August 1, 2006
"You're dealing with somebody who agrees to your rules."
Says Robert Wright, explaining why male homosexuality expresses male sexuality more purely than does male heterosexuality. Watch the whole clip. It's very rich. I have more over at Instapundit. Discuss it all here in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
39 comments:
I agree with both of them!
Actually, a point neither makes is that homosexuals will sometimes be coupled with someone who looks like their twin sibling. It's not narcissism, but what is it when your lover looks like a mirror image of yourself?
Also, the point that heterosexuality is defined by compromise is apt.
Very interesting clip.
I think they are generally right about the basic premise,
"male homosexuality expresses male sexuality more SOMETHING than does male heterosexuality."
I think the debate is about what word to substitute there. I understand their use of "purely" though it's not a term that I would use. Maybe "Nakedly" :)
The underlying biological imperative for men is at some level promiscuity. Spreading sperm to the largest number of acceptable females that can be viably supported in the community, thus yielding the greatest number of potential offspring that survive to maturity themselves.
The female imperative is quite different. To attempt to deny those sorts of truths is a waste of time.
"Read my manly hand gestures: I did not have sex with that... that... whatever."
I haven't looked at the video, but the primary point about gay men being sexually involved with others who play by their rules is quite apt. I am a gay psychotherapist and I use this point in teaching. Many of the behaviors that people ascribe to some aspect of gay sexual orientation are better and more simply ascribed to the fact that gay men are...men. And since the object of our desire sees sex in largely the same way as we do, you have things like higher numbers of partners, strong emphasis on the visual, etc. Consider how different lesbian sexual culture is from gay male. Again, it's the dominance of one gender. I don't know if calling it "pure" means much, but I find that you can make a lot of sense out of our group behaviors by using this frame.
As for our narcissism, that's a larger topic, and certainly one that we share with the larger culture. Some gay couples do seem to mirror each other externally. Most that I know and work with, however, have the issues which come from large differences between them. Hermeneutically, it's a catch-22, though. If we pair with someone who's like us, it's a sign of our narcissism. If we pair with someome who's different, it's a sign of our defectiveness, looking to have it filled by someone else. My guess is, like most humans, it's a combo. In therapy, I often discover that surface mirroring or difference is balanced by sameness or difference in deeper issues.
By the way, narcissism seems to be getting a bad rap these days - unfairly, in my inexpert opinion. NPD was officially included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in, I think, 1980 and it is still not fully understood, of course. But there is such a thing as healthy narcissism. People these days often seem to forget that.
Both (Coulter and Wright) are, of course correct. In practice (which is, after all, what she was talking about) homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals.
Wright's analysis is apt in pointing out that this is due to the fact that men are predisposed to more frequent sexual contacts than are women. Given this, sex between consenting males who are naturally interested in frequent sex results in more overall promiscuous behavior.
From Wikipedia: "Albert Harry Goldman (April 15, 1927 – March 28, 1994) was an American professor and author. Albert Goldman wrote about the culture and personalities of the American music industry both in books and as a contributor to magazines. However, he is best known for his controversial biographies on Elvis Presley and John Lennon. In his 1981 book titled Elvis, the author repeatedly belittled the late singer over his weight problems, his diet, his choice of performing costumes, and his sexual appetites and peculiarities. He even suggests that Elvis's promiscuity masked latent homosexuality."
There's something very weird to me in explaining male homosexual behavior by reference to reproductive strategies. I start to feel that we are dealing with an unfalsifiable belief system, which is, of course, not science.
A more complicated issue is when it's politically permissible to say that gay men are more promiscuous than straight men (I presume that Peter Beinart isn't going to launch an attack on Robert Wright), and when it isn't.
Perhaps the difficulty is that the term "promiscuous" is generally perjorative. I believe it is generally taken to mean not just multiple partners, but a cavalier or unthinking approach to sexual relationships. I don't know whether Coulter claims to be talking about promiscuity in a value-free way, but if so I suspect she is being disingenuous.
The "agrees to your rules" analysis makes sense to me, in term of both the number of sex partners and the narcissism. What I'd really be interested in knowing is whether dealing exclusively with people who agree to your rules affects the quality of the relationships or the overall satisfaction the partners derive from them. usmale?
Promiscuity is an immoral behavior, so trying to find a way to describe it without moral baggage is like trying to work out a way to describe lying that doesn't sound so bad.
Part of what civil marriage is, I believe, is negotiating the differences between male and female in a way that minimizes bad outcomes without becoming too intrusive in privacy so long as things aren't going catastrophically wrong. But when you don't have to manage those differences, what's the point of using the same institution?
USMale's comment reminds me of the old joke about what a lesbian brings to her second date (a U-Haul!).
Beinart's claim that an assertion like Coulter's was ipso facto bigoted was news to me, but apparently in some circles that's how it works.
It took only a few minutes on the web to find studies, both older and recent, that backed her up. Here is one concerning HIV-positive males:
A total of 3723 HIV-infected persons (1918 men who have sex with men [MSM], 978 women, and 827 heterosexual men) were interviewed in clinics and community-based agencies in Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York City, and San Francisco from June 2000 to January 2002 regarding sexual and drug use behaviors that confer risk for transmitting HIV. Less than one quarter of women and heterosexual men had 2 or more sexual partners, whereas 59% of MSM reported having multiple partners. Most unprotected vaginal and anal sexual activity took place in the context of relationships with other HIV-positive individuals.
Now I realize HIV+ men may not be behaviorally typical. But this is only one of many studies from the 1960's to the 2000's that basically confirmed Coulter's argument. In contrast, I didn't see any evidence contradicting her general claim, even on gay sites objecting to it.
(Incidentally, if you search on terms like 'homosexual' and 'promiscuity' the top results are evangelical Christian 'pro-family' sites that cite older studies; if you search on terms like 'MSM' and 'multiple partners' the top results are medical studies.)
Certainly there are a lot of bigoted uses for this kind of information, and using it properly calls for extreme compassion and sensitivity (things I don't expect to find from Ann Coulter). My sense is that the politics of gay marriage work against that. They pressure opponents to use the data tendentiously, and pressure proponents to pretend it isn't there and fall back on ad hominem arguments.
I only spent a few minutes on this; there may well be countervailing evidence I didn't uncover. I'd appreciate correction from anyone who knows better.
Telford Work
I haven't seen the clip, since I'm at work. However, I'm very familar with the concept. (If it's the same Robert Wright, he wrote a book called "The Moral Animal", dealing with the evolutionary origins of human behavior.) The general concept is reflected in the statement (from Leda Cosmides, I think) that "Men's and women's breeding strategies interfere with each other." David Buss' book "The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating" is a good primer.
It's only male homosexuals who are more promiscuous than male heterosexuals. They are just behaving like normal male mammals and women alternate between condemning that behavior and trying to exploit it for their own benefit. Female homosexuals are apparently much less promiscuous and many lesbian relationships are completely asexual.
However, evolutionary psychologists have a real problem explaining why homosexuality exists at all.
Ann Coulter's assertion about Bill Clinton has a solid, logical basis.
I mean, imagine being married to Hillary Rodham, who, speaking heterosexually, could only fit into some master political plan.
Next is Bill's latter taste in women. For example, the one with the nose, and Monica. These seem to indicate his orange/red period, an evolving need to abuse mindless objects.
Also keep in mind that when Hillary was at the peak of her "feminine" beauty - she was wearing very comfortable shoes (i.e. sandals). You know, the one's those wacky male professors wear around NYU and UC.
But then the "master" plan breaks down when Mrs. Clinton wants to cash in - to collect her part of the arranged marriage; to finally become an elected and vital Marxist. Is she asexual, btw?
Meanwhile, the country is going to pot.
Then Bill finds himself up in Harlem with a passing case of jungle fever. His black period.
Half joking, Ms. Coulter concludes his next sexually frustrated, same-sex step. Not to imply it's congenital, but more an unintended result.
Any questions?
When I first started dating my wife she had a large circle of homosexual male friends. I wasn't exactly comfortable with this at first but I made a good faith effort to be open minded.
Researchers have said that men think about sex dozens of times per day. If you have two males that are homosexual partners ...well you can do the math.
Once these gay men would start drinking they would try to seduce other straight men at their parties
and tell stories of wild orgies unfortunately accompanied by gory details.
I pretty agree with the more promiscuous label. Although it usually isn't wise to paint everyone with one broad brush.
One problem most people have with discussion of group differences is that they're afraid, with reason, that people will use any evidence of group differences bluntly, and judge people by a group rather than as an individual. "So what if I'm dumb, on average group X to which I belong is smarter than group Y to which you belong," and things far more hurtful.
When people compose their own identity and how they view other people through group memberships, it's an inevitable consequence.
"You're dealing with somebody who agrees to your rules."
Says Robert Wright, explaining why male homosexuality expresses male sexuality more purely than does male heterosexuality.
Well, by that logic masturbation would be the purest expression of sexuality. I'm not sure male homosexuality expresses male sexuality, or even sexuality, at all. The very concept of sex requires two genders.
And Beinart looks unusually stupid in calling Coulter a bigot for believing that male gays are more promiscuous than straights. That's just an empirical fact. And even though I look obviously straight, gay guys often hit on me...I get the feeling they're not just promiscuous, they're desperately promiscuous.
And they seem to think I should be flattered(!) Get this, gay guys: coming on to a straight guy is about as flattering as a dog trying to hump your leg.
"expresses male sexuality" -- no.
It expresses INSTINCTUAL male sexuality -- the more orgasms, the more partners, the better.
A feeling. Not a rational thought about how rational human beings "want" to act.
Yes, negative promiscuousness. Promiscuity IS and should be a perjorative, negative word.
Using somebody else's body as a masturbation aid is something those who do so, as I have done as a hetero (to my own sad shame now), should not be proud of.
Have you noticed the big reduction in a search for a "gay" gene -- since it means that folks could test their unborn and abort the unwanted future gays (like Chinese & Indians abort unwanted girls -- leading to some 30 million not-to-be married Chinese young men, available for ... adventures.)
Civil Unions is the right compromise; marriage is for the children. Divorce is also terrible -- see Jesus in Sermon on the Mount about divorce and adultery (recently reread closely while translating it into Slovak).
I wonder if gay male promiscuity is fairly laid at the feet of them being both 'cheating men.' It occurs to me that gay men have to overcome societies expectations of them in an extremely strong way, societies disaproval of multiple partners is much less than societies disapproval of two male partners (my impressions are that gay women have less pressure here, although possibly more when it comes to reproduction etc.) Since societies disapproval has been overcome on the large thing, the smaller thing matters less.
I also think that this is connected to the gay male 'twink' culture, especially towards underage teens. Not that gays are naturally more inclined to teens than others, but that the social constraints that sex should only be with adults, preferably of fairly similar ages has less hold on them.
It would be interesting to see what 'gay culture' would be like without the social ostracization that currently happens. I suspect that a lot of the differences between hetero and homosexual cultures would disappear.
David: Not a great analogy, your NBA one.
At most it would suggest that a subset of black people are very well adapted to playing Basketball (tall, in other words), not that blacks as a group are "more athletic" than whites as a group.
(After all, the obvious counter-example is Hockey, which is both athletic and overwhelmingly white, no?)
I suspect, based on the self-reporting data of sexual histories, that Coulter is likely factually correct - but the argument by parallel to the NBA isn't very good.
After all, if I "open my eyes" I'll find that none of the gay men I know go to sex clubs and have sex with random men by the dozen; those that do, like black people in the NBA, cause a perception that might not match the actual facts of the matter.
geRe: "How does one look obviously straight?"
What?! You've never heard of Gaydar?
This might be a good time to mention something a guy I used to know said about himself. He said, "If I were a woman I'd be the fuckingist whore you ever saw."
He was serious. And probably right about that.
est?
"And they seem to think I should be flattered(!) Get this, gay guys: coming on to a straight guy is about as flattering as a dog trying to hump your leg."
Strange, of the straight men I've been involved with, all of them came on to me. And not to gross anyone out with what have been described here by Hammer (and what a big hammer you have!) as "gory details" but men who have sex with men are often better at certain sexual activities than many women, according to men I know who have had partners of both genders.
Smilin' Jack, you charmer, you should be flattered that any old terrier would give your calf the time of day.
Palladian: Back rubs?
P.S. Hope all's well.
Palladian said...
Strange, of the straight men I've been involved with, all of them came on to me.
Maybe you need to recheck the contemporary definition of "straight."
And not to gross anyone out with what have been described here by Hammer (and what a big hammer you have!) as "gory details" but men who have sex with men are often better at certain sexual activities than many women, according to men I know who have had partners of both genders.
But when women do it it doesn't make me want to throw up. There's a lot to be said for that.
Smilin' Jack, you charmer, you should be flattered that any old terrier would give your calf the time of day.
It's not the time of day that's the problem.
David might be kidding, but his NBA analogy actually is even weaker that Sigivald demonstrates.
He writes, for example, "if empirical evidence posits unequivocally that there are physical diffrences bewteen the races, the same evidence shows mental diffrences between the races." Huh? Clearly, physical and mental differences are not inextricably linked.
Second, NBA rosters tell us nothing about the ability of average athletes. There are no average athletes in the NBA. At most, the NBA tells us something about a small percentage of the very best athletes in the game.
Moreover, there is nothing unequivocal about the evidence he cites. Obviously, cultural (and sometimes political) differences play a role. The white "bias" of the NHL is one example. Another is major league baseball before 1947. Looking strictly at the "empirical evidence," it was obvious that no blacks were good enough to play big league ball until Jackie Robinson came along.
Those are obvious cases, but more subtle difference also persist. For instance, in the 1960s, when blacks were well established in major league baseball, many complained that, other things being equal, white players were still favored.
To test that allegation, I once did some roster counting. Sure enough, while Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson were dominating play on the field, the least talented players (backup catchers, middle relievers, utility infielders) were disproportionately white. Were whites more gifted bench warmers? Or were black players required to meet a higher standard to make the roster?
The point is that cultural factors can continue to play a major role long after "official" discrimination ends. I hate to make things complicated for David, but that's the way it is for us liberals.
It's a readily proven fact that gay man are vastly better looking than their straight counterparts. So of course they get luckier more often.
But can we please stop this myth that straight men are not promiscuous. And straight women for that matter. Ever visit a college campus recently?
Are the straight men on this board really so proud of the fact that they have only had sex with one women in their entire life? That's not something to brag about if you're a guy . . .
And can we stop with the myth that gay men actually want to sleep with straight men.
As if.
99% of straight men are overweight, smelly, slobs. And they can't dress to save their life. No - we don't want to sleep with you. Like I'd actually sleep with a guy who wears Levis with white sneakers . . .
But we might try and freak you out by pretending we want to, if we're bored that is.
DTL: "99% of straight men are overweight, smelly, slobs. And they can't dress to save their life. No - we don't want to sleep with you..."
Too true, but how do you think this makes us women feel?
My opinions (randomized somewhat). Nb, 'men' and 'women' here means 'most men' and 'most women'. There are exceptions and lots of individuals use sex for unique, individualized purposes.
For straight men, sexual contact is regulated by women, who perceive sex somewhat differently than men do.
For women, no matter how enjoyable or fulfilling it may be, sex is a risky business (the whole getting pregnant and having to deal with the results thing). No matter how much an individual woman may want children, I think it's safe to say that the number of women who want pregnancy to be _completely_ randomized approaches zero. Also, sex is about intimacy and trust for women as a way of hedging the risks. No matter how strong their sexual desire may be, anonymous multiple partners are just not an appealing concept for women.
For men, sex is really no big deal. No really. Despite the ...intensity of certain urges and the extreme lengths some men go to fulfill them, intimacy and trust and emotional commitment are not required and usually not expended in sex. Of course men need emotional intimacy and some become trained by women and society to connect that to sexual relationships, but that's not necessarily most men's first choice in the matter.
For gay men, sex is regulated by other factors. Age and appearance are important here as is access (an important consideration considering their extreme minority status). A relatively small number of (young attractive) men living in gay meccas can get all the sex they want which can be a _lot_ and this can skew the averages. Most gay men learn to settle for a lot less.
On the other hand, long term promiscuity isn't good for anyone physically (or emotionally I'd argue) and most men (regardless of orientation) have settling down impulses along with those wild oat impulses.
Seven Machos said,
"Gay men have more sexual partners because they can. Straight guys would be just as promiscuous, if only women were easier.This is really simple. I'm not sure what the fuss is about." and
"gay men are not better-looking at all. They do tend to take better care of their appearance because they know it will help them get laid."
Both comments are totally accurate. Seven, those 2 years in Dupont Circle must have been quite an education.
Just in case my partner is reading this: the ample data supporting these observations predates our relationship.
"And can we stop with the myth that gay men actually want to sleep with straight men.
As if."
Speak for yourself, Mary.
Thanks for thinking of me, Bissage. Everything is as well as can be expected.
Strange, of the straight men I've been involved with, all of them came on to me.
I think that the primary requirement for a man's sexuality to be classified as "straight" is that he not sleep with other men.
The biological imperative that drives men to promiscuity: I get that. I don't get why homosexual promiscuity serves that imperative. One of these decades they're gonna figure out what it is that makes some of us homosexual, resolving the second biggest mystery in the universe, the biggest being why they put locks on the doors of 7/11's. I actully saw a locksmith working on a door at a 7/11 once. How did they know the lock was broken? But I guess I'm getting too far off the topic.
99% of straight men are overweight, smelly, slobs. And they can't dress to save their life.
I hate to cross posts here, but it seems relevant that spouting wild generalizations and old stereotypes makes a lot folks pretty upset. What of it Ann? Does this taint all of dtl's comments both past and present? What if he was drunk when he wrote that? No, especially if he were drunk. I forget.
A woman that has anonymous heterosexual sex with multiple partners is called a slut. There is no male equivalent of the word.
Man-whore.
No matter what is said of biology, promiscuity is not an attractive quality in a man. It can seem to indicate weakness, insecurity, or both.
Post a Comment