This is the second installment of the five-week commentary series, “Fessing Up: exploring the dirty little secrets of the gay community.” The purpose of the series, will be to open community discussion with frank and honest thoughts and debate. Ignoring problems that exist inside our community and among some of our LGBT siblings is dangerous. In order to make our community better, stronger and more equal, we have to begin taking responsibility and speaking out when our own community, personal and social health is threatened.
Although the series will deal specifically with gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with men (MSM), it will contain possible truths and discussion for the whole LGBT community.
We know that issues like substance abuse, promiscuity, unsafe sex, HIV/AIDS and STD infection rates and unattainable ideals of male beauty have an impact on the sexual, social, legal, physical and psychological health of the LGBT community, but we have utterly failed at having open and frank conversation about how we can address these issues, support our LGBT brothers and sisters and make our entire community more healthy and more equal.
Last week, a commenter at Pam’s House Blend – where I cross-posted a portion of the first installment in this series – took issue with my plans to address promiscuity and unsafe sex, saying “do-gooder Christians” who “think they are activists” shouldn’t have a part in the conversation.
He said, “Frankly I think promiscuity in males is good and healthy and I don’t want people to be pressured to conform to “christian morality” just because some christians are willing to teach that being gay isn’t a sin – but promiscuity is.”
First, it is this kind of thinking – the misguided presumption that gays can’t also be Christian and also speak out on LGBT rights – that is damaging to discussions like these. Second, I think the Pam’s House Blend commenter is going to be slightly surprised by my opinions.
What is this installment in the “Fessing Up” commentary series about? Well, it is not about gay promiscuity. It is, instead, about promiscuity and unsafe sex.
Just like our straight peers, gay and bi men and men who have sex with men (MSM) like to have sex. This isn’t surprising. It isn’t controversial. It isn’t even something we should be scared to say. Sex feels good. Sex is wonderful. Sex is, well… there’s a reason why people do it.
But, puns aside, sex is also a sticky issue. In America, we aren’t too keen on this whole sexual openness and honesty thing. Sex just isn’t something discussed in “polite” society. And all of that bullshit is partly to blame for the reason why people of all sexual orientations and ages – especially youth being instructed with dangerously inaccurate and incomplete “abstinence-only” sex ed curriculums – are finding themselves at higher and higher risks of teen and unplanned pregnancies, HIV and STDs.
Whether gay and bi men want to admit it or not, the simple truth of the matter is that we all engage in a lot of sex. Is our promiscuity as bad as the Religious Right claims? No, and who cares what they think anyway? We all know they lie and exaggerate for political power and earthly gain. Their opinions don’t matter here. Forget them; we’re talking about us.
But while we are talking we need to do it honestly. In our attempt to battle the Religious Right, conformists among our midst have turned our liberalized culture into a monastery.
“We can’t talk about that,” activists say. “We’ll get attacked by the Right and give them ammunition.”
This is an issue that is too important to be thrown into the closet. We shouldn’t skirt around it or hide from it. Why? Because it limits our discussion, prevents true and honest reflection and hampers prevention and education.
I’m not here to pass down judgment or issue some moral directive on sexual behavior. We all have our own personal, moral, religious and health standards. You keep yours and I’ll keep mine.
Promiscuity doesn’t necessarily lead to unsafe sex. It doesn’t necessarily lead to increased risks. But, combined with our liberalized sexuality and the several substance abuse risk factors present in our community, this issue becomes highly important.
This commentary piece follows last week’s piece on substance abuse for a logical reason. For some of us, when we are under the influence of alcohol or other substances, including legal and illegal drugs, the likelihood of stupid, life-altering mistakes seems to rise astronomically. We drink, we snort, shoot up or down a pill and suddenly our inhibitions, personal standards and ability to make wise choices flies out the window.
We see that hot guy standing across the dance room floor, stumble over to him, start dancing and before we know it we’re back at his house or ours and naked on the bed doing the horizontal hanky-panky. And, in our drunken stupor, we fail to protect ourselves and our sexual partners. In the heat of our drug- and alcohol-induced fling, stopping to put on a condom becomes the last thing on our mind.
We know that substance abuse increases our risks of contracting HIV and other STDs, as I said last week. It puts us in situations about which we might otherwise think twice. Oh, I’m nowhere near innocent. So, I’m just a peer speaking to other peers, and hoping for a more healthy and responsible community.
There are several things our community can do to address this issue. Some of these steps will likely overlap with next week’s installment on HIV and STD infections.
——
Substance abuse – Until we get a handle on the substance abuse problems that face many in our community, unsafe sex will always be of concern.
Taking back the conversation – Until we are willing to take back the conversation for our own health and well-being, we will never move forward. We will never be free from the influence of the Religious Right until we make a concerted effort to stop letting their attacks control the conversations and initiatives that could make our community more healthy and safe. Community leaders, activists and non-profit groups should take back the conversation and forget the Religious Right; they will say what they usually say and all the while, we’ll be moving forward.
Barebacking – Our community should loudly and soundly condemn the glorification of barebacking, but should do it in a way that promotes, not demeans, our self-esteem and health. We shouldn’t put on a condom because our sex is dangerous or because we’re afraid of catching something. Rather, we should put on a condom because we care about ourselves and we care about our sexual partners. See the difference?
Committed relationships – The fact is, the safest, surest way to prevent sex-related infections and diseases is to remain in committed, mutually faithful relationships, whatever their form. It isn’t 100 percent effective – people do cheat on each other – and it isn’t for everyone. Not all gay, bi and MSM men will benefit. But our community should respect and honor the couples in our midst. Because society has proven a failure to us, we should create our own courting and dating rituals and mores. Our straight peers grow up learning about dating and courting. They have a plethora of examples every day of their lives. As our society moves forward and marriage by same-sex couples becomes more common, I think we’ll see future generations of LGBT youth have the essential examples and models of healthy, committed relationships that we all missed when we were growing up.
——
The issue of promiscuity and unsafe sex, like all of those addressed in this series, don’t have easy answers. But the only way to even begin a dialogue on the issue is to be honest and open. Without true introspection, we’ll never move forward and the questions will always remain unanswered. By just beginning this conversation — however imperfect or incomplete — we can take a step in the right direction.
Next Thursday: HIV and STD Infection Rates in the Gay Community. Click here or bookmark this link to keep up with other “Fessing Up” commentaries.
Previous Installment:
1. Substance Abuse
April 30th, 2009 at 8:44 am
This post is absolutely superb! The LGBT community has to “take back the conversation for our own health and well-being” No other group can do the issue justice. Who better to promote positive self esteem and behaviors than the lgbt community?
April 30th, 2009 at 11:55 am
How…stereotypical. A lot of gay and bi men DON’T have a lot of sex…and this piece lends credence to the idea that somehow, gay men are more promiscuous than their straight peers. I work in a field where I see both sides’ sexuality and their habits — and frankly, there is little difference. Discuss safe sex, yes. But promiscuity is not a gay-only thing, nor is it a “dirty little secret”. The whole premise on which you start the discussion demeans and stereotypes. Fail.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
This may be encompassed in the idea of “protecting our partners,” but one part of the discussion I don’t see in your post is the idea that sex is not one specific act. One of the primary ways one can enjoy a wide array of potentail partners but also avoid life-threatening infections is to limit the acts one engages in. Part of sexual freedom should be about exploring and enjoying aspects of sexuality that are both erotically pleasing and unlikely to risk spreading any diseases.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Interesting points. As a professor in NYC, I have routinely taught issues related to the social & behavioral science issues of lgbt people since the 1980s. I have also worked in HIV since the beginning… 1982. My doctoral research at an ivy league research institution was on lgbt families. Some of your points are interesting but some not. M2M behavior is diverse.. there is no “one” community but individual lives. I certainly know of men who fall into your problem categories. However, I know many men do not go to bars, not have mutliple partners. Your problem categories may relate to younger men, busy in the bar life, or those with time/money to burn. That stereotype is as much of our problem as the problems you mention. In addition, who are these “gay” leaders? There are a multiplicity of leaders but it is often a closed clique. Our elected representatives are maybe perhaps the most reliable. Representative Barney Frank, I think, is not doing crytal, in the clubs nightly, nor would know much of the LOGO television schedule. I dont have a tv personally. CLAGS, the lgbt programs at USC and San Francisco State are the best places to look at what are the real social/behavioral issues facing m2m.
Your concerns are certainly real but I know there is more nuance to the whole picture.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I think it’s high time we as a community admit to our unsafe lifestyle practices. Even the most Conservative among us like Andrew Sullivan have spoken for years about rampant promiscuity and hedonistic sex practices: http://web.archive.org/web/20010711125225/http://milkyloads.tripod.com/
Andrew Sullivan is one of the lead spokesmen of the gay community in support of marriage and his lifelong embrace of monogamy and clean living give us a respectable mentor and teacher who is honored by married heterosexuals. In his article “Sexual McCarthyism”, Andrew said there is no evidence that two HIV+ men having unprotected sex can lead to a super-strain. When is our community going to finally learn their lesson and follow the ideals of self-professed “Conservative” gay men like Andrew Sullivan and wholesome gay Republicans?
April 30th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
No, R.M. Wright, as we know Barney Frank just pays for sex. From my own experiences, Matt’s article is spot on. (But I’m not being overly-critical here. It’s inherent that men love sex. Myself included. I know I’ve had ten times as many sex partners throughout my life than any of my heterosexual friends).
May 1st, 2009 at 9:38 am
Elsie… you said, “But promiscuity is not a gay-only thing, nor is it a “dirty little secretâ€.” I never said promiscuity was a gay-only thing. I’m addressing folks in my community; if I were straight, maybe I’d be talking to straight people. And, you’re right… it isn’t a “secret.” The title of the series is more like a play on the situation… things our community just doesn’t like to talk about much and sweep under the rug. I appreciate your thoughts.
CPT_Doom… thanks for the comments.
RM Wright, thanks. My thoughts are definitely imperfect, but hopefully they are a part of some larger discussion and dialogue.
Darryl and JT and Tamara… thanks for your comments.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Matt — I respond to your ridiculous little series in my podcast at http:tinyurl.com/d79bpz Why don’t you gain a little age and perspective before you go off telling everyone in the gay community how to behave.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 am
Todd, thanks for the podcast. A couple slight corrections, though.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never gone by “Matt23.” If you’ve seen that, it has been in a sentence (like, “Matt, 23, is…”) noting my age.
The About page on this site includes my last name, my educational background and my current employment. It also includes a link to matthillcomer.com, which includes almost everything you’d ever want to know about me.
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 am
I’ve always wondered but no one has ever been able to explain it to me, what exactly constitutes promiscuity? What is the normative number of sex partners one should have in a year? What is the normative number of sex partners one should have in a lifetime? What number of sex partners unreasonable risk? And last but not least what is “liberalized sexuality” anyway?
Really I’m not fond of this whole conversation we should be asking a whole host of other questions. First is “Why do so many young people feel the need to seek out booze or drugs so they can feel comfortable having sex?” once we start addressing that then maybe we can have a real conversation about risk and sex.
But would you expect anything else from me?
Sam
May 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 am
This is really such an old discussion that has been going on in the gay community since as far back as I can remember. Even before the AIDS crisis, there was back’n'forth in all the gay orgs and publications between those who wanted the more ‘in your face’ sexuality to be toned down and those who wanted to celebrate sexual liberty (or license) as the quintessence of “gay liberation”. One side would call the other “assimilationists” who were reinforcing the closet. The other side would answer that their detractors were “immature” sex fiends trying for shock value who were damaging public relations for LGBTs. This debate reached fever pitch during the AIDS crisis when trying to decide whether to forcibly close all the bathhouses.
30 years later, the bathhouses are still around, although they are now just a shadow of what they were in their heyday. And the “I’m just like you except my wife is a man” crowd is still around, and getting married in Iowa now, but I think they are less uptight than their “Boys in the Band” predecessors were.
I don’t expect this to ever be settled.
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
Sam, the Inquisitive One, lol. Did you check out the first installment?
“What exactly constitutes promiscuity? What is the normative number of sex partners one should have in a year?”
I purposefully didn’t address this, or attempt to define it. Individuals are free to make their own choices. I do think, however, that our community, its leaders, non-profits and businesses can serve a vital role in helping our choices to be informed and healthy. Other than defining “promiscuity,” I was also careful not to cast monogamy as the only viable life relationship. You’ll notice I carefully said, “committed, mutually faithful relationships, whatever their form.”
“And last but not least what is “liberalized sexuality†anyway?”
Perhaps it could have been worded a different way, but taken just as written I think the point gets across, hopefully. I do think that most LGBT people have a healthy view of sexuality. We aren’t afraid to discuss it, because it pertains so deeply to our lives. There are still issues the LGBT community doesn’t like to discuss openly, but I think that, by far, our community has some of these conversations more than straight communities do.
“Why do so many young people feel the need to seek out booze or drugs so they can feel comfortable having sex?â€
I’ve always appreciated your deep thoughts; even if I didn’t appreciate them at the moment I heard them, later I did. What a scholar you are, lol. That would be a great topic for a commentary.
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:28 am
Thanks for the info, I will run a correction in The Pod, next week.
I did look for the info — I still can’t find your “about” page — even looking specifically for it. The only thing I found previously, listed your age, so I went with Matt, 23. I will check your home page, but I don’t feel the need to waste any more time on you or your discussion.
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 am
Checked your website, Matt; you are very good at writing a resume, I will give you that.
I still do not see a thing in your very, very long list of “experiences” that qualifies you to pass judgment on anyone else’s lifestyle or behavior, since you haven’t actually had any life experience.
I’ve seen your type before. You confuse activism with comfort in your own gay identity. The subtext of your postings indicates that you are not the least bit comfortable in your own gay skin — best of luck, though. Oh, and watch out for Exodus — you are just the type of person that could fall into their trap.
May 2nd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
For what it’s worth, in college, my friend who had the most sex was a straight female. I agree with Elsie that a comprehensive look at sex, sexual ethics, and sexual health would be more productive.
It’s also problematic that this article speaks in sweeping generalities. “Whether gay and bi men want to admit it or not, the simple truth of the matter is that we all engage in a lot of sex,” erases the experiences of gay or bi men who do not have lots of sexy–or any.
This series has lots of potential and I think it’s important. However, this article misses the mark in a lot of ways and relies on stereotypes and personal experience generalized to an entire demographic of people. Do some gay men have lots of unprotected sex? Yes. Do some straight men and women have lots of unprotected sex? You bet. Do some gay men have no sex, protected sex, and/or monogamous sex? Absolutely.
I would love an honest and critical look at why some gay or bisexual men make/made unsafe decisions and how we can formulate a healthy sexual ethic.
May 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
For what it’s worth, in college, my friend who had the most sex was a straight female. I agree with Elsie that a comprehensive look at sex, sexual ethics, and sexual health would be more productive.
It’s also problematic that this article speaks in sweeping generalities. “Whether gay and bi men want to admit it or not, the simple truth of the matter is that we all engage in a lot of sex,” erases the experiences of gay or bi men who do not have lots of sexy–or any.
This series has lots of potential and I think it’s important. However, this article misses the mark in a lot of ways and relies on stereotypes and personal experience generalized to an entire demographic of people. Do some gay men have lots of unprotected sex? Yes. Do some straight men and women have lots of unprotected sex? You bet. Do some gay men have no sex, protected sex, and/or monogamous sex? Absolutely.
I would love an honest and critical look at why some gay or bisexual men make/made unsafe decisions and how we can formulate a healthy sexual ethic.
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 am
Matt,
I really should have read the previous columns, it would have informed my questions a bit. That being said I’m really excited by some of your upcoming pieces in this series.
First, thank you for not assuming that a monogamy is the only option in this discussion and I also wish to thank you for attempting to avoid heteronormative assumptions about relationships. I wasn’t trying to be terribly difficult just a little difficult when I asked those questions. After some consideration on the importance of language its become clear to me that as a community and as individuals interested in safer sex behavior we really need to consider this word “promiscuity†I find it problematic. It seems to me that it comes loaded with a lot of assumptions about a persons character mostly related to a individuals purity or morality. I’m relatively sure that we actually have no intention of saying anything regarding a persons character so perhaps we should seriously consider finding a new term that conveys what is actually meant.
On a slightly different but related tract of thought, most modern HIV an STI education is about the control and moderation of risk. If this is the case shouldn’t we be discussing the actual numbers? Each variable (in this case it would be a decision such as number of sex partners or how often you haven’t used condoms) alters your total risk of infection, these statistics are relatively well studied and available for analysis if we focused upon this more mechanical analysis perhaps we could avoid the messy moral entanglements and empower people to make decisions based off of facts and probabilities. Of course, this is just the thought I’ve been considering lately and actually may be utter drivel.
All this aside how did your semester go? I seem to remember you saying the spring of 09 being your first semester back in college. Despite our many disagreements it maybe interesting to get together sometime and have coffee, facebook me.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:45 am
[...] Installments: 1. Substance Abuse 2. Promiscuity and Unsafe Sex 3. [...]
January 1st, 2010 at 4:52 pm
[...] Up” garnered at least a little bit of controversy. The most read and commented was the installment on “Promiscuity & Unsafe Sex.” Never meant to be a condemnation of “promiscuity” (such a horrible word, by the way), [...]