Sex: Thoughts on Manhunt
I was first introduced to Manhunt.net at a Halloween party, when the hottest boy in the room was dressed as a Manhunt profile. He wore a cardboard sign around his neck with a square cutout for his face to show through. A reasonable facsimile of a real MH profile, it listed his name, age and favorite sexual role. I was far from naive at this time, but I was still shocked that such a service existed.
Manhunt: Is it a fact of gay life, or 20th century equivalent to the cruising park? Before I moved to DC and got my introduction to widespread gay culture, I assumed online cruising was the province of the lonely, ugly or terminally sketchy. In short, I assumed that normal, attractive guys went out into the physical world to find dick. Just like the heteros.
I was wrong. Out Magazine just printed an article, Has Manhunt Destroyed Gay Culture?, which delves into the unquestionable ubiquity of MH in contemporary gay living. In the UK, 61% of gay men meet their first sexual partner online. An anecdotal sampling of friends and acquaintances will tell you the same thing. So it seems like shopping for dick online is something that everyone does, and something that will not be going away anytime soon.
Why?
Washington DC is a big city with a big gay population. It’s impossible to walk around any of its central neighborhoods without crossing paths with homos of all shapes, sizes and colors. 17th St. is packed with cruisy gay bars, and those who like their sexual partners on the alternative side can weed them out from any number of mixed bars like Wonderland or the Black Cat. What I mean is that there’s a lot of dick available in this town and one doesn’t have to look far to find it.
But the two arguments I hear most for online cruising are that its the easiest way to get laid, and that everyone does it. But gay men got laid for decades before the internet even existed. And “everyone does it” quickly leads to bouts of circular logic that I don’t even care to dignify. What I really think is that the the effort of making yourself presentable, leaving the house and having a little patience became greater than the rewards of meeting a sexual partner in person. I think us fags want our dick NOW.
But don’t you actually want to earn it? Growing up in the closet and attending a rural college , I used to lie awake and fantasize about the crazy gay life I would have when I moved back to a city. I used to picture the gay friends I would have, the gay bars I would go to and the men I would meet resultingly. In college I could’ve been the smartest, hottest man in the whole state of Ohio and it wouldn’t have mattered because there was no one around me to notice. I used to look forward to the day when I could make myself desirable and someone else would actually respond. I wanted to earn the dick I got.
Instead, it seems like all I have to do is take a picture of my own dick, upload it to the virtual fishing line and wait for a nibble. What is this? I thought that gay men have a visibility in society that they’ve never had before. We’re on TV, and in public office. We can get married. Don’t all of our struggles just boil down to a defense of our fundamental right to fuck? Deprived of the culture, of politics, of fashion and music, “gay” is a group of people who just want to express themselves sexually without getting killed for it. And now we are able to openly look for sex, but we continue to do this in private and in chat rooms. As if it’s shameful.
Another explanation I’ve gotten for the proliferation of Manhunt is that its profiles are populated by a bunch of lonely men seeking any kind of human connection. If that’s the case, why couch it in sex? If our bars are full of lonely men and our computers are full of lonely men, then who the hell is fulfilled? I refuse to believe that our gay destiny is to never be happy with the options available to us, but what other conclusion can I draw?
The Out article makes a point, and I agree with it, that gay male culture is made up of a lot of wounded men making up for lost time. Deprived of a chance to ask our crushes to middle school dances or get hand jobs in the backseats of parked cars, we act like sexual adolescents even into our forties. Straight puberty begins at, say, 14. Gay puberty begins when you first come out. And if you come out at age 28, that leaves you 14 years to make up for. Nothing short of worldwide sexual domination will be satisfactory. Is that what Manhunt is? A second chance at gay high school?
I am in the the minority of gay men I know who have never tried to get laid off Manhunt. Nor have I sampled the fruits of Gay.com, or Craigslist, or anything like it. Truth be told, I might have been a lot happier if I had. I spent a lot of celibate months trying to find my niche here, and I might regret that period less if I had gotten my dick wet from time to time. There’s a big world of gay sex out there and I’ve sampled very little of it. However, I prefer to think that the sex I do have is contingent on my personality, packaging and a little bit of old-fashioned luck. All this so far has prevented me from seeking it online. Am I commendable for sticking to my morals or just a big idiot for missing out on so much fun?
First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...
2 things:
1) I think your last line sets up a false dichotomy. I don’t think cruising in person is somehow moral while cruising online is immoral. I agree with your preference for meeting people in my real life, but others’ choice to do otherwise is not a moral issue.
2) On the lighter side of things, there’s a guy who did some writing in the ’80s, Paul Hallasy, who’s now a comic. He can’t sing worth a damn, but a clip of his stand-up act is on YouTube, with his lyrically clever “Internet Killed the Gay Cruising Bar”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcF-MtIhF8E
If the link doesn’t work, just go to YouTube and type in the title of the song. It’s the first hit.
Philip’s right on the “false dichotomy” thing: there’s nothing less moral about looking for dick online than in bars. Or is there? Perhaps when you meet someone in a bar you’re more likely to know his name, his personality, his drink preference… you’re likely to know stuff about him and actually like him a bit before you go co-mingling bumpy parts.
On the flip side, lots of guys spend a lot of time chatting with one another online before deciding to knock the boots, time during which the same information exchange can happen.
I guess some guys treat these sites like gay bars while others treat them like sex clubs. Is either one more or less moral? What is it specifically that seems more amoral about cruising for sex online?
Has anyone been following the Towle Road Story that the CEO of Manhunt is a Right Wing Gay, and gave a butt load of money to the McCain campaign? I am not a subscriber but if I were I would pull out drop my load somewhere else.
http://www.towleroad.com/2008/08/mccain-takes-23.html
I’ll offer a couple random thoughts. There’s so much going on here, it’s hard to come to any kind of unifying theory.
Just think about two guys cruising Manhunt: one is there because he’s deeply ashamed, married and closeted, desperate for the touch of another man, and this is the only way he knows. The other one is Out, sex-positive, and believes that sex is a political act and a fundamental right. (I think you get the same extremes with people who cruise parks or public bathrooms.) Pride is not the opposite of shame, it’s the other side of the coin.
There’s also a practical consideration. Heterosexual men live in a world where 97% of the women they encounter could at least theoretically, potentially be attracted to them. Homosexual men live in a world where 97% of the men they encounter would not under any circumstances be attracted to them and in fact a large percentage of them would be hostile or repulsed by the suggestion. As gay men, we look for and create situations where the probability of sex is higher. We want better odds.
We need places to find each other, and it’s easier to sit in front of the computer at home than it is to sit in a bar. I don’t think I like this development. Alcoholics are much more fun than Internet addicts.
I juts like to look at pictures…
Unlock?
For me the best part was the end of the article:
“We still don’t know how to have enduring relationships. We still don’t have examples. We still don’t have mentors. We still don’t have courtship rituals. We are still getting HIV.”
I identify as “beyond Gay” simply because Gay Culture is not capable of creating the options and structures Rotello describes. Once again on the margins, this time by choice, there is freedom from the strictures of Gay Orthodoxy. As an ordinary homosexual (or MSM) I find normative, healthy relationships; mentor younger men; and enjoy the intimacy of honest friendships.
I did not use the term Post Gay as it implies that Gay identity is somehow invalid or no longer exists. That is not true. The “Gay” identity is very much a reality and embraced by many who are very satisfied.
By using the term “beyond Gay” I simply mean to suggest there are options for homosexuals to exist and thrive outside of conventional Gay Culture.
“– very interesting article — over the last couple months I have heard so much about Manhunt, I think it is turning into a sociological research project for some people! To me, Manhunt is many things — it’s good entertainment — jump in, cruise around, see who’s looking in Lima, Peru, Moscow and Singapore. It’s a place to hook up — you want to get laid — get on, arrange and hook up. Is it a place to find a boyfriend or people of quality — I don’t think so. People of quality do not need to meet Mr. Wonderful this way — they go out, they have circles of friends who introduce them to other people, they play sports, they volunteer and they belong to professional organizations. Manhunt seems to attract a certain class or type of person, although from time-to-time, everyone seems to drop by. I don’t agree that it’s a website for poorly educated, low class losers — as many suggest. To me, it’s more like the Giant or the Safeway — take what you want, leave the rest behind. Maybe this week you end up with hamburger but next week you could walk out with a filet mignon (and a major smile on your face!)”. – KG
“Am I commendable for sticking to my morals or just a big idiot for missing out on so much fun?”
Neither. Your morals are your own, ad you follow them because they are the compass you choose to live your life by, not because you will get a nice pat on the back from Sky Father or Earth Mother eventually. And if your morals tells you that Manhunt is not something you want to be involved with, then it’s likely you wouldn’t have had fun anyway. So you never got off online? Good for you, but you won’t get a scout badge for it.
At least for me, Manhunt was just a way to scratching an itch. I didn’t want to spend money on cocktails, or deal with inane chatter, or do the whole cruising at a bar. Waste of time. So, sometimes, a blowjob is like pizza, you get it when you want and then it’s done. Simple, and I don’t think a big deal needs to be made of it.
Are there people for whom Manhunt is their only way to socialize? Probably, there is every kind out there. But I don’t think we need to generalize from there to the end of gay culture. There are multiple factors that point to the change of gay culture, some good, some not so good, and in any case, cultures evolve, don’t they?
One phrase of your post sticks to me: ‘earn the dick’. What does that mean? I mean, I get your paragraph, and it’s sweet. But in a way isn’t that just another form of the Gay Puberty you mention? I came out relatively early in the 90′s (I was 19, kids come out younger), so I never felt like I had to ‘earn the dick.’ Dick was there, take it or leave it, no biggie. There was no need to fetichize sex by either overindulging or saving oneself for marriage.
And re: marriage, funny story. I meet my BF of now 3 years on Manhunt! Around Xmas 2005 I was stuck with my family, and him too, so we were cruising online and made a plan to meet and play as soon as we got back to DC, because by then we really needed to get off. And it was great, but then he noticed my large comic book collection, and we started talking about graphics and anime and etc. In any case, we moved in together early this year ;-) I’ve also made friends there, after or before I’ve hooked up with them. You can meet all sorts of people there, after all.
Hey, why is it that everything gay people do is automatically assumed to be sad and dirty (even by other gay people)?
There’s nothing wrong with meeting online. Everyone is doing it, including the straights. My two best straight-guy friends found women online they ended up marrying. (They’re well-educated and make lots of money — does that make it less dirty?)
Of course people in bars AND online who are looking to meet people are at least a little “lonely,” or they wouldn’t be looking, right? Everyone is lonely until they find “the one.” It’s normal!
Zack, you scooped me. I was going to post something about this tommorrow.
The out magazine piece is a fantastic article. So much going on in there. I’ve never used Manhunt are really don’t know what to think about it, but from these great comments, I would think that most gay men as self aware enough to not fall prey to the fears described by the writer, but how about those who are not so aware?
I talked to a friend last night about this article, mentioning how the writer implies that it causes gay men to feel that they are only their dick and their stats, and thus their worth is defined by such. My friend responded that he didn’t agree, that he get a boost to his self esteem when he goes on manhunt. I thought that was an interesting rebuttal, because it kind of substantiates the author’s conviction–I’m accepted/affirmed because I’m sexually desired–even if only for an hour by someone who may not remember my name.
The author says that manhunt is the second most popular (in time spent) site on the web, after a gambling site (I don’t remember the name). Considering this, can we really dismiss the possibility of addiction and its destructive consequences?
I know guys who spend excessive amounts of time on manhunt, and none of them can relate/refer to other males without defining them purely through a sexual prism. It gets annoying, and makes relationships impossible for them. I also know guys for whom the majority of their social interactions take place online, instead of in a real world where they can’t hide behind an electronic intermediary. Perhaps the author is being too dogmatic in stating that the disconnected virtual world where many live their lives is the cause of our inability to connect with others in meaningful ways, I don’t know.
However, if it barks like a dog….
Rob, I don’t think there’s anything essentially sad and dirty about guys meeting on line, but have you even seen Manhunt?
I don’t know of any heterosexual hookup site that is equivalent (if there is one, it’s certainly not as mainstream as Manhunt). Sure, there are a handful of people looking for dates, romance, relationships(is anyone as offended as I am by guys who say they are seeking “quality” guys?), but a large percentage of the profiles are along the lines of: “BB bottom cumdump seeking NSA loads.” I’m not gonna call it sad and dirty, but it’s not exactly eharmony.
Frankly, I would say that the situation in which a person advertises themselves as a “BB bottom cumdump seeking NSA loads” is kind of sad. It’s sad because they are engaging in rather dangerous behavior which could have devastating effects in that person’s future, and throwing the words “consenting adults” at this situation isn’t going to make any of that okay.
don’t men used the old fashioned quick-fix anymore – you know, self lovin?
I don’t feel like meeting guys on Manhunt is less moral than meeting them in person, but I’d rather meet someone in person. It’s a lot nicer to get the whole vibe, and communicating in person is easier than through messaging.
But since the advent of such sites, meeting guys in public seems harder. Many people don’t seem to be able to weather the ‘shame’ of being seen going home with someone from a bar. The same folks will hit on you when they get home from the bar, a little more lit than when they met you in person. I don’t quite get that. Maybe they have fewer mechanisms in how they deal with the desire of meeting and taking someone home, which was a lot more commonplace 10 years ago.
But once I heard that the owner of Manhunt donated to McCain, that was it. I’m cancelling my subscription soon – but just let me check my account one more time…
It is ironic that Gay sex is funding John McCain’s campaign.
Rotello’s larger point is this: sex obsessed Gay men are self-medicating their insecurities, alienating themselves, objectifying each other into abstraction and decimating Gay “communities” WHILE empowering the very hegemonic machine that seeks to destroy them.
The fact that Larry Crutchley, one of the founders of Manhunt, is a committed Republican who has donated generously to the McCain campaign proves Rotello’s larger point: attempting to assuage insecurity and self-loathing with obsessive behavior and careless choices will destroy you…and us.
Using anything good (like sex, drugs or alcohol) to an ugly extreme is destructive (HIV, liver disease, addiction, death, etc). So, why use Manhunt if it supports Republican power and our own oppression? We can all have a lot of great sex without putting McCain in office, can’t we? In evolutionary terms unless we adapt better to our environment we will quickly become irrelevant…and extinct.
Even without the whole Republican component to this story Gay men need to start thinking about how to have (a lot of great) sex as an expression of self-respect not low self-esteem.
On a related note Michelangelo Signorile has suggested a boycott of Manhunt. More info is at his blog:
http://signorile2003.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-manhunt-our-wal-mart.html
Ben 43, seriously, you need to send us some posts.
Ben, I’m working on it. Let me know if you have any ideas.
First rule of gay politics: ideological conformity. There is no possibility whatsoever that Jonathan Crutchley could have a valid reason for supporting John McCain. Crutchley must subordinate his views on trade, defense, regulation, etc. to your queer identity. Even assuming that there is room for reasonable disagreement on these issues, they’re unimportant to us. As gays we must vote as gays, and Crutchley is therefore a traitor.
Boycott, aye!
Craigslist encounters can be a big wildcard. I have had some good, hot experiences, but also met some creepers and done some things that I wouldn’t necessarily have done with a boyfriend or ‘new friend’. I think what’s tempting about it is the convenience factor, being able to shop for sex from the comfort of your room, in your underwear, nursing a hard-on. It’s also a way to lead some sort of ‘double life’, and although I have told some close friends about my Craigslisting habit, it is still a bit ‘taboo’ to be accepted openly, among straight friends. It’s fun to have secrets.
The internet has been a facilitator for my sexual activities since the beginning. I used to spend a lot of time on the XY.com personals, a website aimed at gay youth. Growing up in Cincinnati, attending a small Catholic high school, and being woefully closeted up until age 17, this website was my only exposure and chance to interact with other gays. This was before Facebook came along, and I remember the excitement of discovering the website, making a profile and choosing a picture.
As college approached, I dreamt up fantasies about how my life would become so cosmopolitan, and I would instantly have a great group of gay friends and potential boyfriends upon moving to Boston. Unfortunately, access to the widely-accepted bastions of gay culture, the bars, was restricted to me until this year, when I turned 21.
Now I’m living in NYC, going out a lot and meeting a bunch of homos all the time, but I still peruse the Craigslist ads on a regular basis. I have yet to meet up with anyone via Craigslist after moving here, but the convenience of it is always tempting, especially after striking out at the bars and returning home alone and horny.
I guess I can sum up what I’m trying to say with this: The thrill of kissing and having ‘relations’ with a new guy is a potent drug. I’m living in perhaps the best city in the country to find opportunities for that activity, yet the convenience and covertness of a Craigslist encounter still beckons me. It plays into my nostalgia for those first exciting hook ups as an awkward, eager, unbelievably horny pubescent homo.
I see so Larry (not Jonathan) Crutchley is the real victim in this scenario?
The real issue here is self-destructive behavior not the PC “ideological conformity” you have histrionically invoked. I will not be distracted and driven off point to privilege Larry Crutchley’s needs over the “nearly 1 million” Gay men all over the world he exploits.
If you really want to discuss ideological conformity how are we to explain the collusive actions of our Republican president, vice president, attorney general, the Department of Justice and Republican controlled congress over the past eight years? How do we explain David Addington and John Yoo?
I think Sam’s point was more just that group-think is a powerful thing in human interactions. It’s there in liberal circles, it’s there in conservative circles, and yes, it’s there in gay circles.
There are ideas, posturings, and attitudes present in the ethos of the community we choose to live in, and we often assimilate them into ourselves in ways which we don’t always understand.
A gay republican would probably avoid the subject of politics at most gay events. This is because he would appear like an unsophisticated neanderthal who hasn’t fully accepted his gayness to everyone else there if they knew his political views.
I thought the whole point of our endeavor here was that gayness doesn’t mean anything other than wanting to have sex with a person of the same gender?
Politically I’m still undecided. I don’t feel like I have such a comprehensive understanding of the universe and human interactions that it was a good thing I became able to vote when I turned 18.
There are many good reasons to oppose McCain and the Republicans this year. You’ve hinted at several: torture, secrecy, queer equality. But to suggest that, because Crutchley runs a business that facilitates millions of queer orgasms annually, he is therefore obliged to disregard other issues–and there are far more important issues facing the next president and Congress than queer rights–is indeed imposed ideological conformity. We don’t know why he supports McCain. For all we know, he’s also supporting Log Cabin Republicans or mentoring young, queer Republicans who may help the party ride the demographic tide that is gradually eroding the anti-gay orientation of the Republican party. Most young Republicans these days aren’t anti-gay, even if they are encumbered by the old party base. All we’ve decided is that he’s probably a fag, certainly runs a business that targets fags, and for political purposes that’s all he is.
If you want to broaden your boycott to all business owners who, for whatever reason, support McCain, then we can have another discussion. Maybe there is no legitimate ground to the right of Michael Walzer. But, like it or not, there are plenty of Republican gays out there, plenty of politically independent gays with stronger interests in other political issues, plenty of gays who suffer oppression mainly on some other axis. We have identities, interests, and moral commitments apart from our sexuality (some of us more than others). So does Crutchley. So do the people who use his site.
Mid 50s New Yorker here. I witnessed the early-mid AIDS era as an activist yelling myself hoarse and getting arrested for civil disobedience in the streets fo Manhattan but I continue to see Gay men be selfish and irresponsible without thinking of the consequences. Forget Crutchley and Republicans. No one is saying he ignore all other issues in order to vote gay all the time, that’s crazy. Here’s the deal – if you use Manhunt and they give money to Republicans who put in a Supreme Court that hates faggots and stem cell research…well, that is some shit. That is some shit for the rest of your life kids. Manhunt could screw you over as bad as unprotected sex or a meth problem. So, just go find sex someplace else online. And about those other issues – I want healthcare, I don’t want my money in Iraq for another 10 years and I don’t want another president the international community hates. There are real good reasons not to vote Obama and I’m not 100% ok about it but in favor of McCain? No way, not ever.
Decades ago when there was no such thing as a Gay rights movement homosexuals lived under sexual apartheid as ostracized, persecuted and shamed pariahs. Fear (of prosecution, incarceration, job loss, eviction, etc.) and shame produced a stealthy, shadowy subculture of anonymous sex in public bathrooms, rest stops and parks.
By design it also produced a fragmented, repressed personality type (or reaction formation?) in homosexual men: they subconsciously kept different parts of their lives compartmentalized, distinct and separate to protect themselves. This dynamic is still present today in how we think of ourselves and treat each other. With Gay rights, however, full integration of all aspects of our lives became possible, making anonymous sexual networks less relevant.
Maybe Jonathan Crutchley is just a shrewd businessman making investments to protect his company and bottom line. Republicans perpetuate anachronistic homophobia for political gain. Manhunt exploits the resultant fear, shame and self-loathing that disfigures normal sexual energy into anonymous sexual networks. Keeping Republicans in office guarantees no expansion of rights for anyone, especially The Gays. Therefore the shame spiral continues perpetuating the need for online sexual outlets, more headless naked pics and ass/dick shots. And Jonathan Crutchley keeps making more money.
Reminds me of how McDonald’s aggressively markets to people of color…
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/375154/how_mcdonalds_targets_the_urban_market.html
Reminds me of how McDonald’s aggressively markets to people of color…
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/375154/how_mcdonalds_targets_the_urban_market.html?cat=35
Old and Irrelevant,
I find it interesting that you follow up the statement “No one is saying he ignore all other issues in order to vote gay all the time, that’s crazy,”
with essentially an argument that if you DON’T vote gay all the time, you’re crazy.
Which of these statements is correct? There are plenty of gay guys out there who don’t agree with a lot of Democratic policies.
They have weighed their feelings on this matter, and they have decided that getting gay marriage legalized is less of a priority for them than other things, politically speaking.
I find your argument about Supreme Court Justice appointments to be a little histrionic and paranoid. Nobody in the Republican party (okay, I guess there are a few crazies everywhere) wants to start sending gays to the electric chair.
The electric chair? You are the one making histrionic leaps. Heads up – incoming neo-con attack meme. But let me take you seriously for a sec. OK, not sending gays to the electric chair? Were you around in 1982 when everyone was dying because Reagan could not be bothered to pay attention to AIDS? Have you read And the Band Played On? Page 191 to be specific? They spent an estimated $100 million on the Tylenol scare that had killed 7 people. “By comparison, 634 Americans had been stricken with AIDS by October 5, 1982. Of these, 260 were dead. There was no rush to spend money, mobilize public health officials, or issue regulations that might save lives.” The lives of 7 heterosexuals were more important than 260 dead faggots. Reagan nominated Rehnquist, Scalia and Bork to the Court. You wanna give McCain a chance to appoint some Supreme Court goons and tip the balance to the right? Cuz really nobody cares about reproductive rights and stem cell.
Have you researched McCain’s position and actual statements about the Supreme Court he wants?
Here -
From Catholic News Agency:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11558
“On the issue of appointments to the Supreme Court, McCain mentioned that Sam Brownback would play an advisory role in helping decide who he should nominate for the Supreme Court. As models of who he would select, John McCain pointed to Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia. Pro-life advocates see the choice of Supreme Court Justices as key to overturning the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion.”
From McCain’s website:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/NewsReleases/00c94a58-8860-481f-a165-1347855cdc68.htm
“In fact, there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006. His pro-life record also provides a surety that he will not appoint judicial activists.”
Who needs your electric chair when they’ve thrown at us AIDS, meth, STDs and good old plain conservative apathy. Your entire life will be lived within boundaries proscribed by the Supreme Court. So, you go right ahead, vote against your interests.
Old and Irrelevent,
Yes, AIDS is a real tragedy. Meth and STDs are real tragedies. But to say that they were thrown at us by conservatives is, in my view, not the most correct way of thinking about these situations.
As far as HIV, the lesson here, as Dan Savage put it recently, is that when you create environments like the sexual communal sewer of the 70′s is a bad idea because new diseases can emerge and kill you and all your friends.
Yes, Meth and AIDS are out there, but honestly I know everything I need to know to avoid their negative effects in my life. I can take personal responsibility for my actions, and have the self discipline to avoid the behaviors which might lead to me acquiring AIDS or becoming a meth addict – that’s not always easy, that’s not always fun, but that’s the world I have to deal with.
I’m not saying anyone else is going to burn in hell for not having a similar outlook, but it’s my outlook and I feel that I have good reasons for taking it.
Stop generalizing from personal experience and start reading your history.
Dan Savage is right. And if you asked HIM he’d tell you gay men were forced to create “environments like the sexual communal sewer of the 70′s” because they were driven underground by a world of straights who terrorized them. There was NO other alternative. Do you have any idea what is was like to be gay in the 70s? Any idea at all? There were no fancy rights, or TV shows, or moneyed powerful gay rights organizations. Straights never even mentioned the faggots unless to denigrate them, beat them, jail them, kill them or to make fun of each other.
Oppressed people coagulate into dysfunctional groups and create dysfunctional coping strategies BY DESIGN. Hegemonic apathy depends upon repudiated, oppressed and marginalized groups to be dysfunctional and ill-adapted to their own persecution. Rich white heterosexuals expected the faggots to just go away and either kill themselves (a common thing), get addicted to drugs or alcohol, get STDs and just die. So yeah, the faggots formed the sexual environment of the 70s IN RESPONSE to an oppression so complete and dark there were NO other alternatives.
But if you want to misinterpret what Dan Savage is telling you then you go right ahead and BLAME THE VICTIM. Because it was really just the selfish, sex-addicted, dumb gays fault they got AIDS and spread it to millions of people all over the world making it easy for you to feel superior to us all with a the easily acquired “self discipline to avoid the behaviors which might lead to…acquiring AIDS or becoming a meth addict”. Extending your logic I guess if a woman gets raped it’s her fault too because, even though she knew not to get drunk or dress suggestively, she did not have the “self-discipline” to do so?
For you (and so many misguided others) to think and say that gays “created” that environment is vile. That thinking is proof that gays minds today are STILL colonized by internalized homophobia and self-loathing imposed upon us by straights, which is required for us to keep hating ourselves and each other. That colonized brain and those self-loathing thought patterns ENSURE we will keep hating and blaming each other and developing new dysfunctional coping strategies LIKE METH that only further subjugate and impoverish our community to heterosexist domination, exploitation and marginalization.
AIDS was allowed to fester and SPREAD and go on to kill millions of people all over the world because, in the very beginning, American Republican conservatives in power believed it was only gay disease and would only kill off the faggots (by design I said) AND, therefore REFUSED to act. Originally called GRID – GAY RELATED Immune Deficiency – AIDS was ignored by the media, the government and the vast majority of the medical establishment.
Genocide by apathy is no less grotesque than genocide by will.
A pneumonia in 5 gay men was first reported on June 5, 1981 by the CDC. That pneumonia is what we now know today to be AIDS. Only AFTER 41,027 persons (mostly faggots) were dead from AIDS, and only AFTER 71,176 persons (mostly faggots) were diagnosed with AIDS in the USA did Ronald Reagan finally say the word “AIDS” in public for the very first time – SIX years later in 1987. Six years later. This has been fully documented.
Millions have died all over the world (some of them the “bad” gays) so you could learn the lesson of “personal responsiblity”.
It is your history. Read it.
Okay, I guess I just feel like if I went out there and engaged in a lot of risky sexual behavior, that would be because I’m a horny 20-something dude, and that’s just the kind of shit horny young men really want to do.
It would not be because of oppressive Christians or internalized homophobia.
Furthermore, I really think all this blaming Christians shit needs to end. Look, gay sex is now legal! Everyone recognizes that we live in a pluralistic society where we’re not always okay with what other people do! Christians don’t like what you do in your bedroom, and you don’t like what they do on Sunday mornings, so there’s some give and take here.
For you to sit here and tell me that I want to go to an orgy and use meth because gay marriage isn’t legal is rather silly.
You make several mistakes in logic.
First mistake: wanting to have sex is a completely separate and distinct issue from HOW you are forced to go about getting that sex. So because “gay sex is legal” homophobia has ended? The Christian Right and Gay-baiting politicians have receded into the ether? Again, some history (of which you seem to woefully ignorant) to shed some perspective on your narrow views – 1) JIM CROW LAWS: in 1954 the Supreme Court finally decided the “separate but equal” Jim Crow laws were dead, only AFTER 10 years of momentum starting in 1946. It was not until 10 years LATER in 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which “finally” annulled the Jim Crow laws. 17 years AFTER that in 1971 Jim Crow was BACK at the Supreme Court to decide the issue of desegregated busing of school children. So it took 27 years to make “separate but equal” go away. Just because equality in public accommodation was “legal” in 1954 it was not ok for Blacks to embrace that right. 2) THE BLACK VOTE: American Blacks got the “right” to vote after the Civil War in 1865. It was not until 100 years later with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that it became illegal to stop Blacks from voting. BUT…by your logic racism was suddenly erased in 1865 (and then again in 1954, 1964, 1971…) because “being” Black became “legal”. So in it became just fine for Blacks to vote, sit at the front of the bus and drink from the Whites Only water fountain without obstruction or retribution? I guess we’ve lived in perfect racial harmony all this time because we “live in a pluralistic society” and magically there has been no racism?
I don’t care if, as you say, “gay sex is legal”. Remember this one very important thing: you cannot legislate the mind. Bigotry is a fact and will reveal itself socially, politically, economically, culturally and personally. So no matter what fancy “rights” you think you may have, you will always deal with some shit that will manifest itself as organized political persecution on some level, no matter how great or small. Maybe 100 years from now things will finally become better for The Gays. It is naïve to take that view right now.
Your second mistake: your logic of “personal responsibility” is a condescending blame-the-victim strategy which you have swallowed uncritically from a hegemony that seeks to control you. Your logic of “personal responsibility” implies the personal culpability of those you disdain and of whom you disapprove – those bad gays who, as you say, do not have the “self discipline to avoid the behaviors which might lead to…acquiring AIDS or becoming a meth addict.” If, as you say, “we live in a pluralistic society where we’re not always okay with what other people do” then STOP implying other people should do what you think is right with your tragically flawed thinking and clumsy rhetoric. I guess, by your logic, if a Black man is out walking past curfew in 1941 and gets lynched it is his fault because, even though he knew not to be out past curfew and even though he knew not to speak to a white woman, he did not have the “self-discipline” to do so?
Our history is not just “Gay” history. It is the history of every marginalized group in this country that has gone through the very same levels of persecution and adaptation. Assimilation, however, is never an option.
So go out and have (protected) sex and avoid meth. But do not think for a minute that you have the right to fault and disdain others who do not or cannot live as you.
Jesus. What the fuck is up with DC?! It’s like you guys are 10 years behind the rest of the world.
“…if I went out there and engaged in a lot of risky sexual behavior, that would be because I’m a horny 20-something dude, and that’s just the kind of shit horny young men really want to do. It would not be because of oppressive Christians or internalized homophobia. ”
Are you fucking kidding me? If you engaged in A LOT of RISKY sexual behavior it would be precisely from internalized homophobia. Where do you think self-destructive behavior comes from? Where do you think addiction (whether it be drugs, alcohol, sex or co-dependency) comes from?! Self-loathing (whether you are straight or gay) leads to unbridled self-destructive behavior. Happy people who love themselves do not destroy themselves. They have healthy boundaries based on their level of priorities.
You are such a tool.
I am a bit hesitant to continue this debate, because I recognize that hey, sometimes you just can’t make a stranger on the internet agree with you.
I’d ask you to believe me for a minute when I tell you that I honestly want to clear up any misconceptions I might be having. I don’t want to be ignorant! Please, convince me of the truth!
Sometimes this is some hard shit to do. How do you approach someone and constructively interact with them when you view the world in very different ways? Is it an impossible project and you will just drive yourself crazy trying to do so? It’s as if you’re wearing two different shades of glasses, and you point at something and call it pink, and the guy next to you says, “No, you moron, it’s blue! What are you thinking!”
So I think an important rule in any debate is to always recognize the good intentions of your opponent. They might be wearing some really different colored sunglasses, but underneath it all they’re trying to convince you that the way they see things is the correct way.
Having said that, let’s go on.
Okay, you’re making some rather large assumptions about my familiarity with the history of the AIDS crisis. Well, I’m going to make a big assumption about the fact that you might be harboring some really unhealthy anger towards Ronald Reagan.
Biomedical research is a complicated enterprise. It doesn’t really work in way that you can hand a group of scientists a trillion dollars, and they hand you back a pill that will totally cure this new disease that’s going around.
So how much money should the government have spent on AIDS research initially? What is the magic number that would have made you pleased and satisfied?
I’m here to tell you that the state of human knowledge in the 1980′s was just at a point where they couldn’t have cured AIDS with any amount of money. So, I’m going to make another big assumption and state that no matter how much they did spend, it wouldn’t have been enough to satisfy you, and the National Debt could be twice what it is now solely due to AIDS research, and you’d still be harboring a lot of unhealthy anger towards Ronald Reagan.
You stated in your initial post that you “continue to see Gay men be selfish and irresponsible without thinking of the consequences.”
Okay, what’s going on here? Are people being selfish, or is everyone just being oppressed by a cruel and less than perfectly sympathetic society?
So like, if a gay guy gets arrested for meth possession, is the judge supposed to let him off the hook because the Pope made him do it? But like, if a straight white frat boy gets arrested for meth possession, he should have to suffer the legal consequences because he’s a big fat moron? What’s the moral distinction you’re trying to draw here? I don’t get it! I’m confused! Please convince me!
You’re right. Blog threads easily accommodate misunderstandings and digressions.
Let me address some of the points from your last post.
From its early 1980s inception the community of New York AIDS activists was drawn from the established worlds finance, media, sciences and the medical establishment. These were very intelligent, sophisticated and successful men, some very powerful, who knew how research gets done. To assume they expected a “cure” is insulting. Where did ever get the idea that those early AIDS activists were ignorant and petulant? Did you know that Peter Staley, one of those early activists and a man to whom we owe a great debt, was a Wall Street bond trader? Did you also know that some of the ACT-UP actions he organized were paid for by David Geffen? I know these men were not naïve about medical research, nor were they deluded about the prospects for a cure to a disease that no one had even yet identified.
What AIDS activists did expect was leadership. There was NO leadership from our government, little if any acknowledgement in the media and vast ignorance in the medical community. Gay men felt terrorized and helpless. The appropriate government response of action and funding that any health scare to date had received was not mobilized for AIDS.
Here are some examples –
1. Legionnaire’s Disease, 1976.
29 members of the American Legion die at a convention in Philadelphia. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent $34,841 PER DEATH on researching that health threat.
2. Tylenol Scare, 1982. (as I posted above on 8/16)
7 people die from taking Tylenol. More than 100 law enforcement agents and 1,100 FDA employees worked on the case. $100 million was spent.
Now, compare that to AIDS – the NIH spent $3,225 in 1981 and about $8,991 in 1982 for each person who died of AIDS. At that time it was only gay men who were dying.
The discrepancy is shocking and if that is not enough to make you think then I really don’t know what more to say.
It isn’t difficult to get this information. Randy Shilts, now dead from AIDS, wrote a definitive text on the early years which I already mentioned in earlier posts – And the Band Played On. You can read that book or go to it’s Wikipedia page for more info. You can also use Wikipedia to search a host of other related topics.
My anger, and the anger of millions of gay men, toward Ronald Reagan is not unhealthy but appropriate given the holocaust he fomented. There was a time in this country when only a handful of people had AIDS, when something could have been done to blunt transmission and protect the millions of (mostly gay) lives that were lost. With the research, funding and leadership Ronald Reagan did not provide AIDS never would have grown into the world wide pandemic we know it to be today. Because of the (amply documented) inaction of Ronald Reagan and his administration AIDS continued to flourish infecting heterosexuals all over the world. Had Reagan been a real leader he would have listened and seen that AIDS was a matter of great importance. Was he a capitalist homophobe? Did he see the gays as expendable and see pharmaceutical profits buoying the economy as more important? I do not know his reasons. I only know what he did not do. I was there. AIDS is Ronald Reagan’s legacy.
You asked “Are people being selfish, or is everyone just being oppressed by a cruel and less than perfectly sympathetic society?” Both. People are selfish BECAUSE they are oppressed. Yeah homophobia is a real force in our society BUT by now, in 2008, we should really know better. Bigotry will always be around in one form or another. But no one can oppress us without our permission and complicity. We need to stop taking part in our own destruction and reject those individuals and structures designed to subjugate us. Sadly, many gay men perpetuate their own oppression in a society that SEEKS to oppress them.
I think we’re talked out here. I know you have good intentions. Without knowing you personally I get the impression there are few things about gay history you might not know yet. I encourage you to get that information.
To give a word of support to the last post (not that much is needed: the stats are accurate and And the Band Played On should be enough to enrage anyone who reads it, as is true of all three of Shilts’ books — Mayor of Castro Street (about Harvey Milk) and Conduct Unbecoming (about gays and lesbians in the military)). But: it took Reagan until May of 1987 to say his first public words about AIDS. May of 1987. Do you need to ask why Old and Irrelevant harbors “unhealthy anger” toward Ronald Reagan? I’ll pull my well-worn copy off the shelf and quote from And the Band Played On:
“By the time President Reagan had delivered his first speech on the epidemic of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 36,058 Amdericans had been diagnosed with the disease; 20,489 had died.”
Let’s hear it for “unhealthy anger.”
February 6, 1986, from Reagan’s “Message to the Congress on America’s Agenda for the Future (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/20686c.htm)
“We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS.
Our Administration will accelerate the processes for bringing safe and effective new drug therapies and new medical devices to ease pain and suffering of millions of Americans while providing consumers with more choice at less cost. We will continue nationwide protection programs to ensure that approved food, drug, and device supplies are safe. Education and other forms of prevention will be stressed.”
But quibbling over when he publicly mentioned AIDS isn’t really the point. To say that he was somehow ignoring the issue because of homophobia seems rather unfair. Beginning in 1981 (when nobody was really sure what the hell was going on) he oversaw over 5 billion in Federal spending on AIDS research: http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/96-293.pdf
But, if anyone wants to take And the Band Played as the most accurate and unbiased source of information available on Reagan and Aids, well- I guess I can’t stop them.
Old and Irrelevant, it has been a pleasure.
My wording wasn’t careful enough, which is, of course, my fault (not the fault of Shilts’ book, which you seem eager to discount). Reagan’s first speech about the AIDS epidemic occurred in May 1987, following the October 1986 release of Surgeon General C. Everett Koop’s report on the epidemic. (Of course, a lot of Koop’s report, especially his direct call for AIDS education “at the earliest grade possible” and his acknowledgment that nondiscrimination guarantees had to be in place in order to encourage wide-spread AIDS tests, either took years or was never comprehensively followed.)
A large percentage of the expenditures on AIDS didn’t occur until the last year Reagan was in office. It wasn’t until the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS research bill that huge amounts of money entered the picture. Leadership was a long time coming. Of course, Reagan is hardly the only leader who failed to adequately address AIDS in the ’80s, but as the president, he had the greatest responsibility toward his citizens, and he did fail them.
Folks there is some powerful Kool-Aid out there. In the words of that cunt Nancy Reagan, “Just say no.”
An addendum:
1) Earlier I wrote that our history, as homosexuals, is not just “Gay” history. It is the history of every marginalized group in this country that has gone through the very same levels of persecution and adaptation. Assimilation, however, is never an option.
Clarification:
Assimilation is never an option – not to the dominant culture NOR to the dysfunctional subculture it has purposely and coercively created.
We need a rigorous discussion of what “Gay” identity and “Gay” culture actually is, how it has NEVER been formed outside of oppression, how damaging it is to sustain such an obsolete subculture and to whose advantage we perpetuate this now irrelevant cooperation.
We need to start thinking about our sexual orientation (i.e. homosexual) instead of our imposed cultural identity (i.e. “Gay”) as the bedrock of our existence. Biology will always trump cultural adaptation.
Loving musical theatre, fashion, Will & Grace and Queer Eye has NOTHING to do with loving men. It is ONLY our love of each other (our biological sexual orientation) that caused our persecution and will annihilate it.
2) It is the responsibility of no one to find your truth and convince you of it. Do the work.
Crutchley epilogue:
Well, it worked. Crutchley, who co-founded Manhunt and was on the board of directors (he was not the CEO), has been forced out by the company’s co-founder, who is an Obama donor.
For his part, Crutchely says that the Democrats’ record on gay rights is less than impressive and that he is prioritizing national security issues, on which the thinks McCain is stronger. I think this is a badly mistaken but still legitimate judgment, and that Crutchley shouldn’t be cast out of your (our? his? whose?) gay community for his view. But we’ve been over that.
Congrats, comrades.
I think andy towle over at towleroad did a lot towards creating this end result. He was the big pusher behind the manhunt smackdown. Btw, should I repost this next week? I’m loving the back and forth. Smart guys, send TNG your opinions in the form of a post, because they may get lost after the comment thread exceeds a couple dozen.
I don’t know that I count as one of the smart guys on this thread but I did have a good conversation with “your” Craig night. This case raises some pretty fundamental questions about community, ethics, identity, and political order. It also, in my opinion, raises serious questions about tactics. Yeah, I think it’s worth revisiting next week.
Ben, you rock. Yes. Please repost. I think there is a lot more to be said.
Two things:
1) Yes, Ben please repost this, as I’m interested in hearing your thoughts in greater detail on the article as a whole.
2) Regarding the Crutchely situation, I tend to view his removal from the board as little more than a (smart) PR move. Okay, so now he has less control over the company, but his equity stake in the company remains and he will continue to receive dividends from Manhunt.
i hooked up with that dude that was dressed as a manhunt profile. props to me! i like that you called him the hottest guy at the party ;)
Why can’t people ever stay focused on a blog? This departure from the tone of the original post is laughable. My thoughts on Manhunt? It could require more of the members to verify their sincerity to avoid the proliferation of those deceptive profiles. Even free sites like plentyoffish offer that. Also could be a search against feature, that allows one to eliminate members that do not favor any particular feature about you (avoids wasting time with situations that are a dead end). But other than that, nothing wrong with the site. It does provide an option for those seeking something long-term. You have the check box options as well as a space box for writing. The PEOPLE that come to Manhunt, are what has the potential to ruin the experience. To say that quality people wouldn’t come to Manhunt is ludicrous. Sure, the losers may tend to congregate where they feel they can be anonymous, but the real problem is that too many quality guys accept that shit laying down, and end up letting the gay underground culture set the tone and standards for everyone. If you are as decent and of substance as you say, stop alienating yourself and come to sites like Manhunt, and state in no uncertain terms that you are looking for substance and meaningful connections. Because if you allow those married, lying, sex-addicted game-players who can’t relate to other men without sex involved, to become the norm, soon that’s ALL you will encounter, ANYWHERE. Gay.com is not even a hookup site by first appearance as maybe Manhunt is, yet people have certainly TURNED gay.com into another cruising ground. Even respectable sites like chemistry or match have people blatantly seeking no-strings arrangements.
We need a rigorous discussion of what “Gay” identity and “Gay” culture actually is, how it has NEVER been formed outside of oppression, how damaging it is to sustain such an obsolete subculture and to whose advantage we perpetuate this now irrelevant cooperation.
I’ve certainly formed my identity outside of oppression–well, the identity I’d like to have. Here’s a clue:
DO. WHAT. YOU LIKE.
Do plenty of exploring, but mainly for the sake of finding the things YOU LIKE that you wouldn’t have found otherwise. Imagine you’re not oppressed, that you’re a full member of society and that you won’t be punished for your identity. Heck, imagine that you’re the arbiter of cultural taste for the whole society if you feel like it. What would you do? Is it that hard a question to answer?
Its interesting to read this post over a year after it was written, now that Facebook has become such an ubiquitous part of online life. No one claims Facebook is destroying gay culture. Manhunt is really just another form of social networking site. Granted, it does have a more sexual focus, but that is not the only thing it’s about. Like one of the commentors said, “I just look at the pictures”. I think that is what most people do on Manhunt and the only sex that happens is with their right hand (or left if they are mousing with their right)
That Out article is incredible. I mean that literally, it lacks credibility and is overly sensationalized. The writer is obviously looking for reasons to paint the site in a damaging and negative way. The only information given supports a negative view and there is no consideration of non-extreme possibilities. It is called “Is Manhunt Destroying Gay Culture?” but it might as well be called “Manhunt is Destroying Gay Culture”. It is not exploring a question, it is stating an opinion…which is fine. I just don’t agree with that opinion.
While I think it’s senseless to try to blame a website for the revolting behaviors of its visitors/members, (the individuals themselves are solely responsible) it’s equally preposterous to act as if “Out” has an axe to grind with Manhunt.
I’m not saying that Out has an ax to grind, I’m saying the the person who wrote this article sensationalized a subject in order to give it more of an impact. He did this by picking and choosing factual information to support a specific goal. I’m sure he could have just as easily have taken a pro-manhunt stance and made it work. The media does this kind of thing all the time and that is what I have an issue with. This article is not a balanced, impartial examination of the subject, it is a soapbox. Unfortunately that is what a great deal of “journalism” has become.
I prefer to leave the judgement to the comments section and leave it out of the article.
Leave your response!
Recent Coments
Most Commented
Most Viewed - 30 Days