"Gay marriage implies sexual exclusivity. There are monogamous gay men, and they are the ones who benefit from legalized gay marriage."
Prominent gay marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan is openly not monogamous, and himself has AIDS. He's openly anti-condom as well.
His view seems to be the norm. Most married gays are not monogamous.
To us straights, monogamy and marriage are synonymous. If it's not monogamous, it's not a marriage. Though people cheat, it's considered a breach of contract, not part of the arrangement.
There was a feeling that gay marriage would normalize gay relationships, but instead I think it prompts making straight relationships more gay.
"I don’t think that we should either shame or praise promiscuity in women. But we should have a norm to criticize promiscuity in males, either heterosexual or homosexual."
Augustus tried to shame bachelors too. It's difficult to control male promiscuity because male promiscuity is attractive to women. If you tried to shame a man for bedding a bunch of women, it would just help him bed more.
If you want to control sexuality, you control the females. That's the natural choke point on sexual activity. And female promiscuity is not attractive to males.
There is a strange reluctance to offer negative criticism to women. If you're not willing to slut shame, you're not willing to get serious about promiscuity.
"Many were increasingly of the opinion that they’d all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans." - Douglas Adams
That view seems to be seriously single-minded, and makes its sound like the 1950s were some sort of aberration. As a species we've condemned open homosexuality (while tolerating it in specific circumstances), tolerated promiscuous heterosexual men, and condemned promiscuous heterosexual women for hundreds of years.
Heterosexual female promiscuity, especially in the form of legitimized serial monogamy, is far more damaging to overall social relations than male promiscuity. The number of men who desire to be promiscuous is large (as evidenced by observation of straights, gays, and lesbians) but necessarily limited by both personal resources and the number of women willing to engage in such relationships. Conditioning sexual relations on the formation of a stable monogamous relationship by severe social sanctions on promiscuous heterosexual women simultaneously rewards men who devote their resources to that relationship while reducing the pool of women willing to engage with promiscuous heterosexual men. Trying to do it the other way around to appear egalitarian between hetrosexual and homosexual men is all stick and no carrot. Few if any heterosexual men will transition to homosexuality to take advantage of promiscuity but virtually every heterosexual man will take advantage of heterosexual female promiscuity if offered. The impact of homosexual promiscuity is necessarily limited.
I think the reason shaming women for promiscuity developed as a social norm was to stem the tide of male promiscuity indirectly. Since male sex drive is dramatically higher than female sex drive (at least in terms of desire for many novel partners), a widespread norm against women sleeping with multiple partners may be needed to cut the male tendency off at the knees.
"69% having had at least 10, and 54% having had 20 or more."
Twenty seems quite low given what we hear. One recent gay twitter user reported more than 40 sexual partners just in one week, whereafter he found he had monkeypox. I seem to recall Larry Kramer reported more than 200 with some regret, since that was during the AIDS era, but of course there were also some documented with 10x that number of partners back then.
With the bath houses, "circuit parties", grindr, festivals, pride month, and so on of Current Day, I'm guessing it's very, very easy to build up your body count ("unique visitors"?) as a gay man.
I'd prefer a norm targeted at government officials responsible for controlling communicable diseases. I can't agree with shaming, however. It's not enough. Even prison may fall short of the mark. Perhaps we could rub some poxed pus in their eyes should case numbers get into the 5 digits. Now that's motivating.
Most social norms have some kind of evolutionary basis. Don't eat pork became a thing because eating pork would make people sick. Shaming promiscuity became a thing because promiscuity could make you sick. Now, I don't see any reason to shame promiscuity any more than I reason to avoid eating pork. If I do eat it, I'm going to cook it properly.
Likewise, if you're going to be promiscuous, OK, fine. What does deserve shame, disapprobation, and probably prosecution is knowingly exposing people to a communicable disease without their consent.
That's what I find strange about the monkeypox thing. It's not like HIV where it silently lies in wait for years to kill you. I think most people, no matter how promiscuous, would like to avoid getting such a disease. If I was flirting with a girl and suddenly saw she had a bunch of weird lesions, I'd run the other way. And no matter how different gay guys might be, I have to think the vast majority would do the same.
This article points out he wants his two surrogate mothered sons to NOT be told the truth about Furnish's promiscuity.
It's about "changing expectations about marriage: monogamy and loving commitment no longer involve fidelity. [The] married couple are in a loving, committed relationship. However, a gay marriage by no means implies sexual exclusivity."
I would favor legally allowing "open marriages", legally different from "marriage", with the latter explicitly stating they are monogamous. So that infidelity becomes a (marriage) contractual violation.
Heinlein, Rand, many (most?) Libertarians, maybe Rationalists, decry monogamy. I used to support "responsible promiscuity". It was a mistake for me, and usually also for those I had relations with. I now oppose it.
Between two norms: "promiscuity OK", or "No sex outside of marriage", the latter is socially optimal.
Especially for poor people - and norms which are optimal for the poor and/or low IQ folk are optimal for all society. High IQ folk can adjust more easily to whatever norms there are, with less bad results.
YES to more, far more, slut shaming. Kids with loving mothers who are also sluts are victims, and have worse life results (on avg.).
"I don’t think that we should either shame or praise promiscuity in women. But we should have a norm to criticize promiscuity in males, either heterosexual or homosexual. We should be willing to discourage behavior that helps to spread STDs."
I don't see how the last sentence jives with the first. Doesn't promiscuity in women enable more promiscuity in men, and thus enable the spread of STDs? Why not discourage promiscuity in general?
This sort of depends on who the "we" is. PH messaging should certainly not shy away from recommending non-promiscuous sex for men at this stage (hopefully the only stage) of Monkeypox. Generally monogamous long term relationships is a good norm the point is how much if any "penalty" should attach to violating the norm.
"Gay marriage implies sexual exclusivity. There are monogamous gay men, and they are the ones who benefit from legalized gay marriage."
Prominent gay marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan is openly not monogamous, and himself has AIDS. He's openly anti-condom as well.
His view seems to be the norm. Most married gays are not monogamous.
To us straights, monogamy and marriage are synonymous. If it's not monogamous, it's not a marriage. Though people cheat, it's considered a breach of contract, not part of the arrangement.
There was a feeling that gay marriage would normalize gay relationships, but instead I think it prompts making straight relationships more gay.
"I don’t think that we should either shame or praise promiscuity in women. But we should have a norm to criticize promiscuity in males, either heterosexual or homosexual."
Augustus tried to shame bachelors too. It's difficult to control male promiscuity because male promiscuity is attractive to women. If you tried to shame a man for bedding a bunch of women, it would just help him bed more.
If you want to control sexuality, you control the females. That's the natural choke point on sexual activity. And female promiscuity is not attractive to males.
There is a strange reluctance to offer negative criticism to women. If you're not willing to slut shame, you're not willing to get serious about promiscuity.
"Many were increasingly of the opinion that they’d all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans." - Douglas Adams
That view seems to be seriously single-minded, and makes its sound like the 1950s were some sort of aberration. As a species we've condemned open homosexuality (while tolerating it in specific circumstances), tolerated promiscuous heterosexual men, and condemned promiscuous heterosexual women for hundreds of years.
Heterosexual female promiscuity, especially in the form of legitimized serial monogamy, is far more damaging to overall social relations than male promiscuity. The number of men who desire to be promiscuous is large (as evidenced by observation of straights, gays, and lesbians) but necessarily limited by both personal resources and the number of women willing to engage in such relationships. Conditioning sexual relations on the formation of a stable monogamous relationship by severe social sanctions on promiscuous heterosexual women simultaneously rewards men who devote their resources to that relationship while reducing the pool of women willing to engage with promiscuous heterosexual men. Trying to do it the other way around to appear egalitarian between hetrosexual and homosexual men is all stick and no carrot. Few if any heterosexual men will transition to homosexuality to take advantage of promiscuity but virtually every heterosexual man will take advantage of heterosexual female promiscuity if offered. The impact of homosexual promiscuity is necessarily limited.
I think the reason shaming women for promiscuity developed as a social norm was to stem the tide of male promiscuity indirectly. Since male sex drive is dramatically higher than female sex drive (at least in terms of desire for many novel partners), a widespread norm against women sleeping with multiple partners may be needed to cut the male tendency off at the knees.
"69% having had at least 10, and 54% having had 20 or more."
Twenty seems quite low given what we hear. One recent gay twitter user reported more than 40 sexual partners just in one week, whereafter he found he had monkeypox. I seem to recall Larry Kramer reported more than 200 with some regret, since that was during the AIDS era, but of course there were also some documented with 10x that number of partners back then.
With the bath houses, "circuit parties", grindr, festivals, pride month, and so on of Current Day, I'm guessing it's very, very easy to build up your body count ("unique visitors"?) as a gay man.
I'd prefer a norm targeted at government officials responsible for controlling communicable diseases. I can't agree with shaming, however. It's not enough. Even prison may fall short of the mark. Perhaps we could rub some poxed pus in their eyes should case numbers get into the 5 digits. Now that's motivating.
Most social norms have some kind of evolutionary basis. Don't eat pork became a thing because eating pork would make people sick. Shaming promiscuity became a thing because promiscuity could make you sick. Now, I don't see any reason to shame promiscuity any more than I reason to avoid eating pork. If I do eat it, I'm going to cook it properly.
Likewise, if you're going to be promiscuous, OK, fine. What does deserve shame, disapprobation, and probably prosecution is knowingly exposing people to a communicable disease without their consent.
That's what I find strange about the monkeypox thing. It's not like HIV where it silently lies in wait for years to kill you. I think most people, no matter how promiscuous, would like to avoid getting such a disease. If I was flirting with a girl and suddenly saw she had a bunch of weird lesions, I'd run the other way. And no matter how different gay guys might be, I have to think the vast majority would do the same.
You can tag this one “reasons for religion”
"Gay marriage implies sexual exclusivity. " Why? Is this in law, or merely (Christian) custom?
Elton John is not monogamous, is he? Well, he wasn't before, but became so, tho his husband David Furnish wasn't:
https://mercatornet.com/how-elton-john-has-changed-marriage/20592/
This article points out he wants his two surrogate mothered sons to NOT be told the truth about Furnish's promiscuity.
It's about "changing expectations about marriage: monogamy and loving commitment no longer involve fidelity. [The] married couple are in a loving, committed relationship. However, a gay marriage by no means implies sexual exclusivity."
I would favor legally allowing "open marriages", legally different from "marriage", with the latter explicitly stating they are monogamous. So that infidelity becomes a (marriage) contractual violation.
Heinlein, Rand, many (most?) Libertarians, maybe Rationalists, decry monogamy. I used to support "responsible promiscuity". It was a mistake for me, and usually also for those I had relations with. I now oppose it.
Between two norms: "promiscuity OK", or "No sex outside of marriage", the latter is socially optimal.
Especially for poor people - and norms which are optimal for the poor and/or low IQ folk are optimal for all society. High IQ folk can adjust more easily to whatever norms there are, with less bad results.
YES to more, far more, slut shaming. Kids with loving mothers who are also sluts are victims, and have worse life results (on avg.).
"I don’t think that we should either shame or praise promiscuity in women. But we should have a norm to criticize promiscuity in males, either heterosexual or homosexual. We should be willing to discourage behavior that helps to spread STDs."
I don't see how the last sentence jives with the first. Doesn't promiscuity in women enable more promiscuity in men, and thus enable the spread of STDs? Why not discourage promiscuity in general?
This sort of depends on who the "we" is. PH messaging should certainly not shy away from recommending non-promiscuous sex for men at this stage (hopefully the only stage) of Monkeypox. Generally monogamous long term relationships is a good norm the point is how much if any "penalty" should attach to violating the norm.