Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Hookups: Harmless Fun?

This follow-up to Zack's Thoughts on Manhunt was submitted by Aidan, who has recently shared his opinions on The Superficial Victory in the Manhunt Crusade and Happiness and Gayness.

One paragraph that really stuck out at me from the Out Magazine piece on Manhunt was the following:

“To pretend that the choice to have immense numbers of sexual encounters with little or no emotional context is value-neutral -- long an article of faith of modern gay life -- is a mistake. Decoupling sex from emotion is a fool’s errand, and Manhunt seems to be the fullest expression of this project. It is hard to see how it could go any further.”

This is where the meat of the discussion lies. I'd like to start by saying that I think we often mistakenly throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to rejecting Judaeo-Christian morality. From what I gather, the overarching view in the gay community, the ethos of the Dan Savage mindset, is that pretty much any 18 year old consenting orifice is a good thing to stick your dick at, provided there's a condom on it.


Savage would likely plead that he advises readers to investigate whether their potential partners are dating/married, and what the understanding is about non-monogamy if this is the case. He also occasionally gives writers “permission to cheat.” While I find Dan Savage to be hilarious and witty, I often read his advice and am left with the distinct impression that he has some pretty effed up philosophical first principles (the most egregious example being his advice here to OBGYN).

What does a culture where promiscuity is seen as normal and healthy (just don't forget that latex!) provide us with? This, to me, is the question which the Out Magazine piece tries to answer, and it's not a pretty picture.

The reality of objectifying one another is something we just can't deny (maybe I'm generalizing, but I can't deny it personally speaking). Plenty of my friends have a tendency, when I chat with them online about a recent date, upon being asked questions such as “So how was his personality? What's he do for a living? Where'd he go to undergrad? Do you think you're compatible?” to respond to all these questions with a simple, thousand-word answer: a picture.

How hot he is? In many ways, that is the measure of our worth in the dating world. That ain't gonna change. I'm not preaching here; at gay venues when I meet guys, there is a certain implicit understanding about “league” - and whether or not we're in the same one. That's not a good thing, that's not a tendency within myself that I am proud of, but that's how the world is.

Although my first experience at a gay bar did teach me that this whole gay thing would in fact be much harder than I first thought, I did not fully internalize the lesson implicit in that experience. Despite my initial disillusionment, I had nonetheless discovered a very powerful medication for my insecurities.

With mere words I cannot do full justice to this medicine. At best, I hope that I can describe something close enough to the experiences of others that they will be able to recognize the feelings I am trying to describe.

I had discovered a cocaine for my ego. Certainly the raging hormones of a young man played a role, but I was learning that I could, for a short while, become a god on the floors of the local gay bar. Once the initial awkwardness and small talk following the exchange of “come fuck me eyes” in which we unambiguously indicated our mutual attraction were done with, my catch of the evening and I would soon be out there shakin' our groove thing. Dancing. So simple and innocent, right?

Yet in that act we were giving one another something far more precious. In our mutual desire and sexualization of each other, we would provide a foundation for us to climb Mount Olympus, to be divine and recognize divinity in the other. Never mind the copious release of dopamine that was certainly happening, this was the fulfillment of a need far deeper in the soul than anything biochemistry might enable.

We could reach out and worship that image of masculinity that the combination of genes and gym time had bestowed upon our bodies. And we could tell one another that yes, you are appreciated. You are worthwhile. You are fuckin' hot. I want you, and I want you to want me!

And yet, I have discovered that as powerful as these experiences may be, they do not fulfill the deepest longings of my heart, however much they may seem to do so on a Friday night when I'm bored, lonely, and really what's all the fuss about? And even if they were able to do so, wouldn't that be rather shitty? I am the first to recognize that the flower of my youth will eventually wilt, and conditioning myself to seek ego-strengthening messages based upon my looks is not something that is psychologically healthy in the long term.

No, what I ought to do is seek self acceptance and a healthy self esteem in those same places that my parents and society as a whole have taught me to from a young age: by using my gifts, talents, and aptitudes to be a person who increases the amount of goodness in the world. Such sentiments were certainly the source of my (generally healthy) sense of self worth before I decided to come out.

I cannot be told by another person that I am worthwhile and/or a positive force in the universe. I can delude myself into thinking that my appearance makes me that, but at the end of the day the responsibility for becoming these things and internalizing that reality rests at my own feet. And I know that in many ways I have utterly failed to become the kind of person that all the blessings of my particular lot in life may have allowed me to be, and that saddens me. Yet all I can do is recognize my deficits, know that they are deficits, and seek to repair them.

I know that many gay couples opt for emotional monogamy, sexual polyamory. But is this a good way to live one's life? Gross makes a point in the Out Magazine article that there is always someone out there who is younger, cuter, smarter, or richer than our current boyfriend. Is it a good thing to make it, communally-culturally speaking, acceptable to be seeking other sexual partners? I would argue that it's not.

My friend, who is a big fan of The Ethical Slut and all the enslavement to our genitalia which it advocates, disagrees with me here. “Aidan, your views are still too tainted by your puritanical upbringing! Get over it! Sex is just a lot of fun - no big deal here!”

And I have told him that even removing all questions of morality from the discussion, his lifestyle remains a rather dangerous one, and that an honest look at the empirical literature tells me he is rather likely to acquire HIV at some point. Condoms break sometimes, kiddos - particularly during anal sex.

Somehow he is able to dismiss all this with a huff and a “you're just being judgmental” puff. Look dude, I'm not judging you at all. In fact, I really like you quite a bit, and all I'm saying is that I find it sad as your friend that your behavior is, from an objective and medical standpoint, pretty damn imprudent.

In fact, a fear of being seen as judgmental has kept me from fully expressing my opinions to him about his sexual decisions. If I were to be completely honest, what I might say to him would be something like this:
“Look, X, first I want to make it clear that I am not judging you or in any way saying that I have the capacity to decide your moral culpability for any of your actions. I don't have access to the raw psychic material upon which you base your decisions. I hope our friendship is strong enough that you know I genuinely desire the good for you.

Having said that, I am not going to celebrate, in the name of being an accepting and non-judgmental friend, what I see as your decision to basically surrender any sort of self restraint in the sexual area. I'm not saying that I'm better than you because I haven't done that, but I do pity you because there are clearly elements of a psychopathology behind your compulsive sexual behavior. Common sense and mountains of research on stable, healthy romantic relationships tells me that the sort of advice contained in The Ethical Slut is just really stupid and selfish.

You are in fact in danger of contracting HIV because of your behavior; I believe you have a moral obligation to yourself and to your boyfriend to practice more self restraint. If you end up contracting HIV, suddenly your moral obligation to keep your zipper up will be exponentially increased. And frankly, I think that with some honest self reflection you might realize that in your loneliest, horniest moments you would not always have the courage to disclose your HIV status to your potential partners, which would be a grave moral failure on your part even if you always used a condom. The reason you would not have that courage is because you are giving in to an unhealthy sexual addiction, and you are not acquiring the self restraint required to do that kind of thing. Getting your orgasms would be more important to you.

Furthermore, I want to make it clear that HIV isn't the only or even the main thing I worry about here.

Seeking out tons of sexual partners, whether it is online (as is your preference) or in person, is just not the sort of activity that healthy, well-adjusted adults engage in; it's juvenile and selfish. Gay culture sends us powerful messages trying to convince us otherwise - but it's incorrect! You are fucking yourself up on a psychological level. Please see a sexual addiction specialist, because in reality you are not, as you claim to be, some sort of brave sexually liberated hero with all your transgressive, edgy, and hip ideas on this matter.”

Would I just be a closed-minded asshole if I were to say something like that to him? Maybe, but it's still true! He would probably just laugh at me and talk about how I'm still swallowing the kool-aid I was given as a child. “One day Aidan, you'll realize how silly and naive your ideas about sex are, and jump in the pool with the rest of us who are having tons of fun and getting lots of fulfillment out of all of this! My advice to you would be to do that while you're still young and attractive.”

I'm not holding my breath.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good article, Aidan. It's hard to be different in this world. I guess we all know that only too well.

There's a pretty good book that deals with this subject, among others, called "The Way Out: A Gay Man's Guide to Freedom No Matter if You're in Denial, Closeted, Half In, Half Out, Just Out or Been Around the Block." It's written by a guy named Chris Nutter who is, as far as I can tell, a regular guy who just got tired of all the gay bullshit. I like the book because it's short on the psycho-babble and long on common sense. It really made me think.

Anonymous said...

Morality aside, as a single guy I just get annoyed by those in "committed but open" relationships because I think they're being greedy. If you've already got yours at home then leave the single guys for the rest of us!

Anonymous said...

We, as gays, first discover our sexuality at a time when we can not express it. We see our peers going after what they want in high school or in college and many of us don't or can't. Once out gay men CAN act out the high school boy fantasy of getting as much sex as possible. Men being men are more want to be promiscious. After a time, it can become old, you either grow up or you don't. Psychologically, sex is more of a physical act than emotional for men and that has a huge effect on gay men as they pursue it.

Make you own decision and don't feel bad or superior. It is time for you to be responsible for yourself and no own else.

Parker said...

"I'm not saying that I'm better than you . . ."

yeah, you are dude. i have several friends who fell head over heels for that manhunt article in out who have given similar moralizing sermons to any and all who would listen. look: some people who fuck all the time are not engaging in healthy behavior. some who do are perfectly ok. and i bet some of those who judge "the ethical slut" type are as fucked up as anyone else. and, oh: i bet some of them get hiv too.

it's not anyone's place to judge or lecture someone for who they want to go to bed with and what kind of relationship they choose to have with someone they care about, whether they've cared about them for 5 minutes or 5 years. all of this talk reminds me of the homophobes who attack us for being promiscuous and disease-ridden. so i say do what you want, stay safe, get tested, be honest about your health with your partners, and make sure what you're doing makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone else.

armchairdj said...

This smacks of somebody who whored around when they were young and smoking, then got a bit older and decided they wanted something deeper, and now wants to "grow up" and "explore monogamy." Wasn't this a plotline in one of the later seasons of "Queer As Folk"?

Many of us have already explored monogamy, realized that it doesn't work for us, and attempted to find a balance between sexual adventure and domestic tranquility. Why unquestioningly accept the puritanical notion that you can have sex, or commitment, but not both? Why accept the idea that "growing up" means "not getting laid"?

As "clearlyhere" said, take responsibility for your own decisions without being so narcissistic that you need to project your own current emotional state onto the entire gay community.

Anonymous said...

test

Ben Dursch, GRI said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ben Dursch, GRI said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ben Dursch, GRI said...

Focusing on sexual promiscuity is missing the forest for the trees.

The Out Magazine article was about low self-esteem, not promiscuity. Manhunt was used to illustrate how gay men’s need for approval has distorted gay culture.

For the average man a lot of (protected) sex is healthy; sex addiction or sex abstinence is not. While sex is used like drugs and alcohol to assuage shame, guilt and low self-esteem, it ironically magnifies those feelings as well. I think the article meant to explore how we can save sex from itself…and us.

One solution is be responsible: 1) protect yourself first and then your partner, 2) know that drugs and alcohol impact the clarity of your decisions, 3) do not judge those who behave differently.

Anonymous said...

You gotta admit on some level that sex is a bit of a focus in our community and I think it’s fair to question what impact that has.

I believe in ethical sluts because I have met them and know them but they are a very rare breed. I do not run into them very often. Some guys just know how to be a slut but are moral and good about it.

I’m a bear and in the bear community S-E-X is the big honcho, the big cheese, both god and devil. When I was younger and just coming out I found it was personally OK for me to get my slut on and finally have some fun. I had ups and I had downs but I truly learned quite a bit.

And then…I got…older. I simply don’t want the same things I did when I was 10 years younger. I don’t want to go out every weekend. I don’t want to go to every bear event under the sun. I don’t want to discuss 24-7-365 who is hot and who is woof and who is grrrr. I don’t want to live trick to trick whether when I’m in a relationship or when I am single.

I personally found that living trick to trick is not a great way to live. It’s like living in a weird high school bubble and it’s like having my favorite dessert. All. Of. The. Time. Tricking around gets as old as being monogamous. So it’s difficult sometimes to figure things out.

I personally have found that when I live trick to trick, it keeps EVERYONE at bay. You can never get really close to any one person. And to have sex for sex’s sake all of the time over the long term is an empty way to live. And anyone who would try to defend this is truly lost.

I have been in monogamous and open relationships and it’s been my personal experience that leaning toward monogamy provides a deeper and more meaningful relationship for me. It’s good for you to show some restraint and some loyalty. I feel good about keeping it in my pants my guy and not wandering around the ‘hood all the time looking for tail. I don’t’ believe I will be in a strictly monogamous relationship. There is room for some negotiation but I don’t see my self at bear events hanging out in a hotel lobby with my hubby looking for sport sex. I fully support men who want to do that yet I don’t find very much support for the type of life I want to lead which I find to be very unfortunate.

I am all for open relationships or being a ho but as some point as I approach 45 or 55 or 65, I’m gonna look kinda silly. I will look like I never changed or evolved and that I never left the party that’s been over for a while.

Anonymous said...

Well Aidan I’m confused by your implication that only Christians have a moral compass; that non-Christians, agnostics and atheists have no principles; and that only Christians or ex-Christians are homosexual and readers of TNG.

Those “rejecting Judaeo-Christian morality” are reflexively rendered Christian apostates. Those of us from families and cultures that are not Christian have never been in a position to reject Judaeo-Christian morality in the first place, yet we are to blame. We are, therefore, rendered ancillary to your message.

Examine how your principles of discourse reinforce the very hegemony you seek to transform.

adam isn't here said...

ok, apparently i'm feeling really chatty today so, as succinct as parker was, a few more things: i think you have a kind of exaggerated idea of how easy it is it get HIV. it seems a lot of people do. i mean, it totally depends on what your friend is doing with these manhunt guys right? if he's having them over to make out and jerk each other off, even come on each others faces, there is really very little chance he will contract HIV. like, really little. even if they're sucking each other off. there's a higher chance, but he could suck every dick in DC and it wouldn't be a statistical inevitability as you seem to suggest. fucking and beyond is another thing, but still, it's not how many people you fuck. like parker said, even sex-o-phobes can get HIV. i know people will get all huffy that i said "it's like, practically impossible to get HIV." but that's not what i said and i'm pretty sure you know what i meant.

second, pretty happy that the majority of the comments have been reasonable and sex-positive. after the manhunt debacle i was afraid that all the gays in DC might be total prudish uptight bores. i honestly think that the only "new" gay worth working towards is one that isn't afraid of sex, like so many of the rabidly pro-assimilation activist types seem to be. (the leather people embarrass me at the parade, the only way to gain status is by getting married etc)

third: that last anonymous. cut him some fucking slack whiner. you know what he meant. i KNOW you know what he meant. why are so many people just looking for a reason to be offended. it's all "principles of discourse" with you people and not actually trying to understand anyone. sheesh.

Anonymous said...

Re: adam isn't here...

"it's all "principles of discourse" with you people and not actually trying to understand anyone."

It is precisely because I understood Aidan that I made that comment. It is clear from Aidan's posts that he has unrecognized assimilationist issues. Religion is one of them.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon who seems to be channeling the spirit of Old & Irrelevant:

You are correct in saying that an implication that “only Christians have a moral compass; that non-Christians, agnostics and atheists have no principles; and that only Christians or ex-Christians are homosexual and readers of TNG” would be a wrong implication. You are incorrect in saying those are reasonable things to infer from anything I said.

I'm also sorry you are living in a country with this mysterious evil hegemony business you always mention; it must be pretty shitty there. I'd recommend moving to America.

Other people:

I'll try to address some of the common themes here. #1 is the modern fallacy that anything done by autonomous consenting adults is somehow equally good (with the implicit caveat being “so long as it doesn't break any laws,” or perhaps more accurately “any laws whose jurisprudential reasoning I happen to agree with on an emotional level”). Those who utilize this fallacy never do so with any consistency, as it quickly leads to absurdities.

When my diabetic 16 year old sister gains her autonomous consenting adulthood in 2 years, would it be her own consenting adult business if she were to stop taking her insulin? Mostly yes, but a little bit hell no. I don't care what any liberterianesque moron tries to tell me, she's my sister, I love her, and I would make a bona fide effort to explain to her all the reasons why that would be a stupid decision. Since she would likely already know them, I'd also try to figure out what the underlying issue was and if there was anything I could do to help her deal with it.

If, after that bona fide effort, she still refused to take her insulin, then it would be a decision I would try to accept with serenity. But accepting her stupidity with serenity does not mean trying to convince myself that she is not doing something stupid.

Similarly, there seems to be some confusion here between two different types of judging. One type of judging is knowing that certain actions are bad. This preening business with refusing to make the simplest and most basic generalizations regarding cause and effect and realities of patterned phenomena is something I have little patience for because it is so intellectually dishonest.

Really, does anyone out there sit back and think to themselves “Well, I know enough about my body to know that eating 4 big macs a day would be a bad thing, but I would be a presumptuous universe-understander if I were say that anyone else's decision to eat 4 big macs every day could possibly be unhealthy.”

No sane person thinks that way, and I'm not being judgmental when I say that the person who eats 4 big macs a day is doing something bad, because that's just a basic judgment about a fact. What I could not do is pretend to know his subjective moral culpability for that decision: which was the point I tried to make in my post when I said “I don't have access to your raw psychic material.” That's the sort of judging which is rightly left to Judges, who try to take into account that sort of thing in their sentencing decisions, sometimes with the aid of psychiatrists.

So Parker you are right in one respect: I know that I am making an objectively better decision than my friend who meets 60+ strangers from Manhunt every year for anal. Knowing this doesn't necessitate any sort of moral judgment about which of us is a better person. In fact, I had a far more idyllic childhood than him which I think has greatly affected the kinds of people we grew up to be in a way that makes me a lot more culpable for the stupid stuff I do, and a lot less praiseworthy for the smart stuff that I do.

In conclusion: You all are of course more than capable of very rhetorically effective ad hominem attacks on me, but I'd like to see more debate about the truth or falsity of the actual premises used in my syllogisms, or maybe some criticism of the syllogistic forms within which the premises were used.

Adam, thank you for your attempt to do that with your discussion of HIV contraction, your point was well taken. In my friends case he is engaging in a lot of anal with a lot of strangers, and seems to think that a condom makes this a smart decision, which it doesn't.

Anonymous said...

"...we often mistakenly throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to rejecting Judaeo-Christian morality."

From that statement I gather you feel it is only Judaeo-Christian morality that keeps people from sexual promiscuity and killing sprees. Am I incorrect in saying those are "reasonable things to infer" from what you said?

Philip said...

What was the purpose of that gratuitous slam on Old and Irrelevant? And you're complaining about ad hominem attacks? Pot and kettle!