The Gay Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
That Michael Sam thing was neat, except the bit about his dad. That was sad.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2014/story/_/id/10439397/father-michael-sam-struggling-news-son-gay

My husband thinks this story is exciting because Michael Sam is really butch; big and aggressive in stereotypically NFL ways and doesn't have any telltale signs of gayness, ie isn't effeminate. Like, that'll show 'em that gays are just as good as the rest of us! I'm not really sure what I think about that kind of praise, but the part of the interview when he talks about going around with his first boyfriend is super cute.
 
I have zero interest in outing someone, but I'm just going to mention as I did in the NFL thread that Michael Sam is not even the only gay player in this NFL draft class. I'm hopeful that more and more players feel comfortable sooner rather than later.
 
Lots and lots of gay guys are masculine. People just don't think they're gay.

Exactly. And we can somehow praise guys for not setting off the gaydar? That's better somehow, because it's better to be "straight-acting"? Seems fishy.

I have zero interest in outing someone, but I'm just going to mention as I did in the NFL thread that Michael Sam is not even the only gay player in this NFL draft class. I'm hopeful that more and more players feel comfortable sooner rather than later.

I imagine he's not the only gay person in any nfl draft class. Anytime you line up a couple of hundred guys, statistically speaking you must have to get at least 8 or 10, even by conservative estimates.
 
Exactly. And we can somehow praise guys for not setting off the gaydar? That's better somehow, because it's better to be "straight-acting"? Seems fishy.



"Straight-acting" is a term of contention in the gay community.

It strikes me as really distasteful.
 
I've heard a little about this, that many gay men specify that they want "straight acting" partners in personal ads, or advertize themselves as such. What do you think is the deal with this?
 
It's internalized homophobia.

I've never heard of this before, but I'm just wondering, honestly, what makes it internal homophobia and not just a preference? Is it the phrase itself? Such as like when Kanye copped a lot of shit for the "light-skinned girls" line?

I'm sure not every gay man wants to be with a flamboyant person. Which is not to say that every gay man is flamboyant, which is why I can kind of understand making the distinction in a personals ad.

So yeah, I think my question is, is it the taste that's offensive, or the phrase?
 
I imagine he's not the only gay person in any nfl draft class. Anytime you line up a couple of hundred guys, statistically speaking you must have to get at least 8 or 10, even by conservative estimates.
You could very well be right. I mean, I hope it's not the case, because it's that many more people who are being made to feel like they can't be themselves, but I'm sure it's something like that, numbers-wise.
 
It doesn't how masculine you are, having sex with a man isn't straight-acting.

You're putting both gay men and straight men in boxes in terms of mannerisms and behavior. Gay guys like football, straight men like ballet.

Terms like "masc" or "fem" might be more appropriate.

I can understand being attracted to a more "masc" or "fem" guy, but to express a preference for, or describe yourself as, "straight-acting" is false because if he were he wouldn't be having sex with you.
 
It doesn't how masculine you are, having sex with a man isn't straight-acting.

You're putting both gay men and straight men in boxes in terms of mannerisms and behavior. Gay guys like football, straight men like ballet.

Terms like "masc" or "fem" might be more appropriate.

I can understand being attracted to a more "masc" or "fem" guy, but to express a preference for, or describe yourself as, "straight-acting" is false because if he were he wouldn't be having sex with you.

Ok, that's what I figured. I mean, it's a pretty stupid phrase, for the reasons you've pointed out.
 
Actually, it's more a public health term.

When assessing things like HIV, doctors do to ask patients, especially members of certain populations, if they are gay, straight, or bi. They try to determine if they have sex with men. These categories are meaningless to them. They entirely straight identify and may have families, and they don't feel closeted like a Republican politician. It's a cultural thing. In other countries, especially those where women are all burka'd up, dudes have sex with each other all the time.

So it's complicated.
 
Actually, it's more a public health term.

When assessing things like HIV, doctors do to ask patients, especially members of certain populations, if they are gay, straight, or bi. They try to determine if they have sex with men. These categories are meaningless to them. They entirely straight identify and may have families, and they don't feel closeted like a Republican politician. It's a cultural thing. In other countries, especially those where women are all burka'd up, dudes have sex with each other all the time.

So it's complicated.

Wait, is this the gay equivalent of me imagining my wife spends her time in the ladies locker room oiling up with other sexy ladies?
 
This msm/wsw thing is really interesting. Wikipedia has some good basics about it.
MSM and gay refer to different things: behaviors and social identities. MSM refers to sexual activities between men, regardless of how they identify, whereas gay can include those activities but is more broadly seen as a cultural identity. Homosexuality refers to sexual/romantic attraction between members of the same sex and may or may not include romantic relationships. Gay is a social identity and is generally the preferred social term, whereas homosexual is used in formal contexts, though the terms are not entirely interchangeable. Men who are non-heterosexual or questioning may identify with all, none, a combination of these, or one of the newer terms indicating a similar sexual, romantic, and cultural identity like bi-curious. In their assessment of the knowledge about the sexual networks and behaviors of MSM in Asia, Dowsett, Grierson and McNally concluded that the category of MSM does not correspond to a single social identity in any of the countries they studied.[4] There were no similar traits in all of the MSM population studied, other than them being males and engaging in sex with other men.
Men who have sex with men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Women who have sex with women - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The other interesting thing about the preference for "straight acting" is that it says there is a right way for men to act: not feminine. Because anything that's not super dudely is bad. It's okay if you have sex with guys as long as you're not, you know, femmy. And maybe it's kind of the same with women--people don't really get pissed about two hot girls acting sexy together (hey, that's sexy) but they do about butchy women. That's offensive!
 
The other interesting thing about the preference for "straight acting" is that it says there is a right way for men to act: not feminine. Because anything that's not super dudely is bad. It's okay if you have sex with guys as long as you're not, you know, femmy. And maybe it's kind of the same with women--people don't really get pissed about two hot girls acting sexy together (hey, that's sexy) but they do about butchy women. That's offensive!



at the end of the day, homophobia is misogyny.
 
And both stems from society slowly veering off traditional stereotypes and finally starting to realise that we are too complex to be put in those boxes. It's an excruciatingly slow process, but if I compare how things are now to when I was growing up, it's getting better.
Even though I have, and always had, long hair, I've been insultingly called a guy a lot during my childhood. Yes, I was not too feminine, prefered to play outside or with legos rather than barbies and dolls and shit, and I still don't do make up and dresses. For kids it's a very easy target to pick, my stubbornness, doing martial arts and having a big mouth didn't quite help either. But it still shows that even as young as primary school, kids are already full of gender bias and certain gender roles.

I'm glad I just didn't give a fuck about being cool or whatever, I just wanted to be who I was. And I am. Yeah, so I may not be girly, I don't give a shit about girl talk with make up and clothes and shopping, I wear jeans and a shirt most of the times(with Converse, the only shoes I fit lol). I have done martial arts for 10 years so I've got more muscles than guys who dont' hit the gym regularly, does this make me any less of a female than your random ugg wearing barbie? :shrug:
 
I was listening to a podcast during my commute this morning. The topic was implementing the CDC's 2010 guidelines for treating STDs.

One of the speakers stated that STDs spread faster "in small sexual networks such as young men who have sex with men," the implication being that young gay men are more promiscuous than young heterosexuals.

This idea of homosexual promiscuity is pretty pervasive in the medical literature, but I have seen LGBT advocates bristle at the suggestion.

I have no idea whether there is epidemiological evidence to either support or refute the idea, but it seems to be treated as conventional wisdom in medical circles. (I suppose I could do a literature search; I'm sure there is probably research in this area.)

Thoughts?
 
This idea of homosexual promiscuity is pretty pervasive in the medical literature, but I have seen LGBT advocates bristle at the suggestion.


i think male promiscuity is more the issue, not so much gay vs. straight. the group with the lowest incidence of STDs are lesbians, so it's not about homosexuality but gender. also, simply having a smaller sexual network makes it easier for STDs to spread. you can see this in smaller, rural communities in the South, and in African-American communities as well. it's also important that they speaker pointed out young men -- clearly, some youth are incredibly misinformed about the spread of STDs and effective means of prevention.

it also seems rather cruel not to point out that promiscuity comes from discrimination, the closet, and until recently, no societal incentives or tools to enable men to create stable unions with one another. i would venture a guess that your average gay man has had more sex partners than your average straight man, but that's due to gender -- it's not all that hard to find a man who will have sex with you.

lastly, given all the problems in the world, and given the startling global statistics on sexual assault, is promiscuity really such an awful thing?

certainly slowing and preventing the spread of STDs and HIV is a good thing, but is a high number of (consenting, protected) sex partners really something to get all that upset about?
 
i think male promiscuity is more the issue, not so much gay vs. straight.

This has always sort of been my take on it, but I think very difficult to study epidemiologically.

If you gave young heterosexual men access to unlimited sex partners and sexual encounters, I'm sure their rate of promiscuity, however you define it, would be quite high.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom