Flux

[Westie]

I think it's ridiculous to suggest that gay men didn't used to be monogamous or relationship types.

 

The QAF image of sexually confident and promiscuous gay men of course exists, and it is a product of a sidelined community being pushed together in one place, and forming their own societies to cope with mainstream pushing them out.  Put a load of hot horny men in one place and you will get one outcome.  

 

Given that those clusters and groups of gay men were also the most vocal in arguing for rights and protections, it is hardly surprising that an image in the mainstream media grew of a certain "gay lifestyle".  But just like straight people, there are gay people who like clubs and those who don't.  There are gym bunnies and home bodies.  There are extroverts and introverts.

 

There are a huge number of gay people who are now coming to prominence because its more and more safe to do so, who effectively "mainstreamed" in society.  They went about their normal lives each day and didn't allow one facet of themselves define everything about them.  I knew a couple growing up, who were completely usual in every way except that they were two men living together.  And as I have got older, it seems that the vast majority of gay people I know are not those that shout loud and proud that they are gay.  They aren't the kind of people who attend pride events.  They are just normal, non-descript people going about their daily lives who happen to come home and sleep with another person of the same sex.

[Henson]

Well, first I don't want you to feel like I'm arguing with you.  I just was wondering if we weren't speaking from the same frame of reference, because that precision of language is important to understanding.  To me, the connotation of the word monogamy lies in the long term commitment, the "settling down" that others referred to.  I know a lot of people who date one person, and focus on one person, for a few weeks or months, but I'm not sure I'd categorize them as monogamous in the sense of the word I'm accustomed to.  To me, monogamy implies that the person has found "the one."  I'm starting to doubt you meant it quite that way.

 

I'm an engineer, and we have periods at work where people will sit across from each other and "aggressively agree."  They argue up a storm, never realizing that they fundamentally agree with each other.  I was wondering if this may not be one of those times, is all...

 

Don't be afraid of disagreement.  It's from disagreements that solutions and innovations are born.  After my 15 years of working in or with the military, you certainly won't hurt my feelings by telling me you have a different point of view.  Given the typically spirited dialogue here I suspect most here would say the same.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Henson

[methodwriter85]

 

Speaking of folks, I loved QAF but I often feel that it did us ( gay people) a bit of a damage in how some in the straight world saw us.Like you said it represented  nothing about my life either, yet it was the only window into the gay world that a lot of straight people got to see up to that point. Thankfully, there are a lot more windows open now. And no, I am not on a soapbox about it...it is just an observation.

 

    I think what I was trying to say, and apparently didn't really do a good job of saying, was that Queer as Folk represented and reflected a certain reality and created a perception that this was the main way gay men conducted themselves, even if that wasn't true for everybody.

 

     You gotta remember that as an impressionable 16-year old gay kid, this image imprinted on me. It was reinforced by the fact that my sister promoted Philly raves back in the 2001-2003 era, and the whole gay circuit raver boy with frosted hair tips and glitter clothing was the type of gay guy she knew, and introduced me to. You made me think about why I perceived things that way, and I think that's why- I really did buy into the whole Queer as Folk image being what gay guys were like, and it wasn't helped by the fact that the older men I was trying to hook up with online as a 16-year old reinforced that image. I think I knew exactly two low-key gay guys at this period in my life. Everyone else I knew ranted and raved about going off to hit the Philly gay clubs and wore a shit ton of glitter.

 

      It's why seeing two normal-looking college guys on a casual pizza date was eye-opening for me, when I was 17. I actually wrote about that here if you're interested in reading it:

 

      I'm From Newark, DE

 

     Funny enough, the illustrator pictured me as blond, like my namesake JJ. LOL. Although JJ would NEVER wear a t-shirt, unless it cost like 500 dollars and was made by Dior. I also would probably bet he hasn't touched a slice of pizza in months.

 

      I do think what's beyond debate here is that the rise in gay marriage and gay adoptions HAVE changed perceptions, and that we're seeing more different types of GLBT narratives on our screens than what we saw back in 2001, when it was either Will and Grace or Queer as Folk.

 

      Over on the Fosters, which features a married lesbian couple who foster teenaged kids, they're having a storyline where a middle school-aged kid is questioning his feelings for his best friend. That would have NEVER been on American t.v. when I was in middle school. The closest we had was a 27-year old man playing a 17-year old boy who chastely pecked a boy on the lips once a year. (If that.) I think what that helps to do is allow for the 12-year old boy who's questioning his sexuality to maybe not feel so alone, and feel more normal. Which is great and why I'm glad there's a lot more windows these days, as you put it.

Edited July 16, 2014 by methodwriter85

[Headstall]

Well, first I don't want you to feel like I'm arguing with you.  I just was wondering if we weren't speaking from the same frame of reference, because that precision of language is important to understanding.  To me, the connotation of the word monogamy lies in the long term commitment, the "settling down" that others referred to.  I know a lot of people who date one person, and focus on one person, for a few weeks or months, but I'm not sure I'd categorize them as monogamous in the sense of the word I'm accustomed to.  To me, monogamy implies that the person has found "the one."  I'm starting to doubt you meant it quite that way.

 

I'm an engineer, and we have periods at work where people will sit across from each other and "aggressively agree."  They argue up a storm, never realizing that they fundamentally agree with each other.  I was wondering if this may not be one of those times, is all...

 

Don't be afraid of disagreement.  It's from disagreements that solutions and innovations are born.  After my 15 years of working in or with the military, you certainly won't hurt my feelings by telling me you have a different point of view.  Given the typically spirited dialogue here I suspect most here would say the same.

 

I think this is one of those times. I define myself as a monogamous person..and what this means to me is that while I am with a person, I am only with that person sexually. I can date just like anyone else...the difference is that I am not interested in one night stands...even though I have had a few turn out that way. In general, if there is mutual interest, we confirm that we both are looking for other than just a hookup,get to know each other, and start dating exclusively to see if there is something there to build on. There have been exceptions where we haven't taken the time to get to know one another but we are human after all. I have had relationships ( ??) that have lasted three days and i have had relationships that lasted three weeks...and a few that were only months. So these didn't really turn out to be relationships but the intent to try was there. I have learned that you just can't decide to have a long term relationship...you just have to try with a like minded person and see what happens...if it works then you can decide to settle down, live together or not...whatever you negotiate. Working in a bar, I can't tell you how many times I had to separate young people from one another because someone hit on their boyfriend or they found out their boyfriend cheated or their boyfriend flirted. To me, those guys had rules where they weren't allowed to be with someone else, and in my mind that constitutes monagamy.When I would see the look of feeling betrayed on some of their faces, I would get it...they were supposed to be monogamous.As well, in my definition, monogamy should't end (for me) until the relationship does. But I know of couples who have started out monogamous and ended up opening it up (from what I have seen it usually means doom) and I have seen couples start up open and later realize that they only want to be with each other (from what I have seen this has much better success). I hope that clears up what I consider monogamy. I don't have any kind of opinion on serial monogamists...sometimes it is circumstance and sometimes it is more of a lifestyle that works for them. In fact, I really don't judge any kind of relationship unless it is abusive or someone is doing something for someone that they are not really on board with. By that i mean that nobody should be in a closed relationship to please their partner and nobody should be in an open relationship to please their partner. That just causes resentment and ultimately the pain of feeling like a failure when it ends.

With regards to my admitted obsession of Wade/Matt it would only have worked if they both wanted it. It may work for Wade/Alex (shudder) if they both want it.

I really appreciate this post of yours because along with the other feelings of have been going through, I have been feeling kind of embattled and I am not feeling that way now. Cheers and much respect...Gary

[Kitt]

Gary brings up an interesting point, and I feel it applies to ALL couples, not just gay couples.

 

 I have learned that you just can't decide to have a long term relationship...you just have to try with a like minded person and see what happens...if it works then you can decide to settle down, live together or not...whatever you negotiate. 

 

Back in the 80's when my husband proposed to me we had been dating - exclusively - for more than a year. We hadn't SAID to each other that we were exclusive, it just sort of happened. I asked him why he never asked me to "go steady" as they said back when i was in high school. He seemed to think it was sort of useless since neither of us had any desire to wander.

 

When we set a wedding date more than a year out from our engagement date, everyone asked "Why so long?"   LOL  ANYONE that has ever tried to pull a wedding suitable to make the mother of the bride happy in less than a year will understand. My stock answer became "Whats a year when we plan the rest of our lives together?"

[Mark Arbour]

This whole debate on monogamy and promiscuity has been interesting.  I will say that I have been a bit frustrated, but that stems from my academic background, and from our deviation from solid research methods. 

 

When you write an academic paper, definitions are important, which is why we tediously describe the variables we're including.  We see that here in our different definitions of monogamy.  I'm glad you guys have identified what you mean by that term, because I think that matters in this context.  For me, I've always thought of monogamy as being sexually committed and emotionally involved with only one partner.  That doesn't mean it's the right definition or the only definition, it just means that's where I'm coming from when I talk about it. 

 

The other thing we should do is remember that our own experiences, while totally valid, are also anecdotal.  For our hypothesis, that most gay guys are promiscuous, we need more than stories.  We need data from a broad enough spectrum of people to draw that conclusion.  Those studies are out there, and sometime when I have some spare time, maybe I'll try to find them.  In the meantime, I'm going on the assumption that gay men and lesbians are not different than heterosexual people when it comes to being promiscuous.  

[Bucket1]

 

With regards to my admitted obsession of Wade/Matt it would only have worked if they both wanted it. It may work for Wade/Alex (shudder) if they both want it.

 

 

NOOOOOOOOOOO - you actually said it - with shudder admittedly - but no-one should be suggesting that Alex and Wade would be anything other than a disaster

[Bucket1]

This whole debate on monogamy and promiscuity has been interesting.  I will say that I have been a bit frustrated, but that stems from my academic background, and from our deviation from solid research methods. 

 

When you write an academic paper, definitions are important, which is why we tediously describe the variables we're including.  We see that here in our different definitions of monogamy.  I'm glad you guys have identified what you mean by that term, because I think that matters in this context.  For me, I've always thought of monogamy as being sexually committed and emotionally involved with only one partner.  That doesn't mean it's the right definition or the only definition, it just means that's where I'm coming from when I talk about it. 

 

The other thing we should do is remember that our own experiences, while totally valid, are also anecdotal.  For our hypothesis, that most gay guys are promiscuous, we need more than stories.  We need data from a broad enough spectrum of people to draw that conclusion.  Those studies are out there, and sometime when I have some spare time, maybe I'll try to find them.  In the meantime, I'm going on the assumption that gay men and lesbians are not different than heterosexual people when it comes to being promiscuous.  

 

It's interesting that our discussions have been concentrating on the sexual aspects and not the emotional. I think this is a big difference between Matt and Wade. As a generalisation only - Matt was sexually promiscuous and Wade was sexually and emotionally promiscuous. Carl Haupt was a problem for Wade/Matt because it was really the only time Matt was emotionally involved. Happy to be corrected but if you take Carl out of the picture, Matt had sex, Wade had affairs.

[Headstall]

This whole debate on monogamy and promiscuity has been interesting.  I will say that I have been a bit frustrated, but that stems from my academic background, and from our deviation from solid research methods. 

 

When you write an academic paper, definitions are important, which is why we tediously describe the variables we're including.  We see that here in our different definitions of monogamy.  I'm glad you guys have identified what you mean by that term, because I think that matters in this context.  For me, I've always thought of monogamy as being sexually committed and emotionally involved with only one partner.  That doesn't mean it's the right definition or the only definition, it just means that's where I'm coming from when I talk about it. 

 

The other thing we should do is remember that our own experiences, while totally valid, are also anecdotal.  For our hypothesis, that most gay guys are promiscuous, we need more than stories.  We need data from a broad enough spectrum of people to draw that conclusion.  Those studies are out there, and sometime when I have some spare time, maybe I'll try to find them.  In the meantime, I'm going on the assumption that gay men and lesbians are not different than heterosexual people when it comes to being promiscuous.  

I think your definition of monagamy is perfect in it's simplicity. Compared to yours, mine is somewhat convoluted and confusing (which is why you are a writer and I am not). Different people can take many different ways to get there,but if and when they do, your definition applies exactly.

[Timothy M.]

It's interesting that our discussions have been concentrating on the sexual aspects and not the emotional. I think this is a big difference between Matt and Wade. As a generalisation only - Matt was sexually promiscuous and Wade was sexually and emotionally promiscuous. Carl Haupt was a problem for Wade/Matt because it was really the only time Matt was emotionally involved. Happy to be corrected but if you take Carl out of the picture, Matt had sex, Wade had affairs.

 

You're quite right, but you forget a few important points.

Wade didn't want to be non-monogamous, and he resented Matt for not feeling the same way.

Wade usually only indulged in being with other people, when he was upset with Matt (as far as I recall).

In fact Wade quickly realized that he'd only have sex with guys who'd attract him emotionally, and his affairs had much more potential to be a danger to his relationship with Matt. This made Wade pull away from those guys or he'd include Matt in a threesome, like with Sean and that guy from his childhood, Trevor or something. Kip is probably the only guy Wade managed to have a non-serious fling with.

 

Wade being emotianally attracted to Alex is no threat to his future relationship with Matt. As I've said before, Matt should be happy to know, someone is keeping Wade occupied in Boston, as this prevents him from getting attracted to anyone else. Now that Matt knows Alex isn't a threat in the long run (and I think Wade is spot on in his analysis), he should be even more relieved. And he'll probably get to fuck Wade more often than if they kept to the original deal of visiting once a month. And on top of it we get to see Matt having fun in Chicago - once he's cleared of the HIV scare, of course.

 

So all in all I'd say Wade's personality is a lot more monogamous than Matt.

[mmike1969]

Blah, blah, blah on this monogamous crap. Who else is still doing the death watch dance re: Matt? I can't be the only one.

[Timothy M.]

Blah, blah, blah on this monogamous crap. Who else is still doing the death watch dance re: Matt? I can't be the only one.

 

Nope, you're right. But I think most of us are using the ostrich tactic on this one. Hiding our heads in the sand hoping it'll go away.

 

I'm crossing my fingers that Kitt is right and the antibodies from Matt's kidney problems are still messing up the HIV test, and that further testing will prove Matt to be OK. But it might still be something of a wake up call for the whole CAP family. And Cody and Kevin are still positive and have to deal with it.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Timothy M.

[Kitt]

NOOOOOOOOOOO - you actually said it - with shudder admittedly - but no-one should be suggesting that Alex and Wade would be anything other than a disaster

For fear of putting ideas in Marks head? LOL While I appreciate where you are coming from, (I think an LTR with Alex would flop on its proverbial face) I am quite sure Mark already has his plans in place on this subject. We just need to be patient, keep reading, and find a way not to bite our fingernails down to the quick!

[Bucket1]

You're quite right, but you forget a few important points.

Wade didn't want to be non-monogamous, and he resented Matt for not feeling the same way.

Wade usually only indulged in being with other people, when he was upset with Matt (as far as I recall).

In fact Wade quickly realized that he'd only have sex with guys who'd attract him emotionally, and his affairs had much more potential to be a danger to his relationship with Matt. This made Wade pull away from those guys or he'd include Matt in a threesome, like with Sean and that guy from his childhood, Trevor or something. Kip is probably the only guy Wade managed to have a non-serious fling with.

 

Wade being emotianally attracted to Alex is no threat to his future relationship with Matt. As I've said before, Matt should be happy to know, someone is keeping Wade occupied in Boston, as this prevents him from getting attracted to anyone else. Now that Matt knows Alex isn't a threat in the long run (and I think Wade is spot on in his analysis), he should be even more relieved. And he'll probably get to fuck Wade more often than if they kept to the original deal of visiting once a month. And on top of it we get to see Matt having fun in Chicago - once he's cleared of the HIV scare, of course.

 

So all in all I'd say Wade's personality is a lot more monogamous than Matt.

 

Wow - I love it when someone can look at the same situation and make you see it in a whole new light. Discussion is a pretty powerful thing.

 

Firstly I agree 100% with the comments about Wade and his moderation of his relationships. His affairs were always a potential threat to the Matt/Wade dynamic and he did change the nature of the affair (usually after the Matt conflict died down).

 

Alex does seem to be a placeholder - that was Matt's term which Wade didn't really like (and it was an unkind interpretation). I had been thinking Alex was Wade's placeholder but really he is Matt's. Alex stops Wade from having a real relationship with anyone else. Ouch.

 

On a related subject from the reviews (and Matt's teasing), there was a suggestion of a Matt/Alex/Wade three-way. If it does happen, it will, of course, not turn out as Wade thinks - Matt will not be teaching Alex how to dominate Wade in bed. Alex will want to be in Wade's position. He will dump Wade for Matt (the better lover). Matt will have found someone to love him without all the baggage and will marry Alex in the UK and use surrogacy to maintain the bloodlines.  

[Bucket1]

Nope, you're right. But I think most of us are using the ostrich tactic on this one. Hiding our heads in the sand hoping it'll go away.

 

I'm crossing my fingers that Kitt is right and the antibodies from Matt's kidney problems are still messing up the HIV test, and that further testing will prove Matt to be OK. But it might still be something of a wake up call for the whole CAP family. And Cody and Kevin are still positive and have to deal with it.

 

Guilty as charged - no discussion about the "death watch" - happy to do the ostrich thing. Crossing fingers that Matt is a misdiagnosis but Cody and Kevin can't use the same CAP loophole

[Timothy M.]

On a related subject from the reviews (and Matt's teasing), there was a suggestion of a Matt/Alex/Wade three-way. If it does happen, it will, of course, not turn out as Wade thinks - Matt will not be teaching Alex how to dominate Wade in bed. Alex will want to be in Wade's position.

 

He, he I also noticed the possibility of a three way, with glee. I think it will happen - and be damn hot too. 

 

But the outcome will be to cement the fact that Alex and Wade are friends who fuck and Matt and Wade are a future couple, provided they both develop the way we hope. And Matt's last insecurities will vanish with the knowledge that both Wade and Alex consider him best in bed.

[Headstall]

Wow - I love it when someone can look at the same situation and make you see it in a whole new light. Discussion is a pretty powerful thing.

 

Firstly I agree 100% with the comments about Wade and his moderation of his relationships. His affairs were always a potential threat to the Matt/Wade dynamic and he did change the nature of the affair (usually after the Matt conflict died down).

 

Alex does seem to be a placeholder - that was Matt's term which Wade didn't really like (and it was an unkind interpretation). I had been thinking Alex was Wade's placeholder but really he is Matt's. Alex stops Wade from having a real relationship with anyone else. Ouch.

 

On a related subject from the reviews (and Matt's teasing), there was a suggestion of a Matt/Alex/Wade three-way. If it does happen, it will, of course, not turn out as Wade thinks - Matt will not be teaching Alex how to dominate Wade in bed. Alex will want to be in Wade's position. He will dump Wade for Matt (the better lover). Matt will have found someone to love him without all the baggage and will marry Alex in the UK and use surrogacy to maintain the bloodlines.  

 

 

First of all, Bucket, you are hilarious. I laughed out loud at your three-way comment...so funny. I just want to point out, whether it turns out to be or not,,,what Wade descibes to Matt sure sounds like a real relationship and not to be underestimated IMHO. Cheers and thanks for the laugh...Gary

[Bucket1]

He, he I also noticed the possibility of a three way, with glee. I think it will happen - and be damn hot too. 

 

But the outcome will be to cement the fact that Alex and Wade are friends who fuck and Matt and Wade are a future couple, provided they both develop the way we hope. And Matt's last insecurities will vanish with the knowledge that both Wade and Alex consider him best in bed.

 

I think you are more likely to be right than I was 

[Headstall]

I think you are more likely to be right than I was 

 

In the event of a three-way, from what Wade has said in his POV...If Matt gets near Alex's ass, Alex's squeal will probobly drown out Big Ben     

[Mark Arbour]

In the event of a three-way, from what Wade has said in his POV...If Matt gets near Alex's ass, Alex's squeal will probobly drown out Big Ben     

 

Perhaps. 

[Kitt]

.

 

On a related subject from the reviews (and Matt's teasing), there was a suggestion of a Matt/Alex/Wade three-way. If it does happen, it will, of course, not turn out as Wade thinks - Matt will not be teaching Alex how to dominate Wade in bed. Alex will want to be in Wade's position. He will dump Wade for Matt (the better lover). Matt will have found someone to love him without all the baggage and will marry Alex in the UK and use surrogacy to maintain the bloodlines.  

LMAO !  While the feelings might go that way I am not sure the British Aristocracy is ready for a gay marriage and surrogacy in 2002!

[Westie]

He will dump Wade for Matt (the better lover). Matt will have found someone to love him without all the baggage and will marry Alex in the UK and use surrogacy to maintain the bloodlines.  

He will have to wait until 2014. Moreover, maintaining the bloodlines would require the child to be "legitimate", which is to say that the child would need to be biologically belonging to both people in a marriage. This is one area that equality does not extend to in the UK - unfortunately titles can never pass down through a gay bloodline unless via a legitimisation arrangement - i.e. Marry a beard and have her father your kids.

[methodwriter85]

He will have to wait until 2014. Moreover, maintaining the bloodlines would require the child to be "legitimate", which is to say that the child would need to be biologically belonging to both people in a marriage. This is one area that equality does not extend to in the UK - unfortunately titles can never pass down through a gay bloodline unless via a legitimisation arrangement - i.e. Marry a beard and have her father your kids.

 

  I did not know a beard wife can father kids. The things you learn...

 

   In any event, Wade's right that it's pretty doomed, but I like that he wants to at least enjoy it for a few years instead of planning out the next twenty years of his life, which guys like him tend to do.

[Bucket1]

  I did not know a beard wife can father kids. The things you learn...

 

   In any event, Wade's right that it's pretty doomed, but I like that he wants to at least enjoy it for a few years instead of planning out the next twenty years of his life, which guys like him tend to do.

 

I agree that Wade recognises that it's doomed but isn't the recognition that his relationship with Alex doomed part of his planning for the next twenty years? From the last conversation Wade is back to the 80% chance of being with Matt in the long-term, he is still thinking long-term. Wade might be being a dick and completely fucking things up with his infatuation with Alex but he is still Wade.

 

Has Wade ever asked Matt the question about how likely it will be that they are together in the long-term? As vulnerable as Matt is at the moment Matt would say 100% (or support Wade's estimate of 80%), a good session with Casey or Will to work things through could dramatically change those odds. Chicago better watch out - a sexy horny guy is heading their way.

[Headstall]

I agree that Wade recognises that it's doomed but isn't the recognition that his relationship with Alex doomed part of his planning for the next twenty years? From the last conversation Wade is back to the 80% chance of being with Matt in the long-term, he is still thinking long-term. Wade might be being a dick and completely fucking things up with his infatuation with Alex but he is still Wade.

 

Has Wade ever asked Matt the question about how likely it will be that they are together in the long-term? As vulnerable as Matt is at the moment Matt would say 100% (or support Wade's estimate of 80%), a good session with Casey or Will to work things through could dramatically change those odds. Chicago better watch out - a sexy horny guy is heading their way.

In their original conversation about this, Matt's response to Wade's 80per cent was 85per cent...I think he said something about being more optimistic than Wade in a joking way. I would have agreed before that Matt could be influenced by others about what chances he gave Wade and himself...but this new Matt intrigues me...I think he will listen to advice from these people he trusts but I don't think he blows in the wind like he used to. I think when he makes decisions now, they come from a different place and in this case he would take his cues from Wade and if he decided they weren't meant to be,it would be a decision he couldn't be influenced into by any third party.I think the process of watching him take control of his life is a real thing and I will go out on a limb and say I don't think he will revert. just sayin....