Ah, well, there’s straight people who do that too, you know.
No, for once you’re actually right. The way the gay social scene is set up is a concern, especially for gay folk who are recovering alcoholics. That’s changing now that the internet is so ubiquitous, but the bars are still the major social centers.
Of course, that’s not so much our fault as yours*, but let’s not go there…
*Not your fault, personally, Shodan. I meant straight society in general.
Ah, well, there’s straight people who do that too, you know.
Our fault?
How so?
Sure, just not as commonly.
Good! Now we all understand averages.
It’s fairly common for alcoholics to blame other people for their drinking. (Cite.) Of course, that is true regardless of sexual orientation.
Regards,
Shodan
Explain how this is any different for heterosexuals. It would appear to be completely identical.
In answer to you, raindog and Shodan:
I’m not blaming the straight society for anyone’s alcoholism. I’m blaming straight society in the pre-modern (1980 and earlier) era for basically making homosexuality such a shameful, horrible secret that actually having any kind of social gathering place other than bars was next to impossible. Straight people have a multitude of places to meet potential mates: churches, supermarkets, sports events, on the street, at a restaurant…prior to tolerance and acceptance for homosexuals, trying to feel out someone you were attracted to in those venues was an invitation to hospitalization and criminal charges. Only in the gay bars (and even more unsavory places) was it possible to be fairly sure that an overture wouldn’t be met with violence or official action. We didn’t necessarily choose to become a bar-centered culture. We were more or less cornered there.
And yes, this is changing, thanks in part to changing attitudes among straight people and also in part to the internet. But it’s not like we just instinctively scuttered to the dark, sticky corners of society because we liked it there.
Yeah, the stigmatization of homosexuality led to bars (usually bars in the seedier parts of town) being the only way gays could safely meet. It also did something else that helped lead to unsafe behavior among gay people.
One of the things that society does is to regulate sexual activity. There are a lot of societal pressures on a straight person to settle down, get married, and have a (theoretically, at least) monogamous relationship. Homophobia and stigmatization of gays meant that that didn’t really exist. In fact, gays were discouraged from forming long term, monogamous relationships. The whole “get married and have a house in the suburbs” thing wasn’t really an option for gays in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. It’s still not an option for most gays today, although societal attitudes are changing.
So this led to a subculture where promiscuity was the norm. Since long term relationships were so difficult, most sexual encounters were between strangers or near strangers. And of course, promiscuitity leads to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. This is one of the big reasons why AIDS hit the gay community so hard. But even HIV aside, the other STDs, while more treatable, still aren’t particularly good for you.
But, do you have any cite that gay people drink more than straights? Or are more frequently diagnosed with alcoholism? Or, for that matter, spend more time hanging out in bars?
You actually think a cite is necessary for this? We can reasonably argue about the reasons that gay men are more likely to have alcohol and drug problems than straights, but there is no reasonable argument about the fact itself.
I agree with your conclusion, but your premises are a little too dramatic to be credible.
It’s not a priori evident that this is a fact. That’s why we want a cite.
How old are you? Fewer than 15 years ago, those were all likely outcomes to being “outed”. More than 25 years ago, they were all but guaranteed except in very few exceptional cases. What Miller posted is not at all dramatic. It’s historically accurate (for very recent values of “historically”, even).
It’s common knowledge and well accepted. No cite is needed.
Do you have any kind of evidence for this? The meth-addicted, hard-drinking twink IS a recognized “type”, but it’s hardly the majority of gay men, even in urban areas.
I’ve always thought that’s a classic instance of correlation not being causation. I would guess that in general (exceptions will doubtless be numerous) men who do a poor job of providing for themselves and looking after themselves are seen as less desirable mates - thus giving themselves shorter lifespans and a ticket to singlehood in one cut-price package.
Completely unacceptable as an argument in GD. How long have you been on this board?
I would have said the standard for needing a cite is whether one is asked for or not.
Gay life expectancy revisited | International Journal of Epidemiology | Oxford Academic This study says 20 yeqars. But it is cold weather climes. Gays apparently don’t like cold weather.
There is no need to provide a cite for something which is well established. If someone were to challenge the heliocentric theory of the solar system, it would be entirely proper to put the burden for providing cites entirely on him. If you want to argue about it any further, go to your local state university or some such place and take it up with whoever teaches the basic introductory course on logic.
It is simply idiotic to insist that cites for any assertion whatsoever must be presented on demand.
Longer than you.