Join 3,497 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The Tearoom Trade and the Breastplate of Righteousness
September 8, 2007 7:55 AM   Subscribe

Laud Humphreys was studying to be an Episcopal priest in the mid-1950s when he learned, shortly after his father's death, that his father, Oklahoma State Representative Ira D. Humphreys, took trips to New Orleans to have sex with other men. After being dismissed as an Episcopal priest in the 1960s, Laud Humphreys then enrolled as a sociology grad student where he completed a dissertation about men who had sex with other men in public bathrooms in St. Louis, which Humphreys researched by agreeing to serve as a "watch queen", looking out for the police. After writing down the license plate numbers of the men having sex, Humphreys traced the men's addresses and contacted them in disguise, claiming to be collecting data for a public health survey. The research, which was condemned as unethical for its use of covert methods, was published in 1970 as Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places.

According to a summary of the Tearoom Trade, "Humphreys' findings destroy many stereotypes. Fifty-four percent of his subjects were married and living with their wives, and superficial analysis would suggest that they were exemplary citizens who had exemplary marriages. Thirty-eight percent of Humphreys' subjects clearly were neither bisexual nor homosexual. They were men whose marriages were marked with tension; most of the 38 percent were Catholic or their wives were, and since the birth of their last child conjugal relations had been rare. Their alternative source of sex had to be quick, inexpensive, and impersonal. It could not entail any kind of involvement that would threaten their already shaky marriage and jeopardize their most important asset - their standing as father of their children. They wanted only some form of orgasm-producing action that was less lonely than masturbation and less involving than a love relationship." Based on his revelation about his father's trips to New Orleans and what he learned at St. Louis "tearooms," Laud Humphreys concluded that many of the men he observed put on a "breastplate of righteousness" (an allusion to Ephesians 6:10-18) by displaying socially and politically conservative views in public to shift attention away from their private sexual behavior.
posted by jonp72 (58 comments total) 15 users marked this as a favorite

 
Thirty-eight percent of Humphreys' subjects clearly were neither bisexual nor homosexual.

Wait. If you're letting another man suck you off, aren't you at least, by definition, bisexual?

Interesting tidbit from the first link:

A furor arose when some of those other members of the department objected that Humphreys' research had unethically invaded the privacy and threatened the social standing of the subjects, and petitioned the president of Washington University to rescind Humphreys' Ph.D. degree. The turmoil resulted in numerous other unfortunate events, including a fist fight among faculty members and the exodus of about half of the department members to positions at other universities.

A fist-fight among faculty members? Now that's an academic study that arouses passion.
posted by jayder at 8:10 AM on September 8, 2007


Wait. If you're letting another man suck you off, aren't you at least, by definition, bisexual?

Not necessarily, jayder,
posted by Justinian at 8:19 AM on September 8, 2007


This is going to be fun.... * gets the popcorn *
posted by DreamerFi at 8:24 AM on September 8, 2007


What a byzantine apology for his own father's obvious homosexuality. Sad.
posted by basicchannel at 8:25 AM on September 8, 2007


jayder: not only a fist fight, but the end of the sociology department at Washington University in St. Louis, which to this day has never been resurrected.
posted by jedicus at 8:48 AM on September 8, 2007


Laud Humphreys came out as gay himself sometime after publishing Tearoom Trade. His explanation about "watch queen" never was particularly believable. I love the book, it's well written and sympathetic. It must be dated now, post-AIDS and post-gaylib, but it's still got a lot of insight in it.

I'm gay. Personally, I find it more useful to discuss people's sexual lives in two dimensions: heterosexual vs homosexual and gay vs. straight. The sexual terms I use to describe sexual behaviour (with shades of bisexuality inbetween the two exclusive ends). Gay vs. straight I use to describe social roles.

With this terminology, then all these tearoom married guys are living straight lives while engaging in homosexual sex. I don't think it's a particularly happy or stable way for men to live, but it's also quite common and useful to have language to describe it. Closted married men who frequent tearooms aren't "gay" to my mind. They desire homosexual behavior, and I think many of them would be happier if they came out as gay men. But their straight lives are real for them too.

Human sexual behaviour is a delightfully complex thing. Let the flames begin.
posted by Nelson at 8:49 AM on September 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


The definitive treatment of Humphreys and the controversy surrounding his method.
posted by Crotalus at 9:03 AM on September 8, 2007


I don't find it sad at all. While the interview portions of the survey were certainly ethically dubious, Humphreys gathered a wealth of data that showed male sexual identity was far more nuanced than was previously thought.

When the gay community arose as a response to persecution and AIDS, instead of normalizing such behavior the notion of gay identity became cemented in the American mindset. Sexuality remains a polarity -- our society assumes that engaging in homosexual sex automatically requires a man to adopt an identity as a homosexual, otherwise he's a sad and deluded hypocrite.

This relentless focus on whether or not a man's sex partner has the same equipment -- as opposed to whether he's cheating on a spouse or engaging in risky behavior -- is destructive and counterproductive. Humphreys' work was an important early contribution that would have forced his contemporaries to reevaluate the traditional model of human sexuality. Unfortunately, it was overshadowed by its ethical problems and the rise of the gay rights movement.
posted by xthlc at 9:12 AM on September 8, 2007


If you're posing as a gay man in the 70s, and then disguise yourself to interview your subjects later, what do you do? Put on a second fake broomhandle mustache?
posted by bunnytricks at 9:38 AM on September 8, 2007 [3 favorites]


So wait, if you enjoy giving and or receiving oral sex to/from another male/male-on-male anal sex you can still NOT be homosexual/bisexual? That's the nuance you're championing, xthlc?
posted by basicchannel at 10:01 AM on September 8, 2007


A friend told me about this study and about Laud Humphreys, whom I'd previously known nothing about. This post educates me further. Thank you much.
posted by blucevalo at 10:13 AM on September 8, 2007


I've always thought this whole study was fascinating. The subject matter is, of course, just really interesting, but I'm particularly taken by the research method, and the evolution of ethical research, the IRB, etc. Some really interesting things have come out of research that we now recognize as unethical: this study, Zimbardo's prison esperiment, the Milgram experiment among others.

This is a great post.
posted by Shohn at 10:15 AM on September 8, 2007


What Nelson said about social roles and sexual roles, and more: There really is not any sort of be-all and end-all terminology that everyone is going to accept. The words and labels happen by usage, and by what men choose to call themselves (if they choose to call themselves anything) and by others who work with or study these men. "MSM", for example means "Men Seeking Men" in this context, and health outreach people talk about trying to educate "MSM" who do not regard themselves as gay and do not live typically gay lives.

As far as it goes, it's worth remembering that the tearoom is sexualized and eroticized for a lot of gay men. Only 54% of Humphrey's subjects who were married and living with wives. I know I'm not the only one who watched the tearoom scenes in LA Tool and Die and Dangerous over and over again. Not to mention the misadventures of my own mis-spent youth
posted by Robert Angelo at 11:02 AM on September 8, 2007


So wait, if you enjoy giving and or receiving oral sex to/from another male/male-on-male anal sex you can still NOT be homosexual/bisexual?

Yes, I'd agree with that. Sexual behavior alone does not an identity make.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:12 AM on September 8, 2007


See, look, I know I'm homophobic, but not about gay guys. They don't bother me at all. It's straight guys who don't know their gay... they fuck my shit right up.


any time i hear armchair pundits try to ascertain whether someone, for example Senator Craig (R), is gay or not, I just think back to the awesome song Gay Not Gay by King Missile. As a footnote, King Missile has an openly gay member in their ranks (who is a very awesome, down to earth guy for a rock star!)
posted by kuppajava at 11:27 AM on September 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


in terms of nuance, why not use the Kinsey scale or talk of a continuum of sexuality? It's not like we don't have multiple ways to describe sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

We humans tend to label things and like them simple--all of us openly gay men remember being closeted, too, and what we had to do to find pleasure and fulfillment, even if brief and dangerous--which is very relevant. Many closeted gay men are still living as heterosexuals for a variety of reasons even today--it's tragic.
posted by amberglow at 11:52 AM on September 8, 2007


Also, men who are satisfied with their sex life don't go to tearooms if they have other outlets at home--straight or gay (or unless they're addicts or compulsive or something like that)---the men profiled in all these studies are never happy at home--that should tell people something.
posted by amberglow at 11:55 AM on September 8, 2007


The concept of homosexuality, a specific sexual is entirely a modern one. The ancients had no concept of this. The defining aspect of sexual contact was whether you were dominant or passive, and that was it.

With the rise of Judeo-Christian mores, or Abrahamic mores if you will, male-male sexual contact was denigrated as a 'sin' or as an 'abomination' - mainly because the Hebrews were obsessed with breeding up as many humans as possible in order to create big armies so they could conquer their neighbours.

The idea that there is some kind of definite polarity inherent to human sexual behaviour, that you are 'gay' or 'straight', is erroneous. This is borne out by studies of sexual activity in animals. At last count I think there were several hundred animal species in which 'homosexual' behaviour was observed, and the number grows all the time. In most cases this did not impinge on the usual mating & breeding cycles.

Most people have particular preferences for the gender of their sexual partners, and no doubt there are strong genetic prompts in this regard, but I expect the concept of homosexuality vs heterosexuality to eventually be abandoned as primitive, culturally-driven concepts.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 11:55 AM on September 8, 2007 [4 favorites]


*specific sexual polarity
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 11:56 AM on September 8, 2007


the men profiled in all these studies are never happy at home

Ah, but never say never. My former partner and I were happy at home and happy in the park and happy at CCBC and happy at Slammer and happy at Parliament House... You see what I mean.
posted by Robert Angelo at 12:26 PM on September 8, 2007


Sexual polarity is a straw man. There is a third option: bisexuality; being the definition of someone who finds themselves somewhere in between the aforementioned "poles."
posted by basicchannel at 12:33 PM on September 8, 2007


So wait, if you enjoy giving and or receiving oral sex to/from another male/male-on-male anal sex you can still NOT be homosexual/bisexual? That's the nuance you're championing, xthlc?

Yes. Some men enjoy the act but reject the identity. They identify with heterosexual values and norms, and may have fulfilling heterosexual sex lives as well. It's impossible to reconcile that with the fabulous pink box labeled "GAY" that society immediately jams you into once you publicly acknowledge that you like to have sex with other men.

There's a box labeled "bisexual," but most people tend to fill it with fat wiccans, drunk college girls and creepy couples on craiglist.
posted by xthlc at 12:46 PM on September 8, 2007 [5 favorites]


I should add that I'm not trying to slam bisexuals here. It's just that I think the term "bisexual" has largely failed as a means of capturing the complexity of the subject. I think we'd be far better off trashing the whole notion of sexual identity, as Dr. Mabuse advocates above, and just focus on encouraging healthy relationships in society.
posted by xthlc at 12:53 PM on September 8, 2007


Thank you kind sir.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:56 PM on September 8, 2007


There's a box labeled "bisexual," but most people tend to fill it with fat wiccans, drunk college girls and creepy couples on craiglist.

Ahahahaa, thanks for that. When I wrote my previous comment I was trying to come up with a social identification like "gay" or "straight" that'd cover bisexuality. I don't think there is one, for a variety of interesting reasons, but your slightly mean but truthful comment more or less explains it.
posted by Nelson at 1:18 PM on September 8, 2007


Some men enjoy the act but reject the identity.

Sure, but then why the "breastplate of righteousness?" I mean, that's the bullshit in all of this; you may reject the identity but you're going to advocate/vote for restricting the rights of those who embrace it? The hypocrisy is not in disavowing the label, it's trying to throw the dogs off the scent to the extent that it harms other people.
posted by kgasmart at 1:43 PM on September 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


Some men enjoy the act but reject the identity. They identify with heterosexual values and norms, and may have fulfilling heterosexual sex lives as well.
There's no one identity--it's a myth, and i have yet to see any documented cases of men happy with their straight sex life at home who go do these acts. If you're fulfilled sexually with what you've got, you don't go look for vastly different things with different sexes like blowjobs in public bathrooms. You either cheat and stay in the hetero world, or you aren't having any sex at home.
posted by amberglow at 2:18 PM on September 8, 2007


You guys speak as if these guys' actions are well-adjusted and can be well-integrated into the rest of their lives, and that there's some perfectly good or healthy reason for going to public bathrooms for sex with anonymous guys without their wives knowing.
posted by amberglow at 2:23 PM on September 8, 2007


the men profiled in all these studies are never happy at home--that should tell people something.

Perhaps there's no sex life at home because the husband is gay an uninterested in sex with his wife. (though, perhaps this possibility is dealt with in his thesis)
posted by deanc at 2:26 PM on September 8, 2007


It is simply retarded to think that "straight" can mean "has sex with multiple same-sex partners."

IMO it is very likely that there are about as many straights as there are gays. Which is to say, we're in the minority.

Normal human sexuality is bisexuality.

It does not help anyone to muddy the definition of "straight." There needs to be a word that describes people who have sex exclusively with opposite-sexed partners.

I suggest the term "flexible" for those people who are not straight, i.e. publically hetereosexual and privately homosexual.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:01 PM on September 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


(Or, conversely, publically homosexual and privately hetereosexual, though I rather doubt there are many folk living that particular lifestyle.)
posted by five fresh fish at 3:01 PM on September 8, 2007


there's the kinsey scale...we all fall somewhere on it. the problem is those who don't give outward appearances of where their desires/orientation lies, and those who live the lives of others instead of their own.
posted by amberglow at 3:04 PM on September 8, 2007


I'm not attracted to women, but the thought of having sex with another male makes me want to vomit.
posted by mike3k at 3:36 PM on September 8, 2007


Another point to be made:

Straight guys who want no-strings sex do not go down to the train station washroom to seek queer blowjobs: they go to the nearest pub or other swimming-in-booze locale and pick up a drunk chick. Or they pay a hooker.

The only time a man will be getting blown in a washroom by another man is if he is bisexual or gay.

But of course no one seems to want to admit the truth, so they try to pretend that, hey, as long as I've got a wife at home, I'm straight as an arrow!

Complete and utter bullshit, that.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:42 PM on September 8, 2007 [3 favorites]


As a sociology student, we had to read Laud as part of our Methodology course. Week whatever: Observation, participant observation and ethical problems.

I loved the book, and although I don't think he'd been revealed as being out at the time -- maybe 82 or so -- it was pretty apparent to anyone who read the book. In that period of history, it was inconceivable that you'd get a straight man selecting that subject as a research project, let alone spending a couple of years hanging out in cottages, watching gay men fuck.

Straight guys who want no-strings sex do not go down to the train station washroom to seek queer blowjobs: they go to the nearest pub or other swimming-in-booze locale and pick up a drunk chick.


Surely this is right back to the definitional issue? If, by definition, you're a man who likes to get sex from men, then, by definition, you're either bisexual or gay.

However, if you want to define yourself as straight, martian or aboriginal, it's no skin off my nose. Have at it!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:03 PM on September 8, 2007


Also, men who are satisfied with their sex life don't go to tearooms if they have other outlets at home--straight or gay (or unless they're addicts or compulsive or something like that)

I'm a little confused here, amberglow: are you saying that gay men who seek sex outside their primary relationship have to be addicts or sexually compulsive? Or is it just gay men who seek sex outside of their primary relationships in public toilets?

Is this true of gay men who go cruising in other spots as well? Nightclubs? Parks?

And was it also true during the 1950s and 60's, when small towns didn't actually have a gay bar or gay club, and gay men ran the risk of arrest and public shaming if they were caught approaching the wrong person, and so public toilets may well have been the only place it was possible to meet somebody. Or is it just true today?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:18 PM on September 8, 2007


Also, next time I go out cruising, can I borrow your 'breastplate of self-righteousness'?

Thx.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:21 PM on September 8, 2007


I wrote an analysis of the research methods used in Humphreys' study as part of my degree. It was pretty interesting stuff. If anyone's interested they can download it here.

Probably quite dull, but anyway. It's there.
posted by knapah at 5:03 PM on September 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


amberglow: You guys speak as if these guys' actions are well-adjusted and can be well-integrated into the rest of their lives, and that there's some perfectly good or healthy reason for going to public bathrooms for sex with anonymous guys without their wives knowing.

No, it's obviously not an OK thing at all, hence my comment about the real issue being infidelity and risky behavior, not necessarily repressed homosexuality.

five fresh fish: Straight guys who want no-strings sex do not go down to the train station washroom to seek queer blowjobs: they go to the nearest pub or other swimming-in-booze locale and pick up a drunk chick. Or they pay a hooker.

It is, in general, vastly easier and less expensive to get an NSA blowjob from another man than it is a woman. It will involve less drama and more discretion, and often there is no need to reciprocate. Many men who engage in such activity would never, say, find other men sexually attractive in other contexts.

I just don't think it's useful to slap such labels on people who don't want them. It doesn't help us understand them and it doesn't help them understand themselves.
posted by xthlc at 5:04 PM on September 8, 2007


Isn't it possible that a straight man could use a gay man as a sexual "thing?" That kid I knew in high school who had it going on with a vacuum cleaner wasn't necessarily a vacuum cleaner fetishist.
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:10 PM on September 8, 2007


I thought that a good word to fit in with gay and straight for bisexual would be "stray". A person might identify with one, but will stray into the other.

OK just kidding, carry on with the serious talk.
posted by Eekacat at 5:40 PM on September 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Isn't it possible that a straight man could use a gay man as a sexual "thing?"

The tranny hookers in the meat-packing district of NYC circa '95 sure didn't depend on an exclusively gay clientele. (btw, are they still around, or has that area finally gotten as gentrified as Times Sq?)
posted by bashos_frog at 7:05 PM on September 8, 2007


there are still a very few sometimes, but mostly they moved elsewher, bashos.

I'm a little confused here, amberglow: are you saying that gay men who seek sex outside their primary relationship have to be addicts or sexually compulsive? Or is it just gay men who seek sex outside of their primary relationships in public toilets?
I'm not talking about openly gay (or truly straight) men, who may be in a relationship, an open relationship, or just like cheating or whatever. I thought that was clear. Most gay men with lovers or in otherwise serious relationships with people of the desired sex who cheat don't do so in public bathrooms, i'll remind you. There are way way too many other safer options, with less risk of being caught by either the police or the lover when arrested. From online places by the thousands to actual bars, clubs, neighborhoods, etc.
posted by amberglow at 7:34 PM on September 8, 2007


It's not at all common anymore for a public bathroom to be the quickie sex place of choice--for anyone who is out.
posted by amberglow at 7:35 PM on September 8, 2007


It is, always, vastly easier and more discrete to just masturbate.

And how the hell does one make "less lonely" jive with an quickie two minute blowjob from a stranger? They're not making any sort of emotional, imaginative, or intellectual connection.

What we have here are people who are compulsive sexual thrill-seekers.

Maybe "bisexual" is the wrong term, too: it occupies the same brainspace as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", in which the normative behaviours are to develop a relationship with one's sexual partner.

These guys are essentially masturbating with someone's face.

Let's call them skull-fuckers.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:38 PM on September 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


His research method was unethical. But at the same time, I don't think I would get worked up enough in arguing the point to engage in a fist fight with other University faculty... Quite a strange story, really.
posted by voltairemodern at 7:45 PM on September 8, 2007


Yeah, a fistfight seems like a pretty unethical way to have an academic argument...
posted by Eekacat at 7:51 PM on September 8, 2007


Another reason these guys can't be allowed to get off calling themselves straight: it takes more than a bit of effort on their part to pull this stunt.

First, one needs to know the signals — and now that the Craig story has informed us all, it's gotta change or one risks a mighty beatdown. Second, one needs to know which public washrooms to cruise — they aren't all open to the trade.

It's insider knowledge. You need to actually make a first step of finding a toilet-whore who will spill all the beans.

Then you gotta cruise the place. You gotta get lucky. Most of the guys shitting in the can are not, in fact, toilet whores. So you gotta sit and troll for a cocksucker. And hope the cops aren't patrolling that evening.

That's a serious investment of one's time and energy. Straight guys do not need to make such an effort to get laid. Getting a back-alley blowjob from a hooker is much, much easier; taking to an hourly motel not much more difficult.

Guys who are trolling washrooms want to skull-fuck men. They are very far from normal. They are not straight men.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:54 PM on September 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


I'm not talking about openly gay (or truly straight) men, who may be in a relationship, an open relationship, or just like cheating or whatever. I thought that was clear.

OK, I'm sorry, it wasn't clear because of your addendum that most gay men don't do it.

That's a serious investment of one's time and energy. Straight guys do not need to make such an effort to get laid. Getting a back-alley blowjob from a hooker is much, much easier; taking to an hourly motel not much more difficult.

You gotta be joking, FFF. I'm straight, but I'm sure I'd have no problem

a.) finding a cottage in the city where I live. I've walked in on enough action in the past when I wasn't seeking it to think it would be hard to find if you were looking, and
b.) I'm pretty sure that the obvious signal is simply to hang around longer than it takes to piss, and then open communication in any way whatsoever, as straight men not seeking sex do neither of these things in public toilets.

Perhaps the British scene and the US scene are very different, but I'd hazard a guess that most of our municipal public toilets -- particularly those without an attendant -- have some sort of cottaging action going on in them. And while some of the men who use them obviously identify as straight, there's a definite subculture of gay men who get off on the casual, anonymous and dangerous nature of cottaging. See, for example, Joe Orton's Diaries, for more info.

Two particular experiences of cottaging stand out in my mind. I remember being in my early 20's, using a stall in a local department store. I could hear two men in the next stall, negotiating a price for sex. It gradually dawned on me that I actually knew the guy who was seeking payment -- but hadn't ever known he was gay. I'd heard other people suggest it, but he'd always denied it.

The second was going into an underground toilet on a traffic roundabout known locally as Puffin Island. It was maybe midnight on a Friday night, and the place seemed so dark and quiet, that I really didn't expect there to be anybody in there, but the lights were broken.

As I'm pissing, my lights began to adjust to the darkness, and although I'd thought I was alone, all manner of shadows began to resolve themselves into people. There must have been ten or twelve guys down there, all of whom were frozen absolutely still, and remained that way untill I finished my piss and left.

(The gay action, of course, was why it was called Puffin Island. Gay men = puffs = Puffin Island.)
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:43 AM on September 9, 2007 [1 favorite]



The tranny hookers in the meat-packing district of NYC circa '95 sure didn't depend on an exclusively gay clientele. (btw, are they still around, or has that area finally gotten as gentrified as Times Sq?)


As of 2001, there were a few I would pass by occasionally.
posted by now i'm piste at 8:50 AM on September 9, 2007


"Let's call them skull-fuckers."

Craniosexuals.
posted by klangklangston at 2:40 PM on September 9, 2007


I like strays, myself.
posted by Maias at 7:03 PM on September 9, 2007


there's a definite subculture of gay men who get off on the casual, anonymous and dangerous nature of cottaging.

Of openly gay men nowadays (as opposed to Orton's time), it's really a vanishing fraction--there are really so many easier ways to get off--casual, dangerous, and anonymous too, if you wish.
posted by amberglow at 7:50 PM on September 9, 2007


Most frequently in clubs that have bubble machines, if my friend Matt is to be believed.
posted by klangklangston at 11:30 PM on September 9, 2007


I'm sure that it's a diminishing interest, what with Gayday, the existance of many more clubs and bars, etc. It formed a central plank of a recent TV drama called Clapham Common, part of Channel 4's recent Gay History week. (Though it was a contemporary drama.) A closeted straight man witnesses two gay bashers following a young gay man out of a closet. The young man is the victim of a murder. An out gay man then seeks to put pressure on the closet queen to go to the police.

The extent to which cottaging is still a part of gay life in the UK is the subject of some discussion on the program forum.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:48 AM on September 10, 2007


I'm deeply suspicious of the charge that this study was unethical.

When studying animals, it is unethical to expose them to danger or threaten their habitat.

When studying people, I think the rules are different. I think you have to demonstrate that harm was done, not that harm could have been done.

Self knowledge can be harmful, but I'm not sure that it meets a legal criteria of harm. When participation is voluntary, self knowledge is a risk you run.
posted by ewkpates at 4:13 AM on September 10, 2007


But the participations wasn't voluntary-- he tracked these people down.
posted by Maias at 8:59 AM on September 10, 2007


From the forum link: Mainly I would ask why is it that the media have this block on gays and can only talk about their sex lives? Why are people so obsessed with George Michael's adventures in the bushes?
Is it because, after all, we all seek thrill and adventure?! And because Gay people are quite open about their sexual lives (out of years of repression perhaps) that they have become the scape-goat for all of society's sexual taboos. How many women for example would feel comfortable admitting they like anal sex?!?
...


It's so true--exactly right--gay men=sex alone, for the media, and for the rightwing everywhere. And we are more open about it all, as opposed to heteros.
posted by amberglow at 11:26 AM on September 10, 2007


« Older Janmashtami: A celebration of Lord Krishna’s Birth...  |  "When I finished The Shock Doc... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments