Vindication

[Azure Dragon]

A columnist for the school paper did a piece on HIV and safe sex awhile back, and he mentioned that although he's not proud to say the 60 men he's been with did not equate to 60 used condoms, he still gets tested once a year and so far they've all come back negative. That's not the only thing that came back negative though, as he apparently got a lot of flack from readers for being "promiscuous" and another gay man wrote to the paper denouncing the writer, saying we're not all whores blah blah blah, sex should mean something blah blah blah, you get the idea.

 

I don't care to argue promiscuity. Whether or not you screw everything that moves is beside the point. We all know the majority of gay men get around or at least want to, and it seemed like this guy was upset because someone wasn't above pointing this out since it confirmed a stereotype. I see people get on this high horse all the time, thinking they need to vindicate the community, or themselves. Ever read a guy's profile on myspace or somewhere and he spends like 5 paragraphs saying that he's gay but he's not feminine and doesn't like Cher, A&F, musicals, etc? IMO, these people are just as bad at stereotyping us as the right-wingers are. It seems pointless for us to try to "prove" ourselves. You won't change anyone's mind and the people who do support you already did in the first place. I do believe in educating people, but if they're willing to listen, then they're already where we want them to be. Maybe I'm missing something though; any thoughts on this?

[Tiger]

I have my own opinions about people who are promiscuous regardless of their sexual orientation, and quite frankly it's not a high one. At the same time, I am not one to judge others for what they do in the bedroom. If they're not sleeping with me, it's none of my business. If they are, then that's a different story all together. I do strongly urge people to get tested even if they are supposed to be in a monogamous relationship, because sometimes partners cheat. I'm not going to pull a self-righteous rant on those who do sleep around though. I have a lot more important things to worry about than who John Doe is sleeping with. I'm also not a perfect angel. Before people go around and get pissed off about what others are doing, they need to check the skeletons in their own closets.

[Gregoire]

As far as I'm concerned the stereotypes exist for a reason, but if you're doing something with you life and you know it, then you're above all of that. You can prove it to other people if you want to, but first you have to convince yourself that you're not somebody worth being ashamed of. You know, that you deserve to have sex if you want to, just like everybody else (has the right to, not does), that you have the right to be proud of who you are; you have the right to be anything you want: a doctor, a compy nerd, a rock star, or even just a flamer.

 

You're a people just like they're a people. So if you have to prove anything let it be to the people who count.

 

Besides everybody's closed their eyes and...yeah, you know where I'm going with this.

 

I probably should have stopped a little while ago...

K, bye.

 

P.S. I know I'm constantly looking for vindication, but I know that I don't need it. Do you?

Edited April 19, 2008 by Mr. Greg

[rknapp]

If someone incorrectly assumes something about me because of some stereotype and voices it, I'll be sure to correct them. Otherwise I don't go around saying, "I'm this, but I don't do this, this, and this." It's not worth the effort.

[AFriendlyFace]

A columnist for the school paper did a piece on HIV and safe sex awhile back, and he mentioned that although he's not proud to say the 60 men he's been with did not equate to 60 used condoms, he still gets tested once a year and so far they've all come back negative. That's not the only thing that came back negative though, as he apparently got a lot of flack from readers for being "promiscuous" and another gay man wrote to the paper denouncing the writer, saying we're not all whores blah blah blah, sex should mean something blah blah blah, you get the idea.

 

I don't care to argue promiscuity. Whether or not you screw everything that moves is beside the point. We all know the majority of gay men get around or at least want to, and it seemed like this guy was upset because someone wasn't above pointing this out since it confirmed a stereotype. I see people get on this high horse all the time, thinking they need to vindicate the community, or themselves. Ever read a guy's profile on myspace or somewhere and he spends like 5 paragraphs saying that he's gay but he's not feminine and doesn't like Cher, A&F, musicals, etc? IMO, these people are just as bad at stereotyping us as the right-wingers are. It seems pointless for us to try to "prove" ourselves. You won't change anyone's mind and the people who do support you already did in the first place. I do believe in educating people, but if they're willing to listen, then they're already where we want them to be. Maybe I'm missing something though; any thoughts on this?

 

 

I pretty much completely agree with you on all points.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less how many or how few guys the author (or anyone else) has slept with, and the only think I might have criticised him for IS the fact that his 60 guys don't equal 60 condoms. THAT, in my personal opinion is pretty stupid and careless in today's times (for anyone, but especially for someone who's obviously having casual sex), but I'm not going to get on my safe sex soap box right now, and while that sort of thing does disappoint me and tick me off, unless I have a personal attachment to the person even there I try to mind my own business.

 

I also find cheating to be particularly reprehensible, but if he was single and so were the people he was messing with (or they had some sort of 'arrangement' within their relationships about this sort of thing - not that I would want or tolerate such an arrangement for myself but if other people want to set up their relationships that way more power to them) then yeah, it's his business not mine.

 

Anyway to be blunt my opinion of someone who's had 60 (or more) partners and been diligent about safe sex, not cheated on anyone, and stayed within the confines of what was comfortable for both (or more) people involved is alot higher than my opinion of someone who's only had 6 partners (or less), been reckless and careless about safe sex, screwed around, and/or forced themselves on people or otherwise taken advantage.

 

Just my thoughts, and I also think the important thing is to move on with your future in a productive, positive way, not to dwell on the past or keep making mistakes because 'you've already failed'.

 

Anyway, to directly answer the question (lol imagine than! ) my response would be much like Robbie's: I won't go around going off on people for erroneously assuming things about me, but I'll correct them if they do.

 

Take care all and have a great day

-Kevin

[corvus]

IMO, these people are just as bad at stereotyping us as the right-wingers are. It seems pointless for us to try to "prove" ourselves. You won't change anyone's mind and the people who do support you already did in the first place. I do believe in educating people, but if they're willing to listen, then they're already where we want them to be. Maybe I'm missing something though; any thoughts on this?

 

I disagree with the part I've bolded. I think you can change people's minds, even they don't seem open to change. Sure, the rednecks in homophobic Bible belts probably won't be welcoming gays with open arms any time soon, but if gays exude an image of good Christian faith and home spun values, those good old Baptists would have a much harder time justifying their hatred. (Of course, that's not going to happen any time soon -- unless gay love happens in a socially normative institution, such as marriage, it'll be renegade; and unless it's socially normative, it won't be institutionalized. That's why not being "out" is harmful to gays everywhere -- it maintains homosexuality as a marginal, otherized issue.)

 

The above wasn't really convincing. But I do think people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are good examples of people who headed "positive" change -- in other words, actively tried to prove the worth of their identities -- in other words, "themselves."

 

Actually, the degree to which I agree/disagree depends a lot on how everything is defined, haha.

[Tiger]

I disagree with the part I've bolded. I think you can change people's minds, even they don't seem open to change. Sure, the rednecks in homophobic Bible belts probably won't be welcoming gays with open arms any time soon, but if gays exude an image of good Christian faith and home spun values, those good old Baptists would have a much harder time justifying their hatred.

 

Actually, the degree to which I agree/disagree depends a lot on how everything is defined, haha.

Sorry corvus, but I think Baptists are far from a good example of morality. I have no desire to act like them, because, quite frankly, I have higher moral standards than that.

 

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. -John 13:34

Any church that does not live up to that standard has no credibility as a moral authority. Now, I might consider the Episcopalians or the Unitarians, but I refuse to defend any bigotted church.

[Menzoberranzen]

Never explain yourself. Your friends don't need it, and your enemies wont believe you anyway. I ask no one's approval, and I don't justify the stereotypes I fit or don't fit.

 

Menzo

[Tiger]

Never explain yourself. Your friends don't need it, and your enemies wont believe you anyway. I ask no one's approval, and I don't justify the stereotypes I fit or don't fit.

 

Menzo

Well said! I don't care what Xian fundies think. They'll always be bigots. The only exception might be parents, but when it comes down to it, if parents do not accept it, then they're really not worth your time either.

[Procyon]

A columnist for the school paper did a piece on HIV and safe sex awhile back, and he mentioned that although he's not proud to say the 60 men he's been with did not equate to 60 used condoms, he still gets tested once a year and so far they've all come back negative. That's not the only thing that came back negative though, as he apparently got a lot of flack from readers for being "promiscuous" and another gay man wrote to the paper denouncing the writer, saying we're not all whores blah blah blah, sex should mean something blah blah blah, you get the idea.

 

I don't care to argue promiscuity. Whether or not you screw everything that moves is beside the point. We all know the majority of gay men get around or at least want to, and it seemed like this guy was upset because someone wasn't above pointing this out since it confirmed a stereotype. I see people get on this high horse all the time, thinking they need to vindicate the community, or themselves. Ever read a guy's profile on myspace or somewhere and he spends like 5 paragraphs saying that he's gay but he's not feminine and doesn't like Cher, A&F, musicals, etc? IMO, these people are just as bad at stereotyping us as the right-wingers are. It seems pointless for us to try to "prove" ourselves. You won't change anyone's mind and the people who do support you already did in the first place. I do believe in educating people, but if they're willing to listen, then they're already where we want them to be. Maybe I'm missing something though; any thoughts on this?

 

You're raising a lot of different issues here. I agree that people who keep pointing out how 'un-gay' they are aren't doing the gay community a lot of good, and not themselves either, really. Most 'gay' traits are actually something positive, so denying them isn't really a good thing and says more about the person who feels the need to do so than about the gay community in general. Saying 'I'm gay but I don't like... [insert gay icon of choice]', or listing 'gay' traits that one doesn't have, only gives people a negative image of the person in question since they're defining themselves by saying what they're not.

 

But there is a reason that people feel the need to assert that they aren't 'like that', ie, like (some of) the gay stereotypes. For instance, I think gay people might be marginally more prone to wanting to sleep around than straight males and females (though actually, now that I write this, I doubt that there's even a marginal difference) so the image of gay people as being irresponsibly promiscuous is totally unfounded and really doesn't do the gay community a lot of good. In fact, it's doing it a lot of harm -- it makes gays seem superficial, irresponsible, and childish, and that is to those of us who didn't grow up with strict religious values. So I think it's only natural to want to correct that misconception, and there's no harm in doing it either. Of course gays want to sleep around, but it's not a specifically gay thing, it's the same with everyone.

 

And yes, I do think that kind of thing affects the way straight people view gays. The whole waving-around-dildos thing does not promote understanding of the gay community, and now I'm talking about those straight people who are willing to listen -- the idea that gays focus much more on sex than straight people 'otherises' gays to 'ordinary' straight people who don't actually want to be prejudiced, and maybe that doesn't matter so much in general, but when these straight people are suddenly faced with a close friend who turns out to be gay, or the fact that their child is gay, it makes the process of accepting that much harder -- harder for both, not just the straight person, since there's suddenly all these obstacles (misconceptions) in the way. It's like some wall of non-understanding that's suddenly come between the two persons, out of the blue.

 

But that doesn't mean that one columnist shouldn't be allowed to state that he's been sleeping around -- that would border on censorship. The thing about columnists is that they base their writing on personal views and experiences, and this was himself he was talking about, which is perfectly fine. At the same time, though, I think it was pretty childish of this person to have to mention numbers -- he could have said the same thing without bragging about how he managed to sleep with 60 people, that was a bit pathetic. But since it was a school paper I guess he was at the height of puberty and his bragging hormones peaking as he wrote.

 

I guess the most important thing, though, is trying to understand and make people understand, not correcting misconceptions. But still, misconceptions can be a rather big obstacle sometimes, especially if you don't have anyone who can help you understand...

[Azure Dragon]

But since it was a school paper I guess he was at the height of puberty and his bragging hormones peaking as he wrote.

It really didn't come across as bragging, he just stated it as a matter of fact and that's what I respected about it. Something I said in a response is that I don't think promiscuity is a gay thing, it's a male thing. Most straight guys would love to say they've slept with 60 girls by age 20, but it rarely works out that way.

[Procyon]

It really didn't come across as bragging, he just stated it as a matter of fact and that's what I respected about it. Something I said in a response is that I don't think promiscuity is a gay thing, it's a male thing. Most straight guys would love to say they've slept with 60 girls by age 20, but it rarely works out that way.

 

Yeah it's hard to tell when you haven't read the article, of course. It might have been a really good one, and stating how many people you've had sex with definitely isn't wrong as such.

 

And -- do most guys really want to have slept with 60 people (girls or boys) by age 20? I don't get that impression, I have to say, although I guess that they wouldn't tell a woman. But still, most men I know don't come across that way at all. Or do you mean they'd just like to be able to say it, not actually have done it? I didn't get that impression either, but what do I know... maybe guys are just great at hiding that side of themselves.

[Azure Dragon]

LOL it never did occur to me to post a link. Here.

[AFriendlyFace]

(Of course, that's not going to happen any time soon -- unless gay love happens in a socially normative institution, such as marriage, it'll be renegade; and unless it's socially normative, it won't be institutionalized. That's why not being "out" is harmful to gays everywhere -- it maintains homosexuality as a marginal, otherized issue.)

EXACTLY!

 

I'm fine with and understanding of people who are in the closet for very valid reasons that would relate to their safety and security, but it seems to me that the majority of closeted people don't have a very good reason and are instead just looking for justification.

 

I have a friend who until recently wasn't 'out' at work, but believe me he wasn't fooling anyone and I can say this confidently because I actually met and interacted with his co-workers and saw him relate to them. There's no way anyone didn't know, and it also wasn't risky for him to be out, but he still wouldn't do it until one of them finally point blank brought it up. My reaction was, "GREAT!". He was irritated that the person would do that.

 

Normally, I'm all about people's coming out process being exclusively about them and allowing them to wait and do it at their own pace, but there comes a point where it just gets a little ridiculous. He wasn't in any kind of danger, he wasn't 'struggling' with his sexuality (he's very out in other aspects of his life), and everyone knew anyway. As far as I'm concerned he had no excuse for not doing it sooner and setting a positive example by being open about it.

 

Sorry corvus, but I think Baptists are far from a good example of morality. I have no desire to act like them, because, quite frankly, I have higher moral standards than that.

Let's be careful not to lump them all together. I've known quite a few gay friendly and accepting Baptists and one of the Baptists churches in town had a vigil service recently to honour and commemorate the victim of a gay hate crime. It really all comes down to the particular denomination of Baptists as well as their geographic area.

 

I also have a friend who regularly attends a liberal Baptist church with his boyfriend, and they're quite open about the nature of their relationship.

 

Never explain yourself. Your friends don't need it, and your enemies wont believe you anyway. I ask no one's approval, and I don't justify the stereotypes I fit or don't fit.

Well said.

 

I forgot to quote Procyon's original post in this thread, but I have to say I think it was incredibly thoughtful and spot-on!

 

Something I said in a response is that I don't think promiscuity is a gay thing, it's a male thing. Most straight guys would love to say they've slept with 60 girls by age 20, but it rarely works out that way.

I agree, it is more of a 'male' thing than a straight/gay thing, and of course it's not every male, but as has often been pointed out quite a few straight guys would sleep around a great deal more as well if women were as inclined to have casual sex as males in general often are. (Only 'often' not 'always')

 

Anyway, my surprise would stem instead from the fact that the guy had actually had that many partners and kept track. Are so many people really inclined to keep a count of their encounters? Especially when it reaches a higher number that can't easily be determined by simply thinking about it. I mean it's easy to keep track if you've been with less than 4 or 5 people, but unless you actually are writing it down or otherwise keeping some sort of a list, I can't imagine knowing you've had 60 versus 50 or 70.

 

 

Take care all and have a great day

Kevin

[Tiger]

Let's be careful not to lump them all together. I've known quite a few gay friendly and accepting Baptists and one of the Baptists churches in town had a vigil service recently to honour and commemorate the victim of a gay hate crime. It really all comes down to the particular denomination of Baptists as well as their geographic area.

 

I also have a friend who regularly attends a liberal Baptist church with his boyfriend, and they're quite open about the nature of their relationship.

Well, I'm speaking mostly of the brand of Baptists in my area. They're far from gay friendly. I guess that's the disadvantage of living in a rural area like I do. The ones here are just as homophobic as they can be. I tend to say that the safest churches are the Episcopalian Church and the Unitarian Church. Unfortunately, the closest Episcopalian Church is almost an hour away from here.