NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a couple years old and may have been posted before, but maybe not. Thoughts?

From here (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/52259.php)
Almost 10% of men who said they were straight had had sex with at least one man during the last twelve months, according to a new study carried out by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 70% of them were married. Many of these men said they had not used a condom and had not been tested for HIV.

In fact, the researchers found that straight men who had had sex with another man during the previous year were less likely to use a condom than gay men who had had sex with another man during the previous year.

A large proportion of the straight men who had had sex with another man were either of low economic or educational status, were foreign born and lived outside the Manhattan area.

The researchers were surprised that so many married straight men admitted to having sex with another man.

You can read about this study in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers said it may be necessary for doctors not only to ask a patient whether he is heterosexual, gay, or married, but also what his sexual practices are, when assessing for risk of sexually transmitted infections. Public health prevention messages should target risky sexual activities, rather than be aimed exclusively at gay men.
Poll coming.

Uhm, good for them?

Can they really be called straight then?

Surely these 'straight' men aren't really straight...

Can they really be called straight then?Yes, usually.
Sexual behavior isn't the same thing as sexual orientation.

I find that extremely difficult to believe.

They're straight as long as it was in the closet missionary style. *nods* ;)

I find that extremely difficult to believe.

I bet they did too when they realized they had someone's junk in their mouth.

Yes, usually.
Sexual behavior isn't the same thing as sexual orientation.

So what they did it because they...? Were forced to?

Not surprising in the least.

That's rather odd, I suppose.

Not really sure why one would have sex with a man if one wasn't attracted to men, but whatever I guess.

So what they did it because they...? Were forced to?The article doesn't say, but I imagine it was because of either availability or quality reasons.

The article doesn't say, but I imagine it was because of either availability or quality reasons.

Bisexuals identifying as straight for social reasons. Or very closeted gay men calling themselves straight. Neither is particularly rare.

The article doesn't say, but I imagine it was because of either availability or quality reasons.

Quality? As in they were attracted to the men more than the women? Wouldn't that then make them not straight?

As for availability was this survey conducted in a prison? Or are you trying to say that people have sex with those of the same gender because they can't get any from the opposite gender.

considering. New York city and the 10% was focused in low social economic areas. Puts a whole new connotation on "thug love" doesn't it?
I am sure it has something to do with more well off gay men seeking young disadvantaged immigrants to exchange goods for services with.

Bisexuals identifying as straight for social reasons. Or very closeted gay men calling themselves straight. Neither is particularly rare.

That I could understand but then if they were willing to say they committed homosexual acts why not also say that they are bisexual.

And then if that is the case then that is what I mean they aren't really straight. And there are many reasons why they may call themselves straight and aren't necessarily hiding it because they are in denial about it.

Bisexuals identifying as straight for social reasons. Or very closeted gay men calling themselves straight. Neither is particularly rare.It would take a very bizarrely-shaped closet to identify as straight on an anonymous survey, but admit to having gay sex.

Quality? As in they were attracted to the men more than the women? Wouldn't that then make them not straight?No, as in there are things they could do with a man they couldn't with a woman, or they believe the sex would be better.

As for availability was this survey conducted in a prison? Or are you trying to say that people have sex with those of the same gender because they can't get any from the opposite gender.The latter, but only in this case.
Or, alternatively, if the wife won't give a blowjob, they might want to find someone who will.

Bear in mind also that there are plenty of people who view sex with a woman outside of their marriage as cheating or infidelity, but don't view sex with a man in the same way.

considering. New York city and the 10% was focused in low social economic areas. Puts a whole new connotation on "thug love" doesn't it?
I am sure it has something to do with more well off gay men seeking young disadvantaged immigrants to exchange goods for services with.In many cases it could be a "gay for pay" situation, yes.

It could just be that these guys didn't have a girl around or she wasn't putting out so took the next best thing. :D

Many of you seem to discuss straight and gay as if they were two separate things. I'm more of the opinion that sexuality is a single sliding scale, with 99% Gay at one end and 99% Straight at the other. I believe the large majority of us are closer to the middle than the extreme edges.

It would take a very bizarrely-shaped closet to identify as straight on an anonymous survey, but admit to having gay sex.

No, as in there are things they could do with a man they couldn't with a woman, or they believe the sex would be better.

The latter, but only in this case.
Or, alternatively, if the wife won't give a blowjob, they might want to find someone who will.

Bear in mind also that there are plenty of people who view sex with a woman outside of their marriage as cheating or infidelity, but don't view sex with a man in the same way.

In many cases it could be a "gay for pay" situation, yes.

the planned parenthood people who come by the university seem to think it is fairly common in the hood. one of their lectures they painted someone giving you a bj and a 12 pack of beer as a not unheard of exchange.

Also a lot of the hood mentality is if your not playing catcher your not gay. aka your not gay so long as you don't give him a bj or let him put something up your tail end.

sometimes you just want some cock.

nothing wrong with that as long as you arent in a relationship with me at the same time.

That's only for normal people -- for the far right, ten percent did NOT have gay sex in the past month! :Þ

Two comments:

1. How much of this was from lack of availability of the opposite sex? Because, say, the respondent was in jail, seminary, a Navy submarine or some such? I (a gay man) have had sex with straight men simply because he was horny and wanted to get off, and not from his hand for a change.

2. The quoted article didn't mention what kind of sex was involved. It could have been simply receiving oral sex, to including receiving anal sex. Not that the one is inherently more or less "gay" than the other, of course. Or, as mentioned by another poster, it could have been "gay for pay." Or perhaps even the shocking discovery after the fact that she was, in fact, a he!

This is a couple years old and may have been posted before, but maybe not. Thoughts?


Had gay sex in the last 12 months => not heterosexual. Bisexual or homosexual or pansexual.

Some people who describe themselves as "heterosexual" should accept the fact that they're not.

As I tell many of my guy friends, 'Listen, really it's okay. Sucking a cock a few times or letting me fuck you in the ass, doesn't make you gay'.

*nods*

Good for them.

I find that extremely difficult to believe.

Then you've obviously never read the "men seeking men" classifieds on Craig's List or other online venue. There are a great many married and straight guys looking for "discrete" fun or to experiment.

They were foreign. That makes sense!!! No true 'Merican man would have sex with another man! Instead, they'd rather watch two men in spandex and oil roll around on a mat.

Physical attraction alone does not define sexual orientation.

What weirdly responsive banner ads...

Two comments:

1. How much of this was from lack of availability of the opposite sex? Because, say, the respondent was in jail, seminary, a Navy submarine or some such? I (a gay man) have had sex with straight men simply because he was horny and wanted to get off, and not from his hand for a change.

2. The quoted article didn't mention what kind of sex was involved. It could have been simply receiving oral sex, to including receiving anal sex. Not that the one is inherently more or less "gay" than the other, of course. Or, as mentioned by another poster, it could have been "gay for pay." Or perhaps even the shocking discovery after the fact that she was, in fact, a he!
Going along with 1) I think this might be a likely case, especially considering that many of these people were indeed from a lower class, which might equate to many more respondents being those who have seen some jail time.

What weirdly responsive banner ads...

Mine says "Top chef"

Proof heterosexual men can have sex with each other, and be (indeed) heterosexuals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGlmzCMHFrg

Mine says "Top chef"I got "are you gay?" but when I switched pages, it turned to a snowman offering "20% off!"

It would take a very bizarrely-shaped closet to identify as straight on an anonymous survey, but admit to having gay sex.

I don't agree. Sexual orientation is something you can deny to yourself--"it's just sex", "obviously I'm not gay, look how manly I am," etc. Sexual behavior is much harder: if you're a man having sex with men, well, you're a man having sex with men.

So for a closeted man who is nevertheless driven to have sex with men, "I'm a straight man who has sex with men" is a fairly reasonable story to tell oneself (and an anonymous survey): it doesn't stretch the power of denial too far, but at the same time it shields the person in question from having to acknowledge his true sexual orientation.

On some level, it's probably true that rigidly-defined categories are bullshit. Nevertheless, in a society where the social and personal incentives of being closeted remain high, men claiming to be "straight" who nevertheless seek out sex with other men are most likely not actually straight. There is, after all, no massive scarcity of available women.

Edit: Men (and women) who "experiment" are in something of a different category, though.

Physical attraction alone does not define sexual orientation.
no but it goes a long way towards defining it.

Maybe it was accidental. You know, you're walking along and you trip. As you fall, you try to shout and you accidentally fall mouth-first on a dick. It could happen to anybody. ;)

It occurs to me that men like these may be part of the substantive basis--such as it is--conservatives have for complaining that the "Gay Agenda" threatens "traditional marriages." They are the remnant (well, at 10%, even at half that, maybe it's hard to call them a "remnant") of an age where "traditional family values" ultimately pushed most people sexually attracted to the same sex into opposite-sex relationships.

With every step toward the acceptance and legitimation of same-sex attraction and relationships, fewer and fewer gays enter into such relationships, and fewer and fewer bisexuals feel they have to... and more and more of the men (and women) who are in such relationships leave them. Without question, that means more happiness and freedom for gay and bisexual men and women, and probably for straight people as well, who will be spared the deceit and difficulty of being in a relationship with someone in denial--but for those concerned with preserving a marital institution that they (probably rightly) perceive to already be in decline, and especially for those who are religiously and moralistically predisposed to conceive of homosexuality as non-innate, it is likely to be understood in quite a different way.

This may be part of why our insistence that same-sex marriage harms no one, that it has nothing to do with you and your marriage and family, so often falls on deaf ears. (And for those people in opposite-sex relationships who are themselves closeted, of course, the threat is very personal: it is a temptation they would rather do without.)

Two comments:

1. How much of this was from lack of availability of the opposite sex? Because, say, the respondent was in jail, seminary, a Navy submarine or some such? I (a gay man) have had sex with straight men simply because he was horny and wanted to get off, and not from his hand for a change.I'm not sure, but the article said 70% of those surveyed were married.

2. The quoted article didn't mention what kind of sex was involved. It could have been simply receiving oral sex, to including receiving anal sex. Not that the one is inherently more or less "gay" than the other, of course. Or, as mentioned by another poster, it could have been "gay for pay." Or perhaps even the shocking discovery after the fact that she was, in fact, a he!It's certainly possible, yes, any of these scenarios.

Had gay sex in the last 12 months => not heterosexual. Bisexual or homosexual or pansexual.

Some people who describe themselves as "heterosexual" should accept the fact that they're not.Perhaps so, but nonetheless some people should accept that sexual behavior and sexual orientation aren't the same things.

What weirdly responsive banner ads..."You're getting 'Are You Gay', too?

I don't agree. Sexual orientation is something you can deny to yourself--"it's just sex", "obviously I'm not gay, look how manly I am," etc. Sexual behavior is much harder: if you're a man having sex with men, well, you're a man having sex with men.Not really; look at all the people who don't consider oral sex to be sex.

There is, after all, no massive scarcity of available women.Arguably there is, if the man is unable, for whatever reason, to approach women, and women don't approach him.

Also, since most of these men are married, they might be of the opinion that women are off limits.

Edit: Men (and women) who "experiment" are in something of a different category, though.So are experimentors straight or not?

Maybe it was accidental. You know, you're walking along and you trip.
Or slip on mud. Could be this be a sort of personal account?:D
As you fall, you try to shout and you accidentally fall mouth-first on a dick. It could happen to anybody. ;)

So are experimentors straight or not?If they choose to have relationships exclusively with the same sex, then they're not straight. Homosexuality is defined by more than sex, though. It's whether or not you are exclusively emotionally and sexually attracted to the same sex.

Sex is just sex, especially for men.

"You're getting 'Are You Gay', too?


In bright pink. It really contrasts with the gray of NSG in the worst way :P

Many of you seem to discuss straight and gay as if they were two separate things. I'm more of the opinion that sexuality is a single sliding scale, with 99% Gay at one end and 99% Straight at the other. I believe the large majority of us are closer to the middle than the extreme edges.

I don't really buy into that. At least it's not in my experience.

Though I will say everyone could potentially be different.

My friend's mom had hetero sex for 10 years, birthed 4 kids, wasn't straight. She's in a relationship with a woman now.

Who you sex isn't the sole definer of what your orientation is. (I don't think, I mean I don't have much experience being a person who fucks someone in line with my orientation.

or slip on mud. Could be this be a sort of personal account?:d

<.<

>.>

Somebody needs to explain the statistics of this thing to me, please.

Let's take an average male, age 45, with 30 years of sexual activity. If he experimented with bi-sexuality once or twice in his 20s, he's going to fall outside of the survey's "in the last year criteria, so he's in the 90% 'didn't' range.

Another 45 year old, same terms, goes out and has sex with a man 2-3 times a year. He fits the survey profile, but he seems unlikely to call himself 'straight'. He's almost certainly going to list himself as bisexual.

This survey states "10% in the last year", but seems to imply something closer to "50% of straight men have experimented with gay sex over their sexually active lifetime". Put in those terms, I find the results entirely unbelievable.

Can somebody with appropriate skillz put this into a statistical context that assumes the average male has a sexually active lifespan of 50 years, and derive a realistic percentage that they've tried gay sex at least once? Until that happens, I can't give this survey any credence.

Or slip on mud. Could be this be a sort of personal account?:D

Now we know why LG plays rugby naked.

Now we know why LG plays rugby naked.

That's more of a perk. *nod*

If they've had gay sex and not been raped into having gay sex, they are not straight.

If they've had gay sex and not been raped into having gay sex, they are not straight.

So if I've had straight sex that means I'm clearly not gay? Curious.

If they've had gay sex and not been raped into having gay sex, they are not straight.

Ever heard of "gay for pay"?

So if I've had straight sex that means I'm clearly not gay? Curious.
It would suggest that you are, in fact, bisexual.
Ever heard of "gay for pay"?
Can't say I have.

It would suggest that you are, in fact, bisexual.

Can't say I have.

Boy you have a lot to learn.

From the Wiki:

"Situational sexual behavior is sexual behavior of a kind that is different from what is usual for that person (or from what that person normally exhibits) due to a social environment that permits, encourages, or compels those acts.

For example, people might not have sex with prostitutes in their home countries, but may do so when they visit other countries, where such activities are legal or ignored by authorities.

Other examples are people in prison, the military, single sex boarding schools, or other sex-segregated communities, where members of those communities might engage in homosexual behaviors but identify as heterosexual otherwise. "Jailhouse gay" or "prison gay" is a common slang term for such a situation. These terms are also sometimes used to describe situational homosexuality outside of actual prisons.[citation needed]

In Islamic societies where the genders are heavily segregated, same-sex encounters are performed as an alternative to heterosexual encounters. This is despite Islamic prohibitions on homosexuality, and the fact that in many of these societies sodomy is punishable by death. The Wall Street Journal reported on this occurrence within Saudi Arabia on April 4, 2007, naming Jeddah and Riyadh as capitals of gay life in the kingdom, and noting that most Saudi men who engage in same-sex encounters "don't consider themselves gay, and others dismiss past homosexual behavior in their lives as part of growing up."

Many people change their sexual behaviour depending on the situation. For example, men and women in a university may practice bisexuality, but only in that environment. Experimentation of this sort is more common among adolescents, both male and female. Some colloquialisms for this trend include "heteroflexible", "BUG" (Bisexual Until Graduation), or "LUG" (Lesbian Until Graduation)."

I just wanted to mention some reasons why this might occur.

Not really; look at all the people who don't consider oral sex to be sex.

It's still something with definite lines, though. Alright, exclude oral sex... but how many people do you think interpret anal sex to be anything but sex?

At some point denying the physical reality becomes much harder than denying the psychological one.

Arguably there is, if the man is unable, for whatever reason, to approach women, and women don't approach him.

With the exception of people who are in exclusively same-sex conditions (and how many of those are left in our society anyway?), I don't think this factor is significant.

Also, since most of these men are married, they might be of the opinion that women are off limits.

I think that requires a cognitive dissonance on the part of the men in question that is even more extreme than the possibility I have laid out. It's a possibility you could probably test empirically, though, by asking if they consider it cheating (or by asking whether they have cheated and then asking the question about gay sex independently).

So are experimentors straight or not?

Depends--isn't that the whole point of experimenting? But certainly a person can be curious without actually having an abiding sexual attraction.

Another 45 year old, same terms, goes out and has sex with a man 2-3 times a year. He fits the survey profile, but he seems unlikely to call himself 'straight'. He's almost certainly going to list himself as bisexual.

Maybe if he's being honest, with himself and with the survey, but why should we assume that that's the case?

This survey states "10% in the last year", but seems to imply something closer to "50% of straight men have experimented with gay sex over their sexually active lifetime".

How do you reach that conclusion? I don't see anything about it in the article Jello Biafra posted.

Put in those terms, I find the results entirely unbelievable.

Kinsey gave a number of something like 34% for the number of adult men who had been driven to orgasm by other men... it's not out of the question at all.

The number of people who are closeted and the number of people who are genuinely bisexual are probably both much higher than is generally supposed.

Erm... Uh... Good for them?

And if they've had homosexual sex, should they be considered straight still, or bisexual?

Also a lot of the hood mentality is if your not playing catcher your not gay. aka your not gay so long as you don't give him a bj or let him put something up your tail end.

Ah yes the old it's only gay if you receive.

No, as in there are things they could do with a man they couldn't with a woman, or they believe the sex would be better.

The latter, but only in this case.
Or, alternatively, if the wife won't give a blowjob, they might want to find someone who will.

Bear in mind also that there are plenty of people who view sex with a woman outside of their marriage as cheating or infidelity, but don't view sex with a man in the same way.

Possibly but if you are going to do it then surely you must be attracted to these people and so can't really be purely straight.

Of course it did say men who identify themselves as straight which might mean they tell people they are straight when really they aren't. But then that still means they aren't straight.

Erm... Uh... Good for them?

And if they've had homosexual sex, should they be considered straight still, or bisexual?

Well I would say bisexual, they really can't say they are straight.

If they choose to have relationships exclusively with the same sex, then they're not straight.

Are bisexual people straight? (Emphasis added.)

Homosexuality is defined by more than sex, though. It's whether or not you are exclusively emotionally and sexually attracted to the same sex.

How much scientific evidence do we actually have of people who are "sexually" but not "emotionally" attracted to the same sex?

Sex is just sex, especially for men.

I'm sure straight guys can have sex with men without being disgusted or bored... but I also have my doubts that straight men would consistently seek out men specifically.

If you're having sex with men solely for pleasure and not for pay, that means you're most definitely not heterosexual. You're either bisexual or gay and it's probably a good idea to come to terms with that rather than live a lie.

It would suggest that you are, in fact, bisexual.

Can't say I have.

There's a wide difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation.

Maybe it was accidental. You know, you're walking along and you trip. As you fall, you try to shout and you accidentally fall mouth-first on a dick. It could happen to anybody. ;)

Or even arse first. It happen all the time at public toilets you don't see the guy sitting there and you go down to sit down and you end up sitting on his lap, with something entering your arse rather than exiting it.

Roy Cohn syndrome?

Somebody needs to explain the statistics of this thing to me, please.

Let's take an average male, age 45, with 30 years of sexual activity. If he experimented with bi-sexuality once or twice in his 20s, he's going to fall outside of the survey's "in the last year criteria, so he's in the 90% 'didn't' range.

Another 45 year old, same terms, goes out and has sex with a man 2-3 times a year. He fits the survey profile, but he seems unlikely to call himself 'straight'. He's almost certainly going to list himself as bisexual.

This survey states "10% in the last year", but seems to imply something closer to "50% of straight men have experimented with gay sex over their sexually active lifetime". Put in those terms, I find the results entirely unbelievable.

Can somebody with appropriate skillz put this into a statistical context that assumes the average male has a sexually active lifespan of 50 years, and derive a realistic percentage that they've tried gay sex at least once? Until that happens, I can't give this survey any credence.
it does seem rather high....

of course we could just conclude from this that men are nasty nasty beasts.

and that some are having far more gay sex than what should still qualify themselves as straight in their own minds.

Maybe it was accidental. You know, you're walking along and you trip. As you fall, you try to shout and you accidentally fall mouth-first on a dick. It could happen to anybody. ;)

Ssshhh, the mods don't like it when you plagiarize from Larry Craig's lawyers. :p

interesting perhapse if true.
kind of beggs the question just how are they defining streight?
i don't see how top or bottom has anything to do with it,
if two people of the same gender engauge in an activity that brings one or both of them to an erotic climax, how does that make EITHER of them "not" gay?
i'm missing something somewhere.

Maybe it was accidental. You know, you're walking along and you trip. As you fall, you try to shout and you accidentally fall mouth-first on a dick. It could happen to anybody. ;)
It really is far too easy to trip and find yourself with an extra penis in some orifice or other.
Erm... Uh... Good for them?

And if they've had homosexual sex, should they be considered straight still, or bisexual?

I don't see why they shouldn't be straight. Having gay sex doesn't mean you're actually gay. You might be doing it for money, or just to try it out, or because you're horny and you can. You know, kind of like how guys will have sex for women they're not really interested in.



Also, it's only gay if the balls touch.

Remember kiddos, it's only gay if you make eyecontact.

A married man told me that he only looked for sex from men when his wife was 'indisposed'. He told me that, just after I had fu€ked his ar$e! He seemed to enjoy the kissing and was quite happy to accidentally trip and fall mouth first on to my di€k - but he insisted he was straight!!!

It's still something with definite lines, though. Alright, exclude oral sex... but how many people do you think interpret anal sex to be anything but sex?Probably not many, but we don't know which sexual behaviors these guys are engaging in.

With the exception of people who are in exclusively same-sex conditions (and how many of those are left in our society anyway?), I don't think this factor is significant.Perhaps not. But nonetheless, there are men who can't approach women to get them to date them, so they seek out prostitutes. What if a man is like that, but can't afford to pay a prostitute?

I think that requires a cognitive dissonance on the part of the men in question that is even more extreme than the possibility I have laid out. It's a possibility you could probably test empirically, though, by asking if they consider it cheating (or by asking whether they have cheated and then asking the question about gay sex independently).Certainly, it could be tested for.
I brought up the possibility because I personally knew someone like that. It's possible he's the only person who thinks of things that way, but I doubt it.

Possibly but if you are going to do it then surely you must be attracted to these people and so can't really be purely straight.Why must they be attracted?

If you're having sex with men solely for pleasure and not for pay, that means you're most definitely not heterosexual.I don't think so. Remember the story about the guy who had sex with the picnic table? Was he attracted to the picnic table?

Why must they be attracted?

Well you must have some attraction to the acts or the person before engaging in sex.

Is anybody else getting the "eligible Greeks" dating ads?

And who says that advertising doesn't rely on Stereotypes.

It's not believable.

It's not believable.

Oh like you wouldn't let a guy swing on your dick if you were horny if they were available.

interesting perhapse if true.
kind of beggs the question just how are they defining streight?
i don't see how top or bottom has anything to do with it,
if two people of the same gender engauge in an activity that brings one or both of them to an erotic climax, how does that make EITHER of them "not" gay?
i'm missing something somewhere.
i think they self identified as straight.

it seems that for some men that as long as you usually fuck women, an occasional trip to gayland doesnt mean you arent straight.

It would take a very bizarrely-shaped closet to identify as straight on an anonymous survey, but admit to having gay sex.
US has the highest prison population in the world, both in absolute figures and by percentage.

That's a good chunk right here.

US has the highest prison population in the world, both in absolute figures and by percentage.

That's a good chunk right here.

Do you really think New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene was interviewing inmates in this survey?

Do you really think New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene was interviewing inmates in this survey?

but they would interview recently released prisoners no ?

It occurs to me that men like these may be part of the substantive basis--such as it is--conservatives have for complaining that the "Gay Agenda" threatens "traditional marriages." They are the remnant (well, at 10%, even at half that, maybe it's hard to call them a "remnant") of an age where "traditional family values" ultimately pushed most people sexually attracted to the same sex into opposite-sex relationships.

With every step toward the acceptance and legitimation of same-sex attraction and relationships, fewer and fewer gays enter into such relationships, and fewer and fewer bisexuals feel they have to... and more and more of the men (and women) who are in such relationships leave them. Without question, that means more happiness and freedom for gay and bisexual men and women, and probably for straight people as well, who will be spared the deceit and difficulty of being in a relationship with someone in denial--but for those concerned with preserving a marital institution that they (probably rightly) perceive to already be in decline, and especially for those who are religiously and moralistically predisposed to conceive of homosexuality as non-innate, it is likely to be understood in quite a different way.

This may be part of why our insistence that same-sex marriage harms no one, that it has nothing to do with you and your marriage and family, so often falls on deaf ears. (And for those people in opposite-sex relationships who are themselves closeted, of course, the threat is very personal: it is a temptation they would rather do without.)
That's an interesting point. I'd quibble with your use of "the remnant of an age", though, not that it changes anything about your essential argument. I think most of these men are not the last holdouts of a past/declining age so much as the representatives of diverse social cultures born of low socioeconomic status and pervasive powerlessness and, in some cases, tradition perverted. Machismo, hyper-masculinity and the resultant misogyny and homophobia are too often intrinsic in poor minority neighborhoods - and that's not going to change just because the times are a-changing in middle-class America, because it's the result not simply of outdated religious and moralistic predispositions but of social conditions that don't look to be changing any time soon.

but they would interview recently released prisoners no ?

They'd interview a random sample of people.

Jello, I award you the Captain Louis Renault Award.

Really, this isn't news.

They'd interview a random sample of people.

IF they were studying the population at large, but it looks like they were sampling their clientele instead, which is probably an atypical sample.

Jello, I award you the Captain Louis Renault Award.

Really, this isn't news.I know, it's a couple of years old.
Nonetheless, if you are so blase (no I won't find the unicode with the accented 'e' on it) about the issue, perhaps you could explain why?

I know, it's a couple of years old.
Nonetheless, if you are so blase (no I won't find the unicode with the accented 'e' on it) about the issue, perhaps you could explain why?

1. It's a historical fact that heterosexual men in various cultures around the world occasionally will have homosexual sex.
2. I've met many such men in real life.
3. I am one of those men.
4. It's the primary conduit of HIV infection in the US from gay men (who comprise the majority of the infected to this date in the US) to black women - through men "on the down low"

I'd like to know how many men were asked in this survey, as in 100, 1000 or more less? i've had a quick look over and i can't find anything, i will hold a sceptical opinion of these results until i know the number of men involved.

I'd like to know how many men were asked in this survey, as in 100, 1000 or more less? i've had a quick look over and i can't find anything, i will hold a sceptical opinion of these results until i know the number of men involved.Another article (http://queercurious.blogspot.com/2006/11/10-of-straight-men-also-having-sex-with.html) says 4,193 men were surveyed. I'm not sure if this was the same survey as the one in the Men's Health article or not, but they did get the 10% figure.

Another article (http://queercurious.blogspot.com/2006/11/10-of-straight-men-also-having-sex-with.html) says 4,193 men were surveyed. I'm not sure if this was the same survey as the one in the Men's Health article or not, but they did get the 10% figure.

ah thanks.

Another article (http://queercurious.blogspot.com/2006/11/10-of-straight-men-also-having-sex-with.html) says 4,193 men were surveyed. I'm not sure if this was the same survey as the one in the Men's Health article or not, but they did get the 10% figure.

Amusing.


Men raised in cultures less accepting of homosexuality may be "reluctant" to identify themselves as such, Pathela's team notes, or they may have a narrow definition of what constitutes homosexuality. You're only queer if you take it up the ass, or suck a dick, or whatever they haven't yet done.

Probably not many, but we don't know which sexual behaviors these guys are engaging in.

We do know they consider them to be "sex", though.

But nonetheless, there are men who can't approach women to get them to date them, so they seek out prostitutes. What if a man is like that, but can't afford to pay a prostitute?

Is it so clear that someone who "can't approach women" would be able to approach men much better, especially men in a culture he is not a part of?

I brought up the possibility because I personally knew someone like that. It's possible he's the only person who thinks of things that way, but I doubt it.

Obviously I know nothing about this particular case, but the cognitive dissonance here could easily go in a different direction: "I want to have sex with men, and to avoid feeling like it's cheating I'll pretend it isn't really cheating" rather than "I want to have sex, and to avoid feeling like it's cheating I'll have sex with men."

I suppose my own inclination to favor the former explanation (in the general case) over the latter is rooted in my skepticism as to how many straight men are inclined to fulfill their sexual desires with other men... though maybe that's just me buying into falsely rigid constructs of sexual orientation. The argument could be made.

Is it so clear that someone who "can't approach women" would be able to approach men much better, especially men in a culture he is not a part of?And if the men who can't do the approaching are being approached instead?

Obviously I know nothing about this particular case, but the cognitive dissonance here could easily go in a different direction: "I want to have sex with men, and to avoid feeling like it's cheating I'll pretend it isn't really cheating" rather than "I want to have sex, and to avoid feeling like it's cheating I'll have sex with men."

I suppose my own inclination to favor the former explanation (in the general case) over the latter is rooted in my skepticism as to how many straight men are inclined to fulfill their sexual desires with other men... though maybe that's just me buying into falsely rigid constructs of sexual orientation. The argument could be made.I suppose it could be as you said it; it wasn't the impression I got, but I didn't ask that question either.

1. It's a historical fact that heterosexual men in various cultures around the world occasionally will have homosexual sex.
2. I've met many such men in real life.
3. I am one of those men.
Wife not hot enough?

Sounds like a party

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2008/04/ollieowltripadvisor.jpg

i have found the reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUdJAt0ej0c

that is why. obviously the white guy here identifies as straight.

"...either of low economic or educational status, were foreign born and lived outside the Manhattan area."

I'm afraid that I haven't read the whole thread, so I shan't be offended if this post is ignored as already-addressed, but I wonder, am I the only one who thought, "Well, that's because the schooled and wealthy refused to admit it?"

Probably not many, but we don't know which sexual behaviors these guys are engaging in.

Looks to me that what kind of sex they had is irrilevant since they are responding that they did have sex (whatever they mean by that).

Almost 10% of men who said they were straight had had sex with at least one man during the last twelve months, according to a new study carried out by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 70% of them were married. Many of these men said they had not used a condom and had not been tested for HIV.

The last phrase I find alarming.

IF they were studying the population at large, but it looks like they were sampling their clientele instead, which is probably an atypical sample.
This is true.
You're only queer if you take it up the ass, or suck a dick, or whatever they haven't yet done.

You're only gay if the balls touch, damn it! *defends balls*

Looks to me that what kind of sex they had is irrilevant since they are responding that they did have sex (whatever they mean by that).Depends on what the question is being asked is. "Have you ever received fellatio from another man?" and "Have you ever had sex with another man" could get two different answers, but the researchers would put a 'yes' for sex down if either was yes.

You're only gay if the balls touch, damn it! *defends balls*There are so many positions that could be used that this requirement is a bit random.
Which is probably why it's so popular. :)

Depends on what the question is being asked is. "Have you ever received fellatio from another man?" and "Have you ever had sex with another man" could get two different answers, but the researchers would put a 'yes' for sex down if either was yes.

Aka the Bill Clinton provision. Oral sex doesn't really count!

"...either of low economic or educational status, were foreign born and lived outside the Manhattan area."

I'm afraid that I haven't read the whole thread, so I shan't be offended if this post is ignored as already-addressed, but I wonder, am I the only one who thought, "Well, that's because the schooled and wealthy refused to admit it?"
no.

i thought that the rich wouldnt end up at the dept of health

and that the poorer and less educated would be more likely to find the idea of being gay disgusting and so dismissed the possibility even if they were having sex with men. perhaps also because the category of bisexual didnt really occur to them.