I think matt_mcl is right on the money. It’s unclear to me what particular relevance this ‘accusation’ has. I am convinced that, as a group, there’s probably more promiscuity among gay men than their straight counterparts, but it’s not for lack of trying on the straight guys’ parts. But the real question is: what of it? Any attempt to link this to, say, the wisdom of permitting same-sex couples to adopt would require changing the argument from the general to the specific: it’s irrelevant what many gay men do; it’s relevant (possibly) what this particular couple does.
And even then - I hardly think prospective heterosexual couples are quizzed as to the number of their pre-marriage sex partners. If prior promisuity is so relevant, why aren’t they?
This fact may have some relevance to a sociologist conducting studies of gay culture. It has little significance to public policy decisions at all.
matt_mcl, you’ve expended a lot of passion defending your (ostensibly) off-hand decision not to resent being stereotyped and thereby reduced to a mindless, faceless cipher. In my experience, that’s a stereotypical indication of a self-loathing homosexual, but there’s nothing offensive about truth-based stereotypes, right?
You’ve managed to miss and/or misrepresent the clear and simple position I took in my post: stereotypes are deliberately disparaging falsehoods that posit that each individual member of a group is fundamentally the same as any other member. Are gratuitously over-generalizing falsehoods really so trivially excusable?
When you choose to let such defamatory falsehoods pass unchallenged, you’re complicit in extending their life. That’s what I mean by “endorsing” stereotypes. Your arguments boil down to suggesting that people shouldn’t resent being wrongly and falsely minimized and reduced to a caricature; at least they shouldn’t resent stereotypes that you, personally, wouldn’t mind.
And exactly on what basis can you claim that offensive verbal behaviors such as stereotyping people are not injurious actions? Your thinking on that matter, as least as represented by your words, is philosophically shallow and psychologically naive.
Understand also that while you’re claiming that there’s no reason to resent some stereotypes, you’re implicitly suggesting that the members of other stereotyped groups may well have no reason to resent being stereotyped, either.
You write:
Bullshit. All stereotypes are falsehoods that seek to label and lump together individuals under a single rubric and thereby effectively dismiss and demean them as individuals. The morality or immorality of promiscuity has no legitimate place in this debate, which is not about promiscuity but about stereotypes. Even seemingly “positive” stereotypes about certain groups – such as that Asians are smarter than non-Asians – are offensive because they are false and are prejudicial.
So what do I claim is degrading? It is meekly tolerating stereotypes!
I think matt_mcl is egregiously, utterly wrong. The debate’s about consciously and unconsciously tolerating and thereby facilitating dismissive, prejudicial lies; lies which merely by their telling marginalize and demean individual members of a group and help perpetuate the insinuation of a low-status image.
I very much doubt (and hope) and you and matt_mcl wouldn’t be so indulgent and forgiving if we were talking about stereotyping African-Americans or other ethnic groups.
What you two are essentially defending – if perhaps not fully realizing it – is bigotry.
I don’t understand Ambushed’s objections to the promiscuity stereotype among gay men–being promiscuous is perfectly fine if that’s your choice and only a very sheltered person could maintain that there isn’t a certain level of promiscuity in the gay male community.
The label of “promiscuous” is neither defamatory nor a falsehood–that is, it’s not true of every man, but it is certainly true of many.
No I don’t resent it, because it’s true. I moved to columbus 3 years ago and found it impossible to find a gay friendship that didn’t devolve into sex. I’ve had less than 25 partners per year, less than a dozen total in my life, yet I’ve had sex with all of gay columbus because the community is so interconnected. You can’t go on a date here without knowing the other person already, since he’s probably your ex’s ex or something, there are only two degrees of seperation here. I can’t wait to move and hopefully have a fresh start but I’ll probably run into the same situation again. I long for the platonic, naive relationships of my high school days, but once I became part of the gay community I stopped being shocked by stories of orgies, hookups, bath houses, clubbing, random bj’s with strangers etc, because its all true. Not for every single person but the gay community in general are a bunch of whores.
I gotta wonder about this also. Why wouldn’t the professor try to find a more accurate sample to show the variety of sexual experience among gay men. I find this exercise a little offensive in that he’s purposefully giving a distorted view.
As to the debate between matt and ambushed, I’ll have to come down in the middle. I get annoyed with the stereotype because I find it often used to support prejudice. However, I see matt’s point that we should say “so what” to accusations of promiscuity. It shouldn’t matter and the only way for it to not matter in practice is if the targets of bias, both gay and straight, is to respond with defiance.
“So what if I’m a slut? That doesn’t mean I can’t do my job or don’t deserve equal treatment under the law.”
I know. And like I said, stereotypes are falsehoods. That doesn’t mean I’m going to get as excited about them as I do about, for example, gay bashing or judicial homophobia.
If I didn’t think falsehoods should be countered, not only would I not be involved in educational programs for sexual diversity sensitivity training, I wouldn’t be on this board. I just don’t think that believing a falsehood is as offensive as assault and battery - a reasonable position, as far as I can tell. And as falsehoods go, there are plenty of worse ones circulating about us than that we’re promiscuous.
Now you’re just making shit up. I never suggested letting falsehoods pass unchallenged. If I let falsehoods pass unchallenged, once again, I’d be a pretty poor excuse for an educational intervention volunteer. What I’m saying, once again, is that believing untruths < gay-bashing, and that believing we’re promiscuous < believing we’re pedophiles.
That’s an interesting spin on the argument, considering I never described how I thought people should feel. Instead, I responded to the OP, which asks what I feel - a rather different matter.
On reflection, I find it offensive to be stereotyped, in varying degrees depending on the nature of the stereotype. I should have said that I find it minimally offensive to be stereotyped as promiscuous.
But I’ll tranche here: I do not understand why one would be as offended to be stereotyped as promiscuous as to be stereotyped as a pedophile. The only way I can see for that equation to be made would be if it were as bad to be one as the other, which it is not.
Because words are not actions. Someone can call me a faggot all day long and they have neither picked my pocket nor broken my leg. If they attempt to tell lies about me to others, I will simply tell the truth louder. They might offend me, but they don’t injure me.
Yes, that would be the implication of that statement if I had made it. I believe I stated that some stereotypes are less offensive than others, not that some stereotypes are not offensive to anybody. I believe the only person I characterized as not being offended by this stereotype was myself.
Let me put it this way: as a Quebecer, I find the stereotype that I eat pea soup at every meal less offensive than the stereotype that I want to put English speakers into concentration camps. The latter statement is offensive to the point of being slanderous; the former statement is offensive to the point of being annoying. I don’t think that is an unreasonable position.
I don’t believe anyone’s ever used that adjective to describe my reaction to homophobia before; thanks for expanding my experience.
If my group of friends is representative of anything, yes. Also one should not factor out short-term serial monogamy. If you’re only dating someone for a week and sleeping with them but no one else during that time, you’re technically monogamous but if you’re sleeping with someone else the next week it’s still promiscuous monogamy.
It’s interesting that so many people are discussing something with nary a link in cite (pun intended). Dose anyone have any actual numbers? And I don’t know how you would compensate for the fact that gays cannot marry. At the very least, you’d have to confine a survey to singles of the same age group.
I wish I had kept my notes from my Human Sexuality class. I do know that two surveys, each with their own faults, were done on the subject over the years. The first was done in San Fransisco pre-AIDS, with the flaw of being only one urban center. The other was nationwide, but the subjects were not randomly selected. It was also post-AIDS. The figures remain fairly high. I’ll try to track down the notes from a friend currently attending the course and get back to you.
Personally I’d be happy just to have a date; you’ve no idea how insulting it is to be a member of a group stereotyped for their promiscuity and yet the highpoint of your Saturday night is bathing the terrier (which, unfortunately, is not a euphemism). Unfortunately I live in a small Southern city where gay guys under 25 are too terrified of their parents learning to pursue romance and gay guys over 25 are too terrified of their wives learning to pursue romance, so rub-a-dub-dub, a pup in a tub…
Seriously, I’m not terribly offended by the promiscuity stereotype (I’ve known many for whom it’s true and many for whom it’s not- I’m 37 and not horrendous looking [think Ken Branagh with lips] but I’ve only had two sex partners in my life, but that is the exception) except when its used by outright liars like Phelps or the Family Research Council (who also make claims of most gays ingesting feces and urine and lusting after adolescent boys, which I’ve literally never known any gays who did. I’m actually more offended by the depiction of gays as asexual fashion accessories as on gutless shows like Will & Grace or in countless movies.
[QUOTE=Sampiro]
…except when its used by outright liars like Phelps or the Family Research Council (who also make claims of most gays ingesting feces and urine and lusting after adolescent boys, which I’ve literally never known any gays who did.
[quote]
Well… in the interests of full disclosure, I’ve been known to lust after adolescent boys; of course, this was chiefly when I was an adolescent boy.
“And as falsehoods go, there are plenty of worse ones circulating about us than that we’re promiscuous.”
Well, let’s clear a few things up first. What is the “promiscuity stereotype”? That the average homosexual (if anyone cares, I specifically choose not to use the more accurate “MSM” because nobody knows what it stands for) has more sexual partners than the average heterosexual? Or that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals who have had lots of partners?
The second is undeniably true. My wife is an epidemiologist at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and in surveys that are sent to the homosexual community, the categories for “number of sexual partners” have to be changed in order to accomodate the greater range in sexual partners.
The first is probably true, but arguably reflects the demographics of the homosexual population (i.e. homosexuals are younger, on average, and younger people tend to have had more sexual partners in general).
I’m not defending stereotyping. I’m just pointing out that the stereotype has some merit.
“I’m actually more offended by the depiction of gays as asexual fashion accessories as on gutless shows like Will & Grace or in countless movies.”
I agree – in my experience, the stereotype of homosexuals as well-dressed or effiminate seems to have far less basis. Among my homosexual friends, I’d say the only thing that really sticks out is an inordinate passion for a capella music. =P
(This is a general response more than a specific response to you, Dolphin)
Fine, good, okay, if you say so, yeah, whatever. But what has been overlooked for the most part here is the fact that the debate is NOT about whether or not the promiscuous stereotype might be factually warranted or not, the debate is about whether or not each of us approves – and whether we should approve (or meekly tolerate) – being deliberately caricatured, pigeon-holed, and trivialized by being stereotyped in the first place!
Furthermore, the question raised by the OP didn’t ask us where we each rank the offensiveness of the promiscuity stereotype among other stereotypes, it asked the binary, yes-or-no question if we approve of being stereotyped or not. (Using the word “resent” was a poor choice in my view, because it suggests an uncommonly extreme emotional aversion rather than simple disapproval).
To tolerate a stereotype is to endorse it and encourage it’s spread and its acceptance. That’s not my claim and it’s not bullshit. It is a well-established social-psychological fact. When a person’s prejudices and stereotypes – no matter how minor – are not disputed, they are consciously and unconsciously reinforced and eventually become automatic and automatically connected to non-rational negative images and other negative stereotypes. This has been demonstrated in countless psychological experiments.
On the other hand, when someone objects to a stereotype (say, in a conversation), psychologists tell us it creates a pause that brings conscious reasoning into play. The more often that pause for deliberate, rational thought occurs vis-a-vis a given stereotype, the more likely it is that the automatic unconscious prejudice will yield to reason.
And let’s face it, whether or not it is rational to consider promiscuity to be immoral, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of people strongly feel and believe it is! Who among you hasn’t seen even merely presumably promiscuous women disdainfully and vitriolically referred to as “sluts”? There is absolutely no question that, unconsciously at least, promiscuity is almost universally associated in people’s unconscious minds with corruption, self-debasement, immaturity, and moral depravity. That may not be rational, but since when are human beings known for their rationality?
Whether or not people are aware of it, their unconscious minds have had the “gay = promiscuous = morally depraved sluts” stereotype reinforced by gays who (like many here) not only tolerate that stereotype but actually claim it’s true!
It’s utter madness to tolerate – let alone confirm! – that stereotype as long as human beings are human beings.
ambushed: the average number of sexual partners over a lifetime for gay men, and the average number for straight men, is a matter of fact. There IS an average. It exists.
Are you contending there isn’t such a thing, or that the average is the same for both groups?
I’m contending it’s meaningless, but I don’t deny it exists.
You (like other posters here before you) have completely missed the point! Try re-reading the OP and my posts here again.
To apply a “group average” to each and every individual within that group – i.e., to stereotype them, just as you and so many are defending or tolerating – is to prejudicially demean and debase each and every individual in that group. It matters not at all whether the “group average” is an accurate “group average” or not! It debases individuals by painting each and every one of them with a prejudicial, over-broad brush.
And to stereotype individuals with a behavioral attribute that consciously or unconsciously disgusts the overwhelming majority of people in the world makes it far more deplorable to defend or even tolerate such abasement.
Again, would you so blithely defend racial stereotyping as you do gay stereotyping?
