Tearoom Trade
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 30 August 2007 | 10 responses
Joe Carter makes the shocking observation that men are – gasp – more promiscuous than women.
10 Responses to “Tearoom Trade”
Josh, are we reading the same post?
As you’ll recall, Josh, you were the one who once said that homosexuals were no more promiscuous than heterosexuals. ; )
And my latest post is on the same subject. It doesn’t say that men are more promiscuous than women (a fact that no one disputes) but that homosexual men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men.
Yes, Joe, but they are only more promiscuous because their chosen partner – men – are also more promiscuous. Heterosexuals have more reserved, chaste women standing in the way of promiscuity. If women were as promiscuous as men, then heterosexual men would, I would argue, be just as promiscuous as homosexual men.
Really? So you’re saying that if women would allow it, you’d engage in anonymous sex with thousands of women? I don’t really think you would.
While I certainly agree that women put a limit on male heterosexual promiscuity, I disagree that we would be nearly as promiscuous as gay men. The opportunities are certainly limited, but anonymous sex is not unheard of in the world of heterosexuals. Yet most heterosexual men (at least the ones I’ve known) would be repulsed by the idea of engaging in anonymous sex with a stranger in a bathroom stall, that they met 10 seconds ago, who may or may not even be attractive.
This is a matter that could be a little of both, or even two smaller pieces of a three piece puzzle. In any case based on data currently available, along with lack of controls and comparisons, matters related to homosexual promiscuity are substantially unprovable except as to fact of existence.
The question isn’t only what effect women do or do not have in affecting the promiscuity (dampening) of men, it is the role of society, including cultural attitudes, customs and law. For many years, male-on-male rape involving adults was either not taken seriously by law enforcement or not reported out of shame. Many gays and straights seem to have refrained from contacting law enforcment after being victims of crime in general (gays) or victims of alleged homosexual law breakers (gays and straights) because of stigmas involved. There seemed to be substantial evidence that serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was taken less seriously by law officials because both he and his victims were either gay or perceived as gay.
Some might argue that the Bible would in practice reduce promiscuity among gays. But does it? If not, is that because they are rejecting Biblical principles against promiscuity or because the way or manner or forum the Bible is presented to them discourages them from being in church at all to hear such a message?
Many have claimed that blacks are more promiscuous than whites. IF that is so, is it due to race or merely to racial attitudes or additionally to factors that are not completely known or understood?
Black men are much more likely to be criminals than white men. It would be very dangerous to draw very many conclusions without looking at the picture in large. Have we really done that with gays regarding the issue of promiscuity?
With respect to alcohol comsumption, at the last United Methodist Church General Conference finally took what I consider a practical approach. The UMC retains its opposition to drinking on moral grounds but says that if you choose to drink, then do so in moderation (paraphrase) in consideration of health of body and mind. Is that compromising Biblical principle or leading people closer to holiness in an imperfect world?
So you’re saying that if women would allow it, you’d engage in anonymous sex with thousands of women? I don’t really think you would.
No, I’m not saying I would. I’m saying that men in general would. This isn’t about me; this is about generalities of the male gender. As women become more promiscuous, anonymous sex rises. The data, and anecdotal evidence from any frat house in America, backs that up. Let’s not be naive.
Has anyone considered the possibility inlvoved in dopamine triggering? Tests have shown that frequent dosing with dopamine emulators or enhancers can cause not only a rise in libido but with frequent dosing, a more rapid response to sexual stimuli and a lowering of the “urge” regulators that would normally modulate desire Sexual stimulus and perhaps particularly orgasm itself raises dopamine and other neurotransmitter levels; if those levels stay high they can be like a self-feeding loop. Chronic masturbators who find their practice disturbing may get caught in a cycle of masturbation releasing tension but then raising dopamine levels and leading to a vicious cycle in which they want to stop, but changing behavior causes anxiety, which is then released by the deed to begin a new cycle. While psychotherapy, congitive therapy and such can be useful, sometimes the recuction of the practice doesn’t alter the behavior as much as cooling the dopamine trigger does. However, many chronic masturbators are married men who have the motivation of wanting to keep their marriages together as well as not lose custody of kids.
The same thing has been found in problem gamblers. While there are clearly psychologica and/or personality components to gambling problems or addictions, studies have shown that often those who gamble for days on end have the most trouble quitting, while recreational gamblers who gamble a few days a year may not have a problem. The old understanding used to be that those who couldn’t control their gambling had weak character. That could still be that someone goes for years as a non-problem gambler, gets depressed over a loss, gambles to take their mind off it, then gambles for so long straight that they are prepping their brain for a dopamine fix. The more they win, the more dopamine. When they lose, dopamine declines. In a perfect world, that would decrease the urge ot gamble. But besides the direct effect, there is the memory imprintation of the effect. Dopamine may be down, but the gambling brain remembers what it felt like when it was up. Similarly, maybe male homosexuals are similarly affected by the triggering and imprinting aspects.
For narcolepsy, I take two different medicines that are both powerful boosters of dopamine as well as tremendous boosters of sex drive. Taken day-after-day, the drugs build on themselves. How do I stay in control? 1. Pre-education was a big factor for me; 2. I have a lot of other interests 3. I have a faith that helps me to address temptation. 4. Both of the medicines tend to cause nausea in high doses. 5. I take drug holidays that last for two to five days. 6. My doctor carefully monitors all aspects of drug impact.
In one test, gay men responded to the anti-depressant fluoxetine differently than did heterosexual men. Fluoxetine regulates substances related to trytophan, such as serotonin or 5-HTP. In most people, serotonin reduces libido, but in some it raises it — just as diphenhydramine produces sleepiness in most people but agitation/insomnia in a few, including myself. Also, serotonin can lead to better rest, which can lead to….
Some researchers have found that the suprachiasmastic nucleus of the brain is enlarged in male homsexuals. Why? Could it be that larger numbers of sexual encounters stimulates that area in turn leading to greater desire and less inhibition? I have no idea, but Joe seems to be suggsting that gays have more sex and more dangerous sex simply because they are sinners — soddomites.
Is there a possibility of synergism? That is, that greater opportunity for relations plus dopamine enhancement from greater relations is more than simple addition. (There are other neurotransmitters released, such as acetylcholine, nor-epinephrine that can effect the brain and/or body pleasure centers.)
Finally, since men in general are more visually stimulated, the watching of porn may be one factor. Married men on the whole have fewer opportuniites to employ it, albeit that the Internet has made a big change in that.
I’m encouraging the exploration of additonal avenues. I don’t claim to know the final answer(s).
“Yet most heterosexual men (at least the ones I’ve known) would be repulsed by the idea of engaging in anonymous sex with a stranger in a bathroom stall, that they met 10 seconds ago, who may or may not even be attractive.”
As is equally true of _most_ homosexual men as well. You are engaging in a spectacularly sophistic slide from (i) the modal response of number of sex partners had by older homosexuals to (ii) attributing that level of activity to the majority of homosexuals to (iii) identifying that level of activity with engaging in the ‘tea trade’ to, in the comment just quoted, (iv) attributing engaging in the ‘tea trade’ to a majority of homosexuals. Each step is spurious. For example, that modal response that you put so much weight on represents a mere 20% of the sample. With the other reported data, this gets us to at most 50% of older homosexuals have had over 100 partners over the several decades of their sexually active lifetime. Compare that with, e.g., the VanLandingham et al. (1993) survey of young Thai heterosexual males, in which somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% had had more than 1 partner in the last 6 months — which is a rate that, if sustained over the course of a lifetime, would quickly put them into the over-100-partners category. Not that they will do so — most will, I assume, get married and more-or-less settle down — but the point is that there’s no real difference in the underlying proclivity for promiscuity. Also, I note that an overwhelming majority (90%) had used prostitutes, which typically involves the kind of anonymous sex you claim to find heterosexually unimaginable. I’m sure the incidence of prostitution use is much lower in this country; my understanding is that something on the order of 20% of American heterosexual men have used prostitutes. But that just goes to show that heterosexual/homosexual is an explanatorily somewhat weak distinction here.
Josh has got you dead to rights: abstracting away the basic preferences themselves, the differences in sexual impulses of gay men and straight men are simply nowhere near as drastic as you claim, and we should seek other explanations for the overall differences in behavior.
Really? So you’re saying that if women would allow it, you’d engage in anonymous sex with thousands of women? I don’t really think you would.
That’s really what it all comes down to, doesn’t it. Joe Carter just threw in the dated survey involving “older gay men” to make it all seem so much less about using the sad Sen. Craig scandal to gratuitously bash gay men.
Here in NYC, some 35 years after the Stonewall riots and 25 years after AIDS, the Brambles are history and just about every grown up gay man we know is in a monogamous long term relationship. Given the opportunity, I suspect most gay guys want the same things, more or less, as their straight counterparts.
Bashing from the likes of Joe Carter does nothing to eliminate the behavior he so abhors, It’s historically what drove it in the first place.
JohnS concludes:
Bashing from the likes of Joe Carter does nothing to eliminate the behavior he so abhors, It’s historically what drove it in the first place.
Where was the bashing? I don’t see any. And if there was bashing, how did it drive abhorrent behavior? “He bashed me, I have to go suck some c_ck”?