posted on August 29, 2007 11:02:20 AMBECAUSE they were having so much promiscuous sex. They're KNOWN for being much more sexually active than most other people. Try reading about how many sexual partners the AVERAGE gay guy has had in his/their lifetime. Average over 100...and they're PROUD of that. And the average straight person???? No where NEAR that many 'encounters' in their life times
Gay men have the most sex partners, right? Actually, they come in a distant third. Using General Social Survey data, I calculated the mean number of sex partners in the past year for people 18-30. (It's not precisely the mean since the highest estimates were assigned lower numbers--dumb, I know, but I didn't design the damn thing). Here are the results:
Mean number of sex partners in the past year
Bisexual men 4.50
Bisexual women 3.83
Gay men 2.54
Straight men 1.93
Lesbians 1.45
Straight women 1.43
By far, guys who swing both ways have the most partners, and I'm amazed that women of any stripe beat gay men. On the other hand, I'm not surpised to see lesbians (and straight women, of course) on the low end. Overall, the numbers might be lower than you would expect for young people. My thinking is that we get a distorted view of the frequency and prevalence of this kind of behavior from the media. Life isn't as wild as depicted on the screen.
If we look at those on the extreme end, the promiscuous gay man appears:
Percent with 11-100 sex partners last year
Gay men 9.3
Bisexual men 7.1
Bisexual women 2.9
Straight men 2.2
Straight women 0.3
Lesbians 0.0
Evidently, there is a small group of homosexual guys who conform to the stereotype of many, many partners, but this does not appear to be the norm. It's unheard of for a lesbian to act that way (showing once again that lesbians are not like gay men), and rare for a straight woman--the 0.3 percent might be prostitutes. Oh, come to think of it, some of those gay and bisexual men might do it for money too.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 29, 2007 11:05:11 AM
"Most elderly gay men have married and even had families. Then years later they found a backbone and came out of their 'closet', as it's commonly referred to."
"We're talking about a man who is still in denial, still in the closet, married in 2007, CC. NOT the past."
These are both your quotes. Elderly gay men who are married with families and YEARS later they found the backbone to come out. You are contradicting yourself, Linda. As for 2007, most of the gay men who have trouble coming out are the hypocrites who preach against gays and for family values, no matter what party they belong to. No matter how many times you post to the contrary, that is the reason people are angry with Craig--the man who called Bill Clinton a dirty, dirty, nasty man. People in glass houses should not throw stones.
======
posted on August 29, 2007 11:06:26 AMGet real, ld. ALL gay men who are married and have sex with other men....COULD be infecting their unsuspecting wives.
Linda you should try reading what is actually typed and not what you want to believe was written. I wasn't denying the fact that anyone who cheats on a spouse could be spreading a STD.
You miseed the point of my post - but that doesn't surprise me since your reading comprehension stinks.
When the NJ governor scandal broke, in one of your first posts you were the one that brought up the fact that he could be spreading STD's to his wife, but yet you didn't here after two days of this post being active. I wonder why that is. More of your double standards.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 29, 2007 11:13:07 AM
Yea, ld, I'll believe what you pulled up and are too ashamed to even let anyone know which gay site you retrieved that info. from. LOL LOL LOL
-----------
No contradiction on my part, CC. Even gay married men today are STILL deceiving their wives, families etc. They're still putting their wives at GRAVE risk. Both republican and democrats.
Don't fool yourself. The young gay men are AGAIN contacting hiv/aids, even today, because they have so much promiscuous sex without protection. They STILL haven't learned a thing...and they're still passing it around. CDC spells it all out for you.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 29, 2007 11:43 AM ]
posted on August 29, 2007 11:19:05 AMIt's a GAY issue...not a political one. Their political parties have NOTHING to do with the GAY sexual encounters
You are in denial or to stupid to realize it is not a gay issue. If Craig was caught in a bathroom room would it make a difference to you? Heck no.
You still can't see how much of hypocrite Craig and most of the Republican party are.
You have a senator who has constantly preached against gays and presented this "family values" lifestyle only to be caught in a lewd behavior. How does that stand up to what he has been preaching all these years. I guess it doesn't matter that the politicians in your party lie just to get votes.
Once again it Craig that was speaking out against Clinton's immoral behavior regarding a sexual indiscretion but once again Craig has one and it is OK. At least Clinton was caught with a woman.
Speaking of Clinton, Newt was another Republican that criticized Clinton for his affair, only to be having an affair of his own. But hey it is OK for a Republican to be cheating on someone right. Once again it shows how the Republicans are nothing by hypocrites.
I bet you are going to deny how much the Republican party preached "family values" during the 2004 presidential campaign or did you forget about this. It was the Republican party - your party - that made "family values" a political issue. This incident with Craig is part of that.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 29, 2007 11:20:31 AM
"Secondly, your copy and paste did NOT address any of the issues I had mentioned."
I guess you did not read it. It addressed your accusation that gays are more promiscuous, for one. Missed that one, huh? I would bet my right arm that you believe all of the myths on that list.
You mentioned that you worked for awhile with HIV patients. In view of your self-admitted expertise on all subjects, I will risk being accused of bragging by saying I worked in a practice in New York City where the doctor was one of the top 5 HIV experts in the country. He wrote many papers for medical journals, was interviewed many times for news programs and was one of the finest human beings I have ever known. Doctors from all over the country sent patients to us or consulted over the phone when they did not know what to do. When I say I worked in this practice, that means I gave respiratory treatments, injections, went to patients houses to deliver medication and administer treatments, held their hands when their own families rejected them, went to funerals, straightened out any problems I could with their insurance, consoled loving parents, partners, children of patients and rejoiced when the antiretroviral medications became available and worked wonderfully. Anyone who has worked in an HIV practice could never, never have the ugly attitude about gays that you do.
posted on August 29, 2007 11:23:25 AM
Gee, ld, maybe YOU could point out when the mcgreevy case went public, just where the DEMS sought an ethics committee hearing on HIM/his behavior? lOL
I don't believe they did. NOPE, they treated HIM as a 'victim'....being picked on...life destroyed. lol But this is so different NOW? Nope....it's no different. It's just more of the liberals using those they SUPPOSEDLY support, gays, for their own political gain. Nothing more.
posted on August 29, 2007 11:29:08 AM
WOW, CC. I'm REAL impressed. NOT. As mingo often said....on online chat boards once can CLAIM anything, be anything they WANT to be. Doesn't mean they are.
And we're talking about the difference between how the liberals act when it's one of their own being outed....caught and having to ADMIT to gay sexual encounters...and how differently they/you act when it's a republican. LOL LOL
Those darn liberal double standards.
lol
mcgreevey = VICTIM
craig = Oh boy....do we have something to shame the republican party with. LOL LOL LOL
You approve of the gay lifestyle....it shouldn't matter what their party is. They're both gay, married men with families. PERIOD.
But you might want to become more current with the new stats on young gay men and their continuing sexual behaviors that are rising their rates for contacting hiv/aids.
Can't deny the facts NOW....no matter who you worked for or what you did. Unprotected sex is AGAIN escalating in their 'group' the CDC tracks.
posted on August 29, 2007 11:31:38 AMYea, ld, I'll believe what you pulled up and are too ashamed to even let anyone know which gay site you retrieved that info. from. LOL LOL LOL
Believe what you want. It was not a gay site despite what you want to believe. Once again you have proved how lazy you are. There is no need to post my link. I can not help it that the Google Queen can't find her own information.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 29, 2007 11:35:25 AM
How Promiscuous Are Homosexual Men?
Eugene Volokh is busily gathering and publishing data to show that:
1. Homosexual men really aren't that different from heterosexual men in their number of sexual partners.
2. A lot of people who have published claims that homosexual men are highly promiscuous are engaged in, at best, junk science.
He may have a point on #2. He's given an example of a very misleading use of a limited survey by Masters & Johnson, among others. But looking at Professor Volokh's examples raises some disturbing questions. He points out that the GSS data indicates that the median number of sexual partners since age 18 for heterosexual men is 6, and 10 for homosexual men. The averages, however, are 15 and 37, respectively. Now, it's true that the averages are a better way of figuring out what a majority is doing--but the median gives us a pretty good that the high end of the promiscuity curve for homosexuals could be pretty large. The median for homosexual men is 1.66 times that of heterosexual men; the average, however, is 2.46 times. This suggests that some significant minority of homosexual men have a lot of different sexual partners--although by itself, this doesn't tell us how large or how promiscuous this crowd is.
Another concern that I have about this data is that it doesn't seem to be age-adjusted. That is to say, if the average heterosexual man in the GSS is aged 50, and the average homosexual man in the GSS is 25, these numbers could be masking very high numbers of gay sexual partners per year. I would expect the highly promiscuous gay men to die much younger (because of AIDS) than highly promiscuous straight men (who are at much lower risk of AIDS because of the mechanisms involved). I'm not even assuming that gay men die younger because of violence and suicide, as some have claimed.
Another problem: Professor Volokh in another posting acknowledges that one of the reasons for discrepancies in sexual partner counts for straight men and women may be "that some women (e.g., prostitutes) have sex with very many partners, and they're also the ones who are less likely to respond to surveys. So they're undersampled, and their experience doesn't get revealed on the surveys." I would wonder if the "live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse" gay men that are engaged in highly promiscuous sex are also likely to be undersampled, and for the same reason: these tend to be younger and more marginalized people.
The issue again comes up: if homosexuals were just a bit more promiscuous than heterosexuals, why did AIDS burn through their population like a wildfire? Among heterosexuals in America, AIDS was a significant problem for IV drug abusers; prostitutes; sexual partners of bisexual men; and those who received tainted transfusions and transplants. Outside of those groups, AIDS is a trivial issue. Anal intercourse certainly encourages and assists in the transmission of AIDS, but without widespread promiscuity, the spread would not have been so dramatic. (From what I have read, some significant number of gay men do not regularly engage in anal intercourse--which makes the rapid spread astonishing. From reading the Internet newsgroup soc.motss, there seem to be some gay men for whom quite a bit of alcohol is required to relax the muscles sufficiently.)
Professor Volokh makes the point:
claims that, say, the median gay man has over 250 sexual partners in a lifetime makes gays seem in a way freakish and deviant, and makes it much harder for people to see gay sexual relationships as emotionally comparable to straight sexual relationships.
But of course, anyone who has spent much time in the San Francisco Bay Area can see that this is, in fact, an accurate description of large numbers of gays: freakish and deviant. This is why Gay Pride Parades are awash in sadomasochism and other forms of sexual weirdness that in the straight community, even in California, are seen as generally freaky and weird. One of the reasons that corporations have been able to afford the costs of "domestic partnership" coverage is that there have been so few requests for coverage--at least partly because the relationships among gay men are so transitory.
UPDATE: I'm gratified to see that Professor Volokh has published something by someone who was there in the 1970s, and which demonstrates that the wild side, even if a minority of gay men, is not looking for deep emotional relationships.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 29, 2007 11:35:31 AM
You presented it as fact, ld. But you are too ashamed to let others know where it came from???? LOL LOL LOL
Nope, that looks bad for YOU. Not those who won't take anything printed as truth. lol
But hey, I KNOW the liberals here always take anything printed by another liberal as truth....no FACTS necessary. It's just the way they are. tsk tsk tsk
Pretty hard to deny, ld. The FACTS are out there for all to become informed. Keep your own head in the sand if you choose....but don't expect others to believe an unverifiable source nor an article from a gay man or an opinion piece - written by who knows who he is. lol
And you, of course, didn't answer MY question. Did the dems call for an ethics investigation on mcgreevey? One of their own? LOL LOL
I'm sure you just can't say 'no, they didn't'...because then that would show you there are differences between how the 'right' reacts and how the left doesn't.
Just can't have that.
posted on August 29, 2007 11:44:00 AMGee, ld, maybe YOU could point out when the mcgreevy case went public, just where the DEMS sought an ethics committee hearing on HIM/his behavior?
And there is going to be a probe in this case to so what is your point. Both cases are being treated equally. So once again your claim of Craig's indiscretion is being treated differently does not hold water.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 29, 2007 11:46:13 AM
"WOW, CC. I'm REAL impressed. NOT. As mingo often said....on online chat boards once can CLAIM anything, be anything they WANT to be. Doesn't mean they are."
Good answer, Linda. Don't really care what you think. I know it is true and that's all that counts.
"And we're talking about the difference between how the liberals act when it's one of their own being outed....caught and having to ADMIT to gay sexual encounters...and how differently they/you act when it's a republican. LOL LOL"
NO WE ARE NOT! Several posters have posted more than once, the issue is not Republican, Democrat, liberal conservative. The issue is NOT if Craigh is gay or straight. The issue is hypocrites who preach about family values and against gay lifestyle or adultery and then are caught doing the things they preached against. McGreevey did not preach against the above. I do not feel he is a victim, but his wife sure is. If he is gay, so be it. That has nothing to do with the fact that he does not have character. If he did something illegal, as Craig did, then he should be punished as well.
posted on August 29, 2007 11:47:23 AMThey're both gay, married men with families. PERIOD.
Nope one admitted he was gay. The other admitted he is straight.
There are men who identify themselves as straight but ocassionally engaged in sex with men. You can say they are gay but that is not how the individual identifies themselves. It is you that is trying to label people Linda. If anything Craig is bisexual and not gay. You don't seem to know the difference between straight, gay and bisexual.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
Nope, as anyone who has read here, CC, for any length of time KNOWS....from what they're READ HERE.....the treatment is VERY different when it's a gay republican vs a gay dem/lib.
No denying what's been posted here by liberals over and over and over again.
IF you didn't care what I believe, then why the one-upsmanship? LOL LOL Trying to impress me/anyone? Oh, of course not.
But facts cannot be denied. And gay hiv/aid rates can easily be found. They ARE continue to spread this terrible disease all around....because of just what craig was found doing...admitted to doing....was given a sentence for....and is STILL trying to deny.
The liberal double standards are very clear. One was a 'victim'...the other a hypocrite. LOL When both were deceiving their families, both were married, both pretending to be straight, etc etc etc.
LOL
I'm thankful MORE conservatives are more moral than democrats/liberals and don't support/approve of the gay lifestyle. Even though there are many dems who also do NOT. The libs will accept anything for more votes.
posted on August 29, 2007 12:04:13 PMPretty hard to deny, ld. The FACTS are out there for all to become informed. Keep your own head in the sand if you choose....but don't expect others to believe an unverifiable source nor an article from a gay man or an opinion piece - written by who knows who he is.
Why dont you try to find some articles that have some recent information. Yuo can do a google searcg but most of the articles in your link date back to 2003.
If yuo look at these statistics from the CDC, you can see that MSM HIV cases make up half roughly half of the total adult HIV cases in 2005. This is roughly the same percentage it has been over the 5 year period.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 29, 2007 12:17:48 PM
"The liberal double standards are very clear. One was a 'victim'...the other a hypocrite. LOL When both were deceiving their families, both were married, both pretending to be straight, etc etc etc."
So far, McGreevey has not been found to have done anything illegal that I am aware of. Craig was arrested in an airport men's room and pled guilty. If McGreevey is found to have done anything illegal, he should be prosecuted. If Craig is gay, that is between his wife and himself. Makes no difference to me. But, breaking a law does make a difference.
"IF you didn't care what I believe, then why the one-upsmanship? LOL LOL Trying to impress me/anyone? Oh, of course not"
The reason I posted what I did is because of your remarks about coming out of my cave and you should try to read up. You think you are the only one who knows anything. Just trying to let you know that I have a LOT of experience in this area and try to post as accurately as I can. You chose not to believe it. So what.
posted on August 29, 2007 12:18:08 PM
Does it matter who is spreading HIV? If you are engaging in a sexual act, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELF and reduce your risk. This is 2007, HIV/AIDS has been around for 25 years or so. There has been plenty of education of how HIV is transmitted and what one should be doing to protect themselves. If you practice unsafe sex and contract HIV, you have no one to blame but yourself.
So quit trying to blaming everything on gay people. Why are you so concerned about how HIV is spread and by whom. Do you plan on having sex with a gay male? I highly doubt it. Some little old man in the nursing home can give you HIV Linda if you practice unsafe sex, but it is apparent from your posts that you are more worried about catching it from a gay man. Once again your hatred and bigotry is shining brightly.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 29, 2007 12:20:22 PM
ld - the FACTS are on the CDC website...the most recent FACTS/stats.
And they support exactly what I've said. THAT'S why I've made the comments I have....BECAUSE of what the CDC has said....what the STATS show to THEM.
YOU read it. LOL Your gay groups are now spreading and the MAJOR cause of syphilis spreading in HUGE numbers...just like they were went hiv/aids first starting spreading through the gay community. READ the FACTS for yourself....I already have. Now your community is dealing with this disease....passing it to others. And I'm sure down the road you'll be trying to find excuses for why gays aren't the only ones who have syphilis....because by then it TOO will have spread to others groups of people.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 29, 2007 12:22 PM ]
posted on August 29, 2007 12:23:12 PM
"They police were doing a STING...BECAUSE of so much gay sex being reported in that bathroom"
No one is denying that there are promiscuous gays. There are also promiscuous straight people and bisexuals too. They are not the majority.
Also, no one is denying that the STD and HIV rates are starting to rise again, not only in the gay community, but also young minority women, heterosexual women in Africa, IV drug users. The young generation, who were not around when HIV was a death sentence, are complascent about safe sex--just as they are complascent about speeding, text messaging while driving and other dangerous activities. They think they are immortal. They need to be educated.
posted on August 29, 2007 12:26:48 PMld - the FACTS are on the CDC website...the most recent FACTS/stats.
Then why don't you post a link to support your so called facts instead of posting a link to some google search with links to articles that date back to 2001 and 2003 and include syphilis rates. That is not supporting your factual claim.
And as I said my link does support the fact that MSM account for roughly half of all the new adult HIV cases from 2001-2005. If they account for 50% that means that the other half come from other means.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 29, 2007 12:29:35 PM
Not to the EXTENT that gay men have sex. Those are FACTS, cc. Deny anything you want ....it's the liberal way.
I'm sure ld will be able to pull up more support from un-identified sources that he's too ashamed to admit who they are....and that will put your mind at ease.
Meanwhile, I'll stick with the FACTS/STATS that those who track gay diseases print...and I'll believe THEM.
posted on August 29, 2007 12:35:18 PMYour gay groups are now spreading and the MAJOR cause of syphilis spreading in HUGE numbers...just like they were went hiv/aids first starting spreading through the gay community.
If this is the case you better be careful the next time you have sex with a gay man. You want to make sure you protect yourself before engaging in sex. You might want to make sure the next gay man you sleep with uses two condoms for extra protection.
I don't understand what the heck your problem is with trying to stick your nose in the life of a gay person. You seem to be concerned about who they are sleeping with, what they are doing in the bedroom, who they are hiring etc. Why don't you take care of your own life for a change. Worry about what you do in your bedroom, worry about who you are sleeping with. Despite what you may think you don't have control over what goes on in the gay community or any one else's lives.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
