More Countries Accepting Gay Lifestyle: Study

[tombkk]

Thanks, Tom and IJWT, yes, we were lucky.

One thing I think is often overlooked is that some people have a much weaker sex drive than others. I know one couple who have now been together over 30 years, and never had sex with each other (or, I think, with anyone else) after the first five years. That's fine if both parties are like that, but what if only one is?

It is up to them. They might not be a perfect fit, or they might be. It's a single issue in a complex relationship. I always say: "If you are more happy in the relationship than without it, it's good for you. If you feel miserable because of the way it is, get out." (The FDR quote in the other posting I replied to a minute ago is better though.)

[LeCharivari]

.... a sexual encounter with somebody else can be an accident .....

I never thought of it like that!

[LeCharivari]

Interesting to hear from LCV that of the group playing around, half are open about it but half are not.

I should emphasise, IJWT, that that's only of those "I know" and may well not be representative. ...

I thought that I should check to see if those "I know" were any different to those "I know of" just to see if there was much difference between the two.

The general consensus was that rather than monogamy in long term gay relationships was unusual - at least amongst expats in Thailand who were part of the "gay community"and had a "gay lifestyle". The most generous estimate was that of those it was probably less than 1in 10 who were in such relationships who didn't "play around", rather than the 4 in 10 amongst those I know.

All the studies I have read, however, show that gays are generally no more promiscuous than straights, making this promiscuity very much part of the "gay lifestyle" for those in the "gay community" rather than part of "normal" life for those who happen to be gay. Not the same thing and a prime reason why I have never felt any obligation to be part of the gay community but prefer to have nothing to do with it at all.

I have always seen my "lifestyle" as being no different to that of anyone who is straight in a similar relationship (single/uncommitted - long term relationship - married/ civil partnership - separated - etc, etc) except that my partner happened to be male. I have also felt that the same sort of expectations and "standards" (to use an old-fashioned but appropriate term) applied, gay or straight, such as sexual fidelity as much as any other commitment. I am not criticising those whose relationships include unlimited sexual partners, as long as it works for them both, just saying that I personally have never considered it any part of a long term commitment and that previously I never considered it part of such a commitment for those with a "gay lifestyle" - obviously I was wrong and it is "the norm" for the gay community and those with a "gay lifestyle".

Being "gay" does not mean having a "gay lifestyle", which is why I first took exception to the article in the OP being "sexed up" to show an increase in "acceptance of the gay lifestyle" when the report was about an increased "acceptance of homosexuality" - not even remotely the same thing, however much the "gay community" would like people to think it is. I am evidently not the only one to think so, as the original link in the OP has now been corrected by Yahoo.

Edited July 5, 2011 by LeCharivari

[tombkk]

Interesting to hear from LCV that of the group playing around, half are open about it but half are not.

I should emphasise, IJWT, that that's only of those "I know" and may well not be representative. ...

I thought that I should check to see if those "I know" were any different to those "I know of" just to see if there was much difference between the two.

The general consensus was that rather than monogamy in long term gay relationships was unusual - at least amongst expats in Thailand who were part of the "gay community"and had a "gay lifestyle". The most generous estimate was that of those it was probably less than 1in 10 who were in such relationships who didn't "play around", rather than the 4 in 10 amongst those I know.

All the studies I have read, however, show that gays are generally no more promiscuous than straights, making this promiscuity very much part of the "gay lifestyle" for those in the "gay community" rather than part of "normal" life for those who happen to be gay. Not the same thing and a prime reason why I have never felt any obligation to be part of the gay community but prefer to have nothing to do with it at all.

I have always seen my "lifestyle" as being no different to that of anyone who is straight in a similar relationship (single/uncommitted - long term relationship - married/ civil partnership - separated - etc, etc) except that my partner happened to be male. I have also felt that the same sort of expectations and "standards" (to use an old-fashioned but appropriate term) applied, gay or straight, such as sexual fidelity as much as any other commitment. I am not criticising those whose relationships include unlimited sexual partners, as long as it works for them both, just saying that I personally have never considered it any part of a long term commitment and that previously I never considered it part of such a commitment for those with a "gay lifestyle" - obviously I was wrong and it is "the norm" for the gay community and those with a "gay lifestyle".

Being "gay" does not mean having a "gay lifestyle", which is why I first took exception to the article in the OP being "sexed up" to show an increase in "acceptance of the gay lifestyle" when the report was about an increased "acceptance of homosexuality" - not even remotely the same thing, however much the "gay community" would like people to think it is. I am evidently not the only one to think so, as the original link in the OP has now been corrected by Yahoo.

You are certainly a rational person rather than an emotional person. You are presenting a theory rather than emotions.

A man is a man. A man likes to have casual sex (not everybody, but I would wager the majority), regardless of whether they are straight or gay. A straight man in a relationship with a woman will not be allowed to have meaningless sexual encounters without another woman, a gay man in a relationshipment with another man has the advantage that the partner is a man too, and perfectly understands that physical desires have nothing to do with the heart, and the love that they have for each other. And that's not the gay expat that speaks here, it's been my philosophy forever. And my boyfriend has the same view on life.

Nothing, and I say "nothing", will come between us, and after so many years, there is no question about it.

I still do not believe that a woman would accept that (and I pity my straight friends, who are jealous of me), so here's for another difference between straight and gay relationships.

[LeCharivari]

You are certainly a rational person rather than an emotional person. You are presenting a theory rather than emotions.

So I have been told, but I have moved on a bit since my last serious psychiatric evaluation when the pointer for "left brain/right brain" ended up so far to the left that it was off the schematic of the brain completely!

..... a gay man in a relationshipment with another man has the advantage that the partner is a man too, and perfectly understands that physical desires have nothing to do with the heart, and the love that they have for each other. And that's not the gay expat that speaks here, it's been my philosophy forever. And my boyfriend has the same view on life. .....

Now there I'd have to disagree with you. Strongly.

The idea that gay men generally don't care who the partner they love sleeps with as it is "only sex" is one that may normalise your relationship in your eyes, but that doesn't mean that it is widely held. I am not knocking your relationship in any way - clearly it works for you, which is more than can be said for many relationships, but that neither makes it typical of long term gay relationships nor does it highlight any significant difference between gay and straight relationships.

Some straight relationships are just as promiscuous as yours, with wife-swapping, threesomes, etc, etc; some more so. Some women clearly do not only "accept that" but thrive on it, but at the same time they are still as strongly tied to their partner as you are - there is no difference between gays and straights here, although arguably the proportion of "players" may be different (although most studies show that they are surprisingly similar).

At the same time some gay men not only want but expect some sort of fidelity from their partners and would feel more than a passing twinge of jealousy or disappointment if they knew that their partner not only preferred having sex with someone else but was actively looking for it (and indulging at every opportunity). I happen to be one of them, despite the apparent lack of emotional involvement (I scored an uncharacteristic zero on the Machiavellian scale!), and although like most gays I am physically attracted to many other men I control it out of respect for my partner as I know that although it may just be a "meaningless sexual encounter" to me that it would be far from that to him.

Who is the more representative of the "gay lifestyle"? Almost certainly you (and you are welcome to it). Who is more typical of gays in a long term relationship? Arguable, but most studies show that gays are no more promiscuous than straights.

[Jingthing]

Arguable, but most studies show that gays are no more promiscuous than straights.

Arguable indeed. Sounds like a made up conclusion based on your own bias. I don't believe it for a second. It's basic common sense anyway, men to men, there is not as strong a barrier to sex as the social blocking many or most women employ, often with excellent reason, such as fear of pregnancy with an unsuitable mate. This is basic biology, snookums.

[tombkk]

You are certainly a rational person rather than an emotional person. You are presenting a theory rather than emotions.

So I have been told, but I have moved on a bit since my last serious psychiatric evaluation when the pointer for "left brain/right brain" ended up so far to the left that it was off the schematic of the brain completely!

..... a gay man in a relationshipment with another man has the advantage that the partner is a man too, and perfectly understands that physical desires have nothing to do with the heart, and the love that they have for each other. And that's not the gay expat that speaks here, it's been my philosophy forever. And my boyfriend has the same view on life. .....

Now there I'd have to disagree with you. Strongly.

At the same time some gay men not only want but expect some sort of fidelity from their partners and would feel more than a passing twinge of jealousy or disappointment if they knew that their partner not only preferred having sex with someone else but was actively looking for it (and indulging at every opportunity).

Now you are exaggerating to make your point, of course. We are not talking every week, we are talking 2-3 times per year; certainly not looking for it or indulging at every opportunity. And especially not preferring. Otherwise it would hardly be a relationship, would it?

As I said earlier, accidents happen, and the mind may be strong but the body is weak.

I happen to be one of them, despite the apparent lack of emotional involvement (I scored an uncharacteristic zero on the Machiavellian scale!), and although like most gays I am physically attracted to many other men I control it out of respect for my partner as I know that although it may just be a "meaningless sexual encounter" to me that it would be far from that to him.

Who is the more representative of the "gay lifestyle"? Almost certainly you (and you are welcome to it). Who is more typical of gays in a long term relationship? Arguable, but most studies show that gays are no more promiscuous than straights.

I don't know whether I'm representative, I have not seen any academic surveys. Would be a good idea to make one, though. However, I believe we agree that people are different and what works for one couple is good for them, even if it wouldn't work for another couple.

[LeCharivari]

Arguable, but most studies show that gays are no more promiscuous than straights.

Arguable indeed. Sounds like a made up conclusion based on your own bias. I don't believe it for a second. It's basic common sense anyway, men to men, there is not as strong a barrier to sex as the social blocking many or most women employ, often with excellent reason, such as fear of pregnancy with an unsuitable mate. This is basic biology, snookums.

Well, snookums, so much for your "common sense".

When I say something like "most studies" that means I have based what I post on a quick search, not my own bias. I leave that to you, although I am surprised that you would side with the Christian right, whose studies seem to be the only ones which support your view.

I have only given links where the original studies are available on the internet, but all the studies are referred to in one or more of the links:

The General Social Survey done by the University of Chicago, which is considered authoritative, concluded that 87% of gay men had the same level of promiscuity as single straight men, with the remaining 13% being more promiscuous and distorting some studies.

The Laumann Study, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States concluded that gay men had a median of 6 partners and straight men a median of 5.

Pride in Utah surveyed 3.2 million and concluded that 98% of gay men and 99% of straight men had 20 partners or less, while 45% of gay men and 44% of straight men had 5 partners or less.

The Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services in its Partners National Survey of Lesbian and Gay Couples concluded that 78% of gay men in a relationship had no sex outside of that relationship.

Wigaypedia has a number of links to studies, as do other studies , all reaching similar conclusions.

[LeCharivari]

We are not talking every week, we are talking 2-3 times per year; certainly not looking for it or indulging at every opportunity.

I'm not sure if that makes it any more or less significant; more "accidents" could, arguably, make each one less significant (taking the sexpat view!)

I don't know whether I'm representative, I have not seen any academic surveys. Would be a good idea to make one, though. However, I believe we agree that people are different and what works for one couple is good for them, even if it wouldn't work for another couple.

Judging by the studies I have given above, Tom, apparently you're not - not that that really matters in the slightest!

[Ijustwannateach]

On an anecdotal basis of every gay man, every straight man, and every straight woman I have ever known, I can say categorically that nearly every gay man I have known (many of them, in a huge variety of countries, contexts, professions, and roles with respect to myself) has definitely been more sexually active than pretty much all the equivalently aged, contexted, professed, straight men and women I have known. There may be one or two outliers among the straights that chance to exceed the typical clustering of gays as far as activity is concerned, but this hardly represents a trend.

Nor have I heard many anecdotal claims by friends that counter this.

Nor have I heard of any surveys which would support this idea, though it would be interesting to see someone trying to defend this claim in an academic context. When I have some free time I certainly will look at the above mentioned surveys- thanks for the references, LCV.

*************************

I'm not a big one for the 'flesh is weak' theory. I can be responsible for my own behaviour, and if I choose to sleep with someone it's definitely my own choice. However, at the same time, I'm realistic and I don't promise or demand what I won't or can't choose to deliver, and at the moment I'm not ready to be settled, by my own choice, for various reasons.

It's possible I may never be ready to be entirely 'settled', if it means emulating the straights in their hideous and broken down 'marriage' model. I think a lot of what gets defined as 'cheating' is actually a product of the dysfunctionality of the marriage model, where sex is viewed as an arena for acting out other problems in the relationship, with the added implication that one must ONLY deal with one's partner in getting sexual satisfaction- inevitably, over time, leading the relationship into the area either of emotional deceit or blackmail. I think it would take a VERY, VERY unusually healthy and functional couple to be so mature with each other so consistently that sex never was used as a weapon in interpersonal conflicts, and I think every time it is, implicitly a situation is created which emotionally justifies adultery. However, the social onus has only been put on the adultery because it is the outwardly observable offense. In that sense, I don't condemn partners in long term traditional couples relationships from doing whatever they need to adapt to these less than ideal circumstances.

I think the honest approach also doesn't always work well in this kind of culture- I don't do the 'polite lie' thing (kind of part of the 'being responsible and expecting others to be responsible' package), so if a partner of mine really, really wants to talk openly about how I run my private life (and reciprocally how he runs his) I'll tell him the big picture about what I am currently able to offer and what I am not, and it's up to him whether that's good enough or not (very often it is, and often I will also hear a similar story from him about his similar activities- somewhat on a tangent, but humorously, the only person who has rejected me on that basis in the last year or two did so because he had decided not only that I definitely had to be monogamous [before we had even had sex once] but that I would have to meet and get to know his mother, as well, so he wouldn't have to lie to her about where he was- I had to regretfully decline this offer because I felt the bed would be getting a bit crowded with his mother hanging out there in spirit, so to speak).

As I mentioned previously, many are happy enough with 'don't ask, don't tell', and if it works for them it works for me. I don't demand monogamy from Thai men (or for that matter, Dutch men or Indian men or Japanese men or Indonesian men or American men, etc.) these days and don't ask them about it if they seem at all shy or reticent to discuss that part of their lives.

[tombkk]

I'm not a big one for the 'flesh is weak' theory. I can be responsible for my own behaviour, and if I choose to sleep with someone it's definitely my own choice. However, at the same time, I'm realistic and I don't promise or demand what I won't or can't choose to deliver, and at the moment I'm not ready to be settled, by my own choice, for various reasons.

To be honest, I could resist temptation if I wanted. I don't know why I should want to, though. And I am settled.

I think the honest approach also doesn't always work well in this kind of culture- I don't do the 'polite lie' thing

I think that's the point. When BF and I came together, we both didn't want a relationship but felt very comfortable with each other. When he asked me one time in the very beginning where I had been earlier that night, I told him. And I said, if you don't agree, I'll understand. If you just don't want to hear, don't ask. If you ask, I'll answer: I won't lie.

There is no such thing as a white lie, IMHO. A lie is a lie and is dishonest.

[LeCharivari]

To be honest, I could resist temptation if I wanted. I don't know why I should want to, though. And I am settled.

I can't see why you should either, tom. You're happy, you're partner's happy, anyone "extra" is happy - its win-win all round.

[LeCharivari]

There may be one or two outliers among the straights that chance to exceed the typical clustering of gays as far as activity is concerned, but this hardly represents a trend.

Nor have I heard many anecdotal claims by friends that counter this.

Nor have I heard of any surveys which would support this idea, though it would be interesting to see someone trying to defend this claim in an academic context. When I have some free time I certainly will look at the above mentioned surveys- thanks for the references, LCV.

A pleasure as always, IJWT.

As I said with my own experience, these were my experiences and those of my friends I referred to, which would not necessarily make them typical of gays (or straights, or anyone else) in any way. The probability is that my friends would have a similar social style to me, so if I am promiscuous they probably would be too and if I were monogamous those in similar relationships probably would be as well.

The surveys are pretty well known and typical; very few apart from those sponsored by the Christian right show the sort of sexual activity you and JT see as typical, so this seems to be more an indicator of your own lifestyle than median ("normal") gay activity.

There are some surveys that support your view that were not sponsored by the Christian right, but they are comparatively few and most suffer from very basic flaws.

One of the best known was the so-called Gay Report, published in 1979 and written by feminists and gay activists Karla Jay and Allan Young. It was a 16 page questionnaire, completed by 5,400 gays and lesbians, so their conclusions would appear to be authoritative, supporting their conclusions that 35% had had more than 100 different sexual partners, 77% had taken part in threesomes, 59% had taken part in group sex/orgies, 38% had tried sadomasochism, 23% had tried urination with sex, 24% had been paid for sex, 24% of gay men had had sex with boys aged 13-15, and 13% had tried bestiality.

Pretty strong stuff and apparently pretty authoritative research, but statistically it was worthless as the survey was self-selecting. Only 1% of the estimated 500,000 gays and lesbians reading the survey completed it: 45% were readers of Blueboy, a gay pornographic magazine, and most of the remainder were those visiting "adult" stores and cinemas. Not a particularly broad or representative cross-section, as the authors admitted in a very brief caveat hidden on page 10 of their findings ( they “do not claim to have a scientific or representative sample of lesbians and gay men.” )

Despite that caveat and other flaws The Gay Report and similar ones are still taken as authoritative by the anti-gay lobby and, rather bizarrely to me, by some gay activists trying to normalize and justify their own behaviour.

[Ijustwannateach]

Ummm... guys, I'm more used to discouraging grammar Nazi-ism in the teacher's forum, but a reminder that it is at best poor forum etiquette- we're not in school, and these aren't term papers- and at worst it is a form of off-topic flaming.

Several posts have been deleted on this basis.