"The ultimate goal is better sex — for long periods of time, frequently and with multiple partners," WaPo reports in a piece titled
"The ‘chemsex’ scene: An increasingly popular and sometimes lethal public-health problem."
According to the handful of studies that exist, men may take chemsex drugs to “manage negative feelings, such as a lack of confidence and self esteem, internalised homophobia, and stigma about their HIV status,” McCall and her colleagues wrote in the BMJ [British Medical Journal]. Others argue marginalized men use chemsex as a bonding mechanism — or simply because chemsex feels good.
[BBC Radio 4 journalist Mobeen Azhar said:] “Even those who told me sex on chems made them feel ‘like a don’ would follow up such celebratory statements with tales of rejection, regret, loneliness and longing for intimacy.... These became reoccurring themes among every chem user I spoke to.”
Tinged with sadness. It's
very sad. What makes people think they should have "instant rapport with sexual partners"?
Posts
25 comments:
Surprise surprise...hook up sex with random strangers is dangerous and unfulfilling....some of us have been saying that for quite a while now.
Wait, I thought the culture wars were over and your side won? Now you want to bring morality back in?
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Who are you to to scold others about their definitions?
Anyway, won't be long before the public will have to pay for the consequences of polyamorous polysexual behavior, as a matter of right. Ann "I can't believe" Althouse will wring her hands, acting surprised that what until yesterday was considered a form of mental illness or sexual perversion could be construed as a right to be protected and subsidized by the state.
Splooge stooges are such silly animals.
"instant rapport with sexual partners"?
See, that's your problem right there. It sounds like a marriage, which is another way of saying you have opted out of better sex.
Chastity and other aspects of sexual morality are not because we are a bunch of mean, controlling, misogynist, repressed, anti-sex prudes who don't want anyone to have any fun or freedom. It is because we actually care about people, and the realization that when you violate that morality, you are only hurting and punishing yourself.
The real question is, in the wake of the hyper-sexualized culture which makes idols of genitalia and promotes sex, sex, sex, sex, sex all the time, how much human wreckage is enough?
“manage negative feelings, such as a lack of confidence and self esteem, internalised homophobia
Huh. And I thought you were born that way.
, and stigma about their HIV status,”
This sounds like gay men are feeding these drugs to straight men and raping them.
"Well, I was insecure and homophobic, and I didn't want to have sex with someone who was HIV positive. Then he game me these drugs and well, my internalized homophobia just vanished! And I was no longer shy or worried about his HIV. The sex was amazing!"
"You're a homophobe for not having sex with me."
"Well, you've got me there...wait i can't get it up. Now I'm depressed AND homophobic!"
"Here, take this..."
"WHOA!"
(HETEROPRUDE FADE OUT)
"By the way, I'm HIV positive. And if you reject me for that, you're a homophobe."
"Now I'm depressed again."
"Here, take this."
Hasn't there always been a lot of "better living through chemistry" associated with the gay cruising scene? I remember in the 80's hearing about "poppers" (amyl nitrate, I believe). Then Ecstasy came along. It not only had a long run, but was (is) very popular among straights on the make, too.
Needless to say, this isn't really a subculture I've been monitoring carefully over the years. Perhaps some of our compatriots here have better information on the drugs of fashion over the years in this subculture.
Ann Althouse said...Tinged with sadness. It's very sad.
Why? Under your old, outdated moral and ethical framework where sexual relations and personal emotional intimacy were important and related? Please, how old fashioned! It's tinged only because it's merely a symptom the last gasp of that no-longer-relevant system of beliefs and their hold over people's minds.
Remember? The culture war's over. We won.
Get your bible off of my body Professor Bringdown! I'll take whatever I want and do whatever I want with my genitals because that's what's important--that's the only freedom that matters.
Hasn't there always been a lot of "better living through chemistry" associated with the gay cruising scene?
Well there has definitely been a long sad history of random anonymous hook up sex with the scene.
What do they think alcohol and kissing were invented for. It works much better, and then good sleep after sex is possible. Meth in sex is insane insanity that has to end in near death to ever get to sleep.
Have they considered getting deliverance from addiction to drugs and lust demons? That might seem like losing their best friends, but so what.
Gahrie said...Well there has definitely been a long sad history of random anonymous hook up sex with the scene.
Why sad, Gahrie? That's just old cisnormative/hetero-religious repression nonsense.
The culture war's over. You lost. Get over it. Stop being anti-gay.
I was in argument last night with someone about Islam. The guy happened to be gay, and was offended by a cartoon I had reposted in which a man says:
"I don't believe that women have any rights, and I think gays should be hanged."
In the next panel, a woman in an Obama T Shirt says:
"What a complete primitive asshole you are! You must be a Republican."
In the third panel, the man replies:
"No actually I am a Muslim and those are my religious beliefs"
In the last panel the woman says:
"Oh I'm sorry! I apologize. I hope you don't think I'm Islamophobic"
At one point in the conversation he went the holier than thou route, and I said, "Yea yea, you are a far better and nobler man than I am....but you know what? When they are trying to throw you off the roof...I am the one who will be trying to save you."
The sick thing is...deep down, they know that. They just take it for granted and discount it.
Is it just me, or is Prof. Althouse's teaser/blurb deliberately designed to obscure the fact that this is a ghey secks thing?
I am so glad that under BernieCare For All I can pay for the HIV that gets spread when these cool dudes are too chemically f*cked up to use proper precautions.
From the article in question:
But Hannah McCall, an author of the editorial and a London-based reproductive-health expert, told The Washington Post in November she “wouldn’t call it outlandish behavior.” Rather, she wants chemsex participants to be aware of risks, which include unprotected sex and sharing needles. “A lot of people having chemsex make informed decisions, just as people using alcohol make informed decisions.”
1) I am not exactly clear how "reproductive-health" is involved here, unless everything I thought I knew about making babies is wrong.
2) You you should be aware of the "risks" of sharing needles. It's like white-water rafting or something.
3) According to the Obama Admin, the mere presence of alcohol renders women completely incapable of making ANY decisions, turning them into utterly agency-less drones ripe for attack, so I don't get how this works. I guess guys/gays are smarter/tougher/wiser.
holdfast, what's the problem? We had a culture war; you lost. Get our you wallet and start paying. If you complain, well, that's anti-gay, it's anti-woman, and it's anti-sex positivity and I'm afraid that kind of hate has not place in our culture, let alone our society.
The future does not belong to those who slander the Left. Nor, for some reason, to those who slander the Prophet of Islam. Nor, of course, to those who slander homosexuals nor transgenders. The future DOES belong to those who slander Christians, holdfast, and the Right, but you already knew that. We won.
Don't stigmatize homosexual culture and behavior! Sure, if we were talking about college kids the article'd be framed around how this behavior is super dangerous to women and how women who voluntarily engaged in such behavior must only be doing so out of peer pressure, etc, but it's different when the subject is homosexuals. The Left LIKES homosexuals. The Left HATES college men. See the difference?
When people the Left likes engage in risky behavior that behavior is to be treated as normal, healthy, and special. It's a part of "their" culture, and if you attack or criticize that behavior it means you're attacking them (and, of course, that you're anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-minority, etc).
When people the Left doesn't like engage in risky behavior it's evidence that those people are stupid and backwards, and that the Left should have move power over them (to prevent the stupid backward people from hurting themselves or others).
Oh, in both cases you're required to pay, by the way. I have to pay for the public health costs of the behavior the Left cheers and for the behavior the Left disapproves of. That's a constant, I have to pay.
"According to the handful of studies that exist, men may take chemsex drugs to “manage negative feelings, such as a lack of confidence and self esteem, internalised homophobia, and stigma about their HIV status,"
Wait, what? Their HIV status? No wonder they're sad. Such people should perhaps not be having casual sex with people they just meet and using drugs to get them in the mood. That HIV thing is kind of relevant.
jr565 said...Such people should perhaps not be having casual sex with people they just meet and using drugs to get them in the mood.
Who are you to judge, jr565? That's homophobic. Reported.
Here's a radical notion: How about strong rapport and THEN make the person your sexual partner?
Hoodlum doodle wrote:
Who are you to judge, jr565? That's homophobic. Reported.
I am reporting tomorrow for my reindoctrination. I technically meant people with aids, not necessarily gay people with aids. But you're right, close enough.
Sexual inhibitions = Chesterton's fence
Post a Comment