinion after consideration,' etc.). The nuance of medical ethics is that you should never, ever let your opinion of someone or their contact affect the level of care that you give them. So I don't. My young man with syphilis and hiv who'd been going to bathhouses for weeks and only decided to get treatment when his lesions spread to his face? Who has ruined his own health and quite likely that of many others? Who knew he had syphilis (because he'd already had it before) and kept having sex without condoms? I treated him with 2.4 million units of bicillin and referred him to our substance abuse and HIV and mental health clinics, where they'd treat him for free. I offered to help him contact his partners (he said no thanks). So I treated him prophylactically for a potential Jarish-Herxheimer reaction and sent him home. I treated him right. But I do not think of him as a good, honorable person. Fucked up at best, unbelievably cruel at worst.
And that's the assumption you're making: that even thinking negatively about someone is the same thing as mistreating them. It's an assumption I see among the non-medical populace a lot, especially among people who seroconverted doing something stupid when they should have known better.
181
It amounts to the same thing, #180. It's nice to hear that the judgements you make about your patients' moral character doesn't interfere with the treatment you give them, but anybody who writes things like "I don't see being infected with HIV as a character flaw in and of itself," and "the problem [with rates of HIV infection among gay men] is character. And as we all know, character can't be fixed" shouldn't be in that particular branch of the profession.
182
@181
Do you think someone who knowingly engages in high risk behavior and refuses to use protection has a character flaw?
Do you think someone with an STD who does not use protection and places others at risk has a character flaw?
.
Do you think someone who knowingly engages in high risk behavior and refuses to use protection has a character flaw?
Do you think someone with an STD who does not use protection and places others at risk has a character flaw?
.
183
@182:
Not necessarily. Sometimes essentially good people with good habits make bad decisions, especially in their youth. The judgment centers of the brain are thought not to mature until the mid-20s, so otherwise responsible people are more prone to doing stupid shit when they're younger.
Basically, when you generalize, you usually make a faulty assumption: that ALL examples are essentially identical.
NOW will you shut the fuck up and die?
Not necessarily. Sometimes essentially good people with good habits make bad decisions, especially in their youth. The judgment centers of the brain are thought not to mature until the mid-20s, so otherwise responsible people are more prone to doing stupid shit when they're younger.
Basically, when you generalize, you usually make a faulty assumption: that ALL examples are essentially identical.
NOW will you shut the fuck up and die?
184
Engaging in risky behaviour is not a "character flaw," whatever that even means.
If you're talking about issues of morality and ethics, obviously it should go without saying that exposing someone to or deliberately trying to infect someone with a disease is wrong.
If you're talking about issues of morality and ethics, obviously it should go without saying that exposing someone to or deliberately trying to infect someone with a disease is wrong.
186
There you go, 185. You've been waiting a long time to bust that one out haven't you. Feel better now?
187
There you go, 185. You've been waiting a long time to bust that one out haven't you. Feel better now?
188
There you go, 185. You've been waiting a long time to bust that one out haven't you. Feel better now?
190
@189: "evidently" implies there's some evidence suggesting that. It seems to me like whenever you have nothing to say, you just spout off the first batshit insane thing that comes to mind. For the sake of all our sanities, please shut the fuck up, Alleged.
192
This is a 'hype' article by the NYT. A study done in the area where gay men move to to have more sex, the largest 'legacy' population of gay male couples, no indication of how many of these couples are licensed with the state or even how they were selected to be in this study. It says nothing about 'marriage' gay or straight, and the people doing the study sound like they might have an agenda from the few sound bites included (though I am sure they were also chosen to titillate from a larger body of statements too)
Just someone taking a stick to a hornet nest just to see what happens...
Just someone taking a stick to a hornet nest just to see what happens...
193
My feelings concerning monogamy is this, That people of the legal age of consent should be able to do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt the people involved. I also believe that what me and my spouse do in our own 2500 sq foot home is our business, and no one straight or other wise should mind my business. My spouse and I got men got married in october of 2008, Because we love each other and I didn't want to take the chance of he and I missing out on this milestone here in the San Francisco bay area. I will celebrate my 50th birthday on April 10, 2010. The reason that this is of great importance is the fact that we have been together 28yrs this june, In a monogamous relationship and have not be apart more than three weeks in nearly thirty years. It should not a thing called Anti-gay marriage because I repeat its no ones business. The last time I looked I was a adult.
I believe indeed that we should have the same rights as straight people, we pay the biggest portion of the Tax, And get absolutely nothing in return. We are to responsible citizens, We work in our community and church and are well respected for the most part. I believe that the argument about gays destroying the institution of marriage is a bunch of crap.
You or no one else can destroy anything I repeat anything in my life or marriage unless we allow them to so. With that said, treat other as you would have done unto you.
Peace & Love,
R.L.B.
I believe indeed that we should have the same rights as straight people, we pay the biggest portion of the Tax, And get absolutely nothing in return. We are to responsible citizens, We work in our community and church and are well respected for the most part. I believe that the argument about gays destroying the institution of marriage is a bunch of crap.
You or no one else can destroy anything I repeat anything in my life or marriage unless we allow them to so. With that said, treat other as you would have done unto you.
Peace & Love,
R.L.B.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (193) RSS