Cynical and Southern: Why Am I Not Attracted To Black Men?
I have two cats. One has light fur and the other dark. I love both cats equally. A slur has never unwittingly crossed my mind inferring that the cat with dark fur is any better or worse than the cat with light fur. And so I ask myself this – if cats can just be cats, why the hell can’t people just be people?
It took a move to the south to become enlightened to the subtle racist programming of my northern upbringing. My family taught me the “n” word was bad while locking the car door as we sped through the “bad parts of town.” To this day I am not aware of any horrible crimes taking place on Second Street in Dunkirk, New York. Thinking back on my youth I do remember that the people standing on the street corners had darker skin than mine.
When I was thirteen it had to be explained to me there was a difference between “blacks” and “Puerto Ricans.” At that young age I knew the world only as “white” and everything else was “not white”. I embarrassingly asked one of my classmates to explain the difference. I knew my grandma hated those “fucking Puerto Ricans for taking all the jobs” and that my uncle called Prince the “n-word” when one of his videos was on MTV. I cringed when my family used the “n-word”673w so essentially I felt quite sure I was not racist.
I moved to Tampa, Florida in 1998. Monday nights were especially fun. My roommate Jenny and I would dance to old wave 80s at The Castle. We tuned into “Love Line” driving to the club. We bought turkey subs and deep fried mushrooms on the way home. I was quite unaware of another weekly tradition until Jenny brought it to my attention. Every time I saw someone with darker skin than mine I would lock the car door.
“Jeremy, what are you doing?” asked Jenny.
“Locking the car door, this area is scary” I replied.
Repeatedly Jenny called me out on this until one week she became so irritated she stopped her car in the middle of an intersection. Jenny unlocked the car doors. She then preceded to roll down the windows. At the top of her lungs Jenny yelled “Hey look at this car!! The windows are down and the doors are unlocked. Look at us!!” I was cowering on the car floor riddled with anxiety. Jenny shook her head and told me I was being racist. I didn’t realize it at the time but she was absolutely correct.
I have known many northerners who write the south off as a bumbling wasteland of uneducated bigots. To the contrary it was not until I moved to the south that I was able to witness cultures co-existing somewhat harmoniously. Make fun of Tampa all you want but in this city there are no boxes separating different ethnicities. There are no politically-correct white scenesters touting their “openmindedness” while exclusively befriending only other whites. The melting pot in Tampa is real and its alive. The last ten years have been an eye-opening pleasure.
Earlier this year I once again pondered the effects my upbringing. After writing a piece detailing racism on gay dating sites many commenters came forward stating that they didn‘t find “black” men attractive and that “we just can’t help who we are attracted to”. Perhaps it is true that we can’t help who we are attracted to. But what if one digs a bit under the surface to examine the root of their attractions? How much did the messages we received at five determine who we want to sleep with when we are thirty five? When grandma locked her door every time she saw a black person how much of a role did that play when my body compass began to form?
I have friends of many cultures and ethnicities. I find every one of these friends to be valuable, gorgeous, intelligent, and beautiful. Yet no matter how non judgmental my friendships and words may be until I am able to feel the physical beauty of a soul encased in dark skin my so-called liberation is a failure. My heart knows with certainty that everyone is sexy in their own way. My penis is far less enlightened.
I envy cats. In their universe they could give two fucks about the shade of their fur. We have a lot to learn from them.
First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...
I had this exact conversation, down to the point about how these biases are learned, with someone I met at a party over the weekend. I came to many of the same conclusions you did, Jeremy, but I’d like to offer up another angle that might give some perspective.
If you were someone with a particularly unique fetish and finding partners who have the same fetish were difficult, would it matter to you whether or not the partner you found was of one race or another? Wouldn’t you be equally inclined to be with that person, regardless of race, because they were into the same kink you were, a fact that can allow for an escalation of arousal and desire upon which you might build a relationship? I think you would, and so would pretty much anyone else. The fact that you could disregard what you imagine to be intrinsic racial bias in the programming of your attraction in a particular instance where something else is the selective factor means that it’s not that important. Chances are, even if you don’t believe it, you’re actually not that engaged by race in terms of what you find attractive, and your criteria exist somewhere else. Whether or not the primary thing you select for is tied, as a secondary characteristic, to race is another matter, but I think it’s equally glib or easy or convenient to put the condition of not actively finding someone of another race attractive into the same box as saying it’s part of inculcated racial prejudice.
There’s no real, foolproof science or art to comprehending what it is that attracts us to one another. I was saying to another friend today that, for me, there has to be a spark. Just because I’ve never felt that spark with someone who is of another race than my own doesn’t mean I won’t in the future, and it doesn’t mean you won’t either, if that’s the way you go about selecting partners.
If this really is something taught, then your self-awareness will help you model better behavior to younger generations and thereby breed it out…as long as it doesn’t lapse into obsessive self-consciousness that will take something might be small and blow it colossally out of proportion.
Bottom line: just because cats can do it doesn’t mean you can’t to, under the right circumstances.
@A thank you for the enlightening post.
I started to google something i’ve heard in the past, that “Freudian idea that we have subconscious mechanisms that make us attracted to features that remind us of our own(www.wired.com)”.
I believe this may be some indication into why some people place so much emphasis on what they are attracted to based on skin color.
Hmm… I’m not sure that I’d want to consider lack sexual attraction as being an indicator of latent racism. Are you automatically sexist because you’re gay?
It doesn’t always have to go so deep. I myself am from a mixed family. My grandpa a black man married a white woman. And so they kept mingling. And yet I don’t find black men attractive. Nothing racist, just not my taste. But I ain’t saying never.
As far as this post goes, an importatnt topic that for sure needs more discussion in the gay community-by men of all races. I especially like the question you raise, “But what if one digs a bit under the surface to examine the root of their attractions?”
PS- I can’t stand when people say “just not my taste”
If we are attracted to people who look like us, then let’s go fuck our biological fathers and be done with it. Pah-lease.
Sparks, hormones, and all that crap is silly. What is wrong with you people? Go out, explore, and deconstruct these lame stereotypes.
Seriously.
What the heck is up with all this ignorance? It never surprises me what the upbringings of suburban white picket fenceness.
Great article. I wrote a response to it.
we hate discrimination but deep down are we racist
Jonathan C there is an article that you should read. I actually liked it to on my blog. its an article by scientific American regarding how parents affect your sexuality and some biological/social constructs that say dont fuck your dad.
Julien — great blog. Your link didn’t work but it did come to my email. I hope it posts the link to your response piece is here:
http://jca488.blogspot.com/
Maybe things were different, but Dunkirk IS a scary place now.
As a man of color,
As a man of color, I don’t “play in the snow” or “mess with crackas or what folk call h…..s.” I don’t try and explain it or legitimize it with some half assed theory either.
Thanks to the author for creating a space where I can share my racist feelings too. Sorry I don’t have as much interest in drawing out a long bogus explanation… Maybe we should think about WHY we tey and explain these feelings away OR keep our racist thoughts to ourselves and not try to legitimize them.
Very interesting and thoughtful piece. I’ve been having this very type of conversation with my partner, friends and colleagues for some time now. Everyday we are subtly and not so subtly programmed and brainwashed by the media. Not many people are willing and brave enough to see and acknowledge they are to some degree or another racist or homophobic. In fact if I’m honest, I’m going through a phase now in that when I hear someone saying “I’m not homophobic” or “I’m not racist”, I crack a sad smile because it’s far to often usually a defensive guilty statement to the opposite…
Another point here is that there’s been an insidious rumor for years that black men are more likely to be HIV positive. Could that be part of the “just not my taste” cop out? Ignorance and fear?
Youre attracted to who you are attracted to at the time. Your taste and ideas change as you evolve. I myself am not attracted to too many black men but thats just me and im sure it goes the opposite way and i am not offended. Its called human nature, NOT racism.
I dont understand why it has to be a “black/white thing.”. I think its just adding to the injustice of racism and division amongst a group of men who should be unified since weve all been treated like shit for sucking dick! Theres too much “black/white” crap going on in this city and it urks the living hell out of me. Drop it.
Ive noticed this town is very segregated. Not too many blacks and whites mingle together. Its intersting to me thst the gay population is so high here and yet were still creating xliques, small ones. I have a diverse group of friends, mostly straight and lesbians because i feel i dont relate to most gays here. Im ok with it i just yhink DC is odd this way…
@Rob, to be fair, it is true that Black men who have sex with men (MSM) are indeed more likely to be HIV-positive. That certainly doesn’t justify discrimination, but I don’t think we can write off that sentiment as simple-minded “ignorance and fear” when it is backed up by study after study. For example, here’s the DC government’s most recent study on HIV rates among MSM, broken down by race and age:
http://bit.ly/ax2zFe [pdf]
The sample was only 500 men, but the findings were rather remarkable. For example, among Black MSM in DC over age 30, nearly one in three (!) were HIV positive, whereas *none* of the White MSM in DC under age 30 who were surveyed tested positive. (White men over 30 were 12.8% positive, and MSM of color under 30 were 12.2% positive) You could probably interpret the causes of these findings in many ways, but the facts are what they are. The study notes that, of course, there certainly are white guys under 30 with HIV, but that clearly the number is very low.
Another thing that I always find interesting about this discussion is how it tends to focus on white guys’ general preference for other white guys, while ignoring the fact that many non-white guys also seek (often exclusively) only white guys. This dynamic tends to get spun along the lines of white guys as being closed minded (because they only date among their own) while non-white guys are open minded (because they’re willing to date outside their racial group). When I look at it, I just see the same positioning of white males as “superior” or “dominant” in the sexual hierarchy operating differently among different subpopulations.
So, I guess what I’m saying is, if you’re going to give white guys a hard time for their tendencies, then you need to be equally hard on the non-white guys doing the same thing. On the other hand, if you’re going to give the non-white guys a pass (it’s just what they like, after all), then you should do the same for the white guys too.
Lets hypothesize for a moment with 2 scenarios.
Scenario 1:
There exists a town of nothing but black people. A while baby washes up in a hand-woven basket ( stay with me … )
He is borned and raised in a society filled with nothing but black people. Media/TV/Sex Symbols/Wealth all dominated by black people.
You cannot honestly sit there and tell me, that when this white person grows up – he will not find black people to be the sexiest people on Earth.
Scenario 2: ( Reversed, except a town full of white people, media, wealth, and sex symbols ).
This time a black baby washes up on shore in a basket. When this child grows up (if it grows…sorry had to pun lol), he or she will be attracted to white people when they reach that age.
These extremely crude and undeniable scenarios say that a person’s attractions are indeed based on their upbringing. ITS NOT RANDOM PEOPLE…
Can you deny that a white person who knows only black people, black culture, and that is taught to do well in school to be successful like other rich black people will indeed find a black person he or she is attracted to when those hormones are raging? Get real.
Its obvious that a person’s attractions are based on their upbringing.
I don’t need a masters degree to see whats obvious.
I am black and have grown up in mostly white neighborhoods all of my life. I find beauty in everything. White or black or in between, (Yes, even fat people can be good looking – nice eyes/hair soft skin – pretty smile – cute cheeks..etc). The only thing I ask is to be with people around my age lol. I am not racist or sexist. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
If you can’t see how a rock, flower, volcano, thunderstorm, clouds, colors, animals, and of course people are beautiful, you simply are not looking hard enough and take so much for granted in life.
I would find qualities that someone has that are attractive, physical or not. Those who say they simply aren’t attracted to someone based on their physical appearance simply aren’t trying hard enough to expand their narrow minded attractions and to view beauty in its many forms. Shit, no one said not being a biggot would be easy.
You might actually have to get off your ass and view the world from an open – neutral perspective, GASP!!!….GASP!!!AGAIN!!!!
If more people in this world accepted people for who they are and made a firm commitment to see natures beauty in its many many forms it would be a much better place.
There aren’t any real excuses for not doing that. Depending where you are you might live in a “free” country – so its really just your choice to date in your race if that is what you do. Which is your choice to make. But it doesn’t change the fact that YOU are making that ignorant choice close-minded choice.
In a free society, you are free to be as ignorant and bigoted as you like. Your even free to deny your bigotry, however pointless.
So if a white person only dates white people or white/latino people, he fails to see how a black, asian, or native american person can be equally beautiful, perhaps in different ways. Never cared to try and learn did you? Ignorance. Bigotry.
(BTW, you don’t learn by looking at someone and judging, you learn by dating them and seeing what they have to offer – above and below the surface)
Appreciating the human figure is not that hard to do…Looking outside yourself and accepting what may be taboo is hard for most people. But that is what actually makes it worth while..I wish all our world leaders viewed the world the way I did…it would be a great place to live in -_-
To conclude: If you are a person that claims to “not be interested in” in a certain race or that a certain race “doesn’t suit your taste’s” perhaps you should actually open your mind to what makes that person beautiful, trust me theirs something..look long and hard. God or Nature ( whichever you prefer ) doesn’t make useless sacs of meat. Everyone has a story, open up and tune in. If you choose not to, which may be your right – don’t get offended when people call you racist, or a bigot, or ignorant.
It is true. Look it up.
@tech I can tell you put a lot of heart and passion into your comment. I am in 100% agreement with you. reading some of your points brought tears to my eyes.
Whenever I read about issues of race on gay websites, especially American, I invariably find the same old tired diatribes. Take a good hard look at American history and in particular America’s racial history and the subsequent emergence of modern media and representation, there you will find your answers. White America has been programmed to recognise itself as the superior “civilising” culture of the America’s, inter alia. The accepted aesthetic was and remains largely white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. A cursory glance at any major advertising campaign, especially those aimed at the fashion cognoscenti, e.g., Fitch, Hillfiger, et al will demonstrate this perfectly. Oh yes occasionally they will feature a Tyson Beckford or a Beckford lookalike, as long as his features are aquiline and his lips aren’t too pronounced.
Several years ago I completed a study for my doctorate whereby I took pictures of the “hottest” white gay men I could find and “blackened” them, using a digital colouring technique. I then asked a cross section of white gay men to rate them according to attractiveness. All ten men gave low scores. Two weeks later I repeated the experiment with the same men but with the colour removed from the models so that they were again white. All scored very highly. My conclusion was that although the phenotypes of the models corresponded perfectly to the accepted aesthetic, their colour did not and proved an automatic rejection without consideration.
Were the men in this study racist? They would all no doubt say no, however they were, according the psychological definition of racism. This impacts not only on sexual attractiveness but in all manner of situations. The programmed response of a white individual to another individual of a different race can only be negative unless the aforementioned white person is aware of his programming? Note I said programming, not racism.
In conclusion I believe that there are many factors at work regarding attractiveness, especially sexual attractiveness. I for example like all boys/men but am particularly attracted to buff jocks, but then again I like slightly tubby Pilsbury boys. I don’t normally find thin or skinny boys attractive, however this is a matter of aesthetics; which I have overcome on occasion after meeting a thin/skinny boy and being attracted to him because he has endearing qualities, and not a case of pre-programmed rejection based on colour and it’s assumed connotations.
Doubtless there are many, I would say the majority who just aren’t interested in anyone whom does not fit their criteria of acceptable. That the world of most “gay/queer” men, not homosexual, there is a difference, is fickle and superficial even unto itself, should serve as a warning sign that depth and consideration will not be encountered, so don’t be surprised by rejection. I unfortunately have to go but more to follow…………………………………
@ aulus – I look forward to your next installment. It would be great if you could include a link to your doctrate study which I hope has pictures of the ‘different colour faces’. I’m so intrigued I’m trying to think of a way of rolling this survey out to a wider audience…
Aulus said: “The accepted aesthetic was and remains largely white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. A cursory glance at any major advertising campaign, especially those aimed at the fashion cognoscenti, e.g., Fitch, Hillfiger, et al will demonstrate this perfectly.”
You know, I took a flip through an Ebony magazine the other day, and didn’t see what you were talking about.
So yeah, I don’t think this sort of argument works. Maybe we could all just recognize the obvious — that certain brands (A&F, Vinyard Vines *gag* etc) are clearly aimed at a white clientele, even though you do see black people represented in their ads and stores — while other brands (FUBU “For Us By Us”, BET, etc) are clearly aimed at a black clientele. So what? If a given gay-oriented (or ambiguous, like Details) publication has mostly a bunch of young hot white guys in it, maybe it’s because that’s what its readers want to see? If there is a demand for a publication with advertising geared towards elderly overweight gender-bending queer people of color, then by all means, someone should cash in on that untapped market and make one! Better yet, let’s drop the whole capitalist advertising pre-occupation and make our own ‘zines like they used to do, back when people knew how to do creative things themselves.
Aulus, your work sounds absolutely fascinating and we’d love to have you post excerpts from your work on our site if you are interested in doing so, please contact us at info@thenewgay.net
This is a fascinating discussion and one that has always interested me. I don’t think anything is as cut and dry as everyone seems to be making this. Things get blurry when it comes to human attraction. Yes most of us are born and raised to feel and think a certain way. Yes some of us overcome this and some of us don’t.
It’s difficult because I myself prefer to date white guys, notice I said ‘prefer,’ meaning I’m not necessarily opposed to dating men of other skin tones or races, it’s just not my first preference. It’s not what catches my eye when i’m out in the club or at the bar or in the grocery store.
I grew up with latinos and hispanics all my life so it’s likely that i’m more open to dating a latino guy then I might be to dating a black guy. But not to sell my self short, I’ve been with a few black men and I dated an Asian woman once in my life. (Well this clearly proves i’m not racist!!!) <- not trying to prove anything… just saying that while i have a preference which tends to be white males with brown hair and blue eyes I am open to exploration. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. And it’s definitely not racist to say I’m not really into black guys! A generalization maybe yes, but not racist. At least not for me. That’s not to say I might someday meet a tall sexy brown skinned man with a brilliant mind who sweeps me off my feet. I’d be open to meeting that person should I be single at that time, but that I would seek them out first is unlikely.
Why do some people prefer roses over sunflowers… because they are more attracted to roses. Though I do think people should be at least open to considering sunflowers…
This blog is much more provocative and less offensive than the other so I decided I would leave my thoughts and would be interested in anyone’s take on my analysis.
A made a very good point and I actually disagree with Tech’s contention that we should all strive to see the beauty in everyone. Regarding everyone as beautiful is the same as not regarding anyone as beautiful, I just think this attraction should (and most often does for everyone with respect to everything other than race) vary from person to person. Each new attraction is rule unto itself. There is a very important distinction between what A said and what I interpret as the point of the post. A talked about being ATTRACTED TO people who had a specific kink as opposed to being UNATTRACTED TO people who do not have the same kink. Many gay white men are quite sure in that they don’t like black men, but reserve such a broad judgment for all everyone else. I think there is a fundamental difference between being physically allured by people who have a certain characteristic and repelled by those who have another one. It’s like the difference between saying I really like bananas, and I hate oranges. You can really like bananas and still like oranges, but you can’t hate oranges and like oranges at the same time. You cannot say I hate oranges and then say you have no bias against oranges. And thus you cannot say I am not attracted to black men and then say that statement has no bias against black people. This is a non sequitor. How many men have you met who say I am not attracted to Middle Eastern Men? Men who are Russian? The two racial backgrounds I often hear reviled are black and oriental, and I think it’s simply because they are often the easiest to distinguish with the naked eye as different than white.
I do disagree with the assertion that the requirement for attraction often lies elsewhere. Again, I pose the question why that race in particular? After probing white people with a handful of questions about their exposure to African-American men, they have almost invariably never had a black friend. When I was younger people used to say to me, “You don’t talk black.” I got to a point where I asked them what that meant, and the answers were usually the same old “take it easy man” bullshit lines that white people always use when confronted about racism in a way that makes them feel guilty. The standards for what is acceptable with respect to race relations have changed drastically over even the last part of the century. You cannot refuse to serve someone a cheeseburger at a restaurant because of the color of their skin anymore. You cannot be sent to jail for being a participant in an interracial marriage. You can’t just lynch someone in the town square. But I think people are lying to themselves if they think the past is not lingering in some ways, and this dating issue is as fine an example as any. The trouble is that it’s hard to know what people are thinking, especially when people are very adept at lying to themselves about what they think. All this intellectual prattling does not distance the realities of the issue from white people just saying “I don’t date niggers” nearly as much as people want to think it does. All that has advanced is our method of discussing it. And if some white people get incensed by this rhetoric, I have only thing to say about it: FUCK YOU! I invite your indignation. I am sick and tired of white people trying to conflate white guilt with black disenfranchisement. If you wanna say you don’t date black people that’s cool. But don’t get mad when someone calls you racist. There seems to be this attitude like America has come so far with respect to race relations, and that black people should just shut-up and be grateful. That’s not good enough. You either see black people as your equal in every way or you do not. There is nothing in the middle.
@ Nom Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean? Would you be ok with a heterosexual person marginalizing you on the basis of how many sex partners and diseases all men who share your sexual orientation are statistically likely to have? I am often amazed at gay white men and their inability to draw immediate parallels between homosexual plight and the plight of any other minority. When you decided you were not attracted to black men did you already know they were more likely to have HIV than anyone else, or did you find this out and use it to justify what you already thought?
Your point about black men being more likely to be attracted to white men than the other way around perfectly illustrates the point that Aulus raised about how society at large views white skin as central to the epitome of physical beauty. Have you ever heard of Kenneth and Mamie Clark? They were black psychologists who conducted experiments with young black children that involved choosing between black and white dolls. Black children usually chose to play with the white dolls and when asked to color in the faces of human figures with a color similar to their own they frequently chose colors that were far lighter than their actual skin tone. Forty-four percent even said the white dolls looked more like them. They described white with the characteristics of good and pretty, but said the black ones were ugly and dirty. This was one of the key reasons the supreme court decided segregation in public schools was unconstitutional in 1954; because society’s stigmatization of black people was having an averse impact on the self-images of young children. A similar study was conducted by a film student in Harlem a view years ago and the results were still largely the same. Black men who say they are not attracted to other black men have a deeply rooted self-loathing whether they are aware of it or not.
But more to the point, what does your statement prove? Because black people often view themselves as inferior that means it is so? Gay men are often attracted to straight men, so does that justify the view that many on the religious right have that maintains that gay men are inherently immoral/unnatural and thus have to recruit members of other sexual orientations? In the years immediately following slavery there was a 80-90% illiteracy rate among African-Americans. Does that mean that slavery was justified because black people were too stupid to learn how to read? Um no. Using statistical information to justify the under-achievements of a group of people that have been pounded on by the very system that is condemning them is what sociologists call blaming the victim. The real question is what is it that causes people to view what they are(gay, black, poor, etc.) as lesser? It’s probably the intense shame that has historically been heaped upon these groups by society at large. The funny thing is that most gay people can realize this as it applies to their sexuality, but then don’t bother to use the same line of logic for other groups that have been disenfranchised or shamed by “the man” as it were. I think you need to learn how to think outside the box a little more, because frankly your arguments make little sense.
@Another Jeremy, although all your points are valid I am not entirely sure you are the one thinking outside the box. The studies you site and the history you reference have all been brought up before regarding discrimination among the black community and the gay one.
You might be under the impression gay men have more sex than heterosexual people and that is the reason why they carry all these venereal disses. Although in some occasions this is the case, epidemiologically there is more to this than simple promiscuity. As you stated the gay community is extremely small. When a disease infiltrates the community it spreads like fire. This is because the community is so small that the number of partners available for a given person is limited. In the gay community it is common for people to date within the same pool of people exacerbating the problem. This is the reason why gay men were the first group identified with AIDS, even though initially the disease probably started among heterosexuals.
I don’t see how you are calling white people racist for simply liking people that look similar/familiar to themselves and have similar cultural background. By the same token there are some who like others who are drastically different from them as there is a level of mysticism to the other person. To each their own.
Lastly, there are so many factors that affect who one is attracted to that skin is merely one of these factors.
I like people with green eyes and I have never met Asians or blacks with them. Am I being racist to them, what about the white people who don’t have green eyes? can they say I am racist?
We are just a melting pot of genetic information and the term race is outdated anyway.
I still don’t understand why this is even an issue. Many of you equate a preference with “racism” and it’s just not the same. This article would have better served the community if it would have generalized it’s topic. You could replace black with any number of variables and it would have been relevant.
White men don’t have a monopoly of the gay scene. Black are just as likely to say “looking for bruthas only, sorry just my thing”, and no one is up in arms about that. (please don’t point out societal qualms, the sins of the farther aren’t the sins of the son)
I just for the life of me, don’t know why anyone would even care, it’s not like all white guys aren’t into black guys or vise versa. Whether it’s at the club or A4A, you find white men who are only into blacks. So meh.
how often do you see not into: Asian, Mexican, fat, fem, x age, white, black?
seriously people you really hurting over any of this.
@ Milo
You missed the point I raised about HIV entirely and as such your entire first paragraph is irrelevant. My point was not that gay men are whores which explains their frequency of venereal disease, but rather that pointing out a problem that plagues a minority and using it as an example to justify their inferiority is not always logically sound. And your point about the small size of the community only goes farther in discrediting Nom’s contention about black people tending to have HIV. Since there are less gay black men and people tend to stay within their races for sex, the STDs can be spread faster.
And no. Your point about green eyes does not hold. Unless of course you would not date anyone who does not have green eyes. Because that would exclude more than just black people and Asian people. And you are correct. Skin color is but one factor. But it is more often than not an outright deal breaker. And are you seriously trying to argue that having a preference for one race about all others is not racist? The problem is that it is seen as taboo to criticize the reasons people date each other. It should not be. Make no mistake, this is not a referendum on the reasons people date each other. This is a referendum on intellectual bankruptcy. You cannot exempt yourself from the label racist just because the subject at hand is dating. If this conversation was about friendship, no one would have the balls to say “I just prefer white friends over black friends.” At the bottom of it all is this idea that to dismiss an entire group of people as physically unattractive with very limited exposure to them is somehow acceptable. It is not. It carries with it the fundamental implication that this entire race is incapable of meeting your standard for what is the pinnacle of human interactions just because of how dark their skin is. Most people who say “I am not attracted to someone physically” will not even consider dating them. Relationships are about the person. That’s why the same white people who say they have a preference for white guys do not often say they want someone who is 5″11, has brown eyes, weighs 160 and has a 7 inch penis. They are open to a wide variety of relationship possibilities as long as they ARE NOT Asian or black. Someone black can be like you. And someone white can be very dissimilar from you. Have you found yourself attracted to all types of men that are thrown under the umbrella “white?” Surely not. And if you think races don’t exist, why are the only ones you mentioned black and Asian?
@ Dev.
No it would not have been just as relevant if another trait had been used. If the characteristic had been skinny, any race contains skinny people. If the characteristic had been fat, any race can contain people that are fat. General health and the symmetry of one’s facial features are what biologically compels human being toward each other with respect to physical attraction. The rest is the result of cultural indoctrination which, to be fair, affects us all to varying degrees. Most everyone on this blog had to come to the realization that just because the majority of the depictions of romantic love that are portrayed in the media are more representative of heterosexual couples this does not invalidate gay romance. We all had to shake off what society had taught us about homosexuality, and I am most certain that if a straight person displayed the same kind of crass insensitivity to the issue of sexuality, gay men would be able to see far fewer gray areas when describing someone as homophobic.
Just because you use the word preference does not change what you are doing in practice. You cannot have a preference against anything, but only for something. If you have a “preference against something” it is called a bias. And a bias against a group of people based on the color of their skin is called racism. The fact that you don’t like being called racist does not change the meaning of the word.
And what the hell do you mean white people do not have a monopoly on the gay scene? Are you fucking serious? OF COURSE THEY DO! How much porn do you see that includes minorities without their presentations as racial caricatures? And no, there are not as many gay black men that say they are exclusively interested in black men as there are white men who say they are only into white men. Did you not read that whole bit about black children choosing the white doll? The whole point is that it does not happen across the board. Minorities are far more likely to see the majority as attractive then the other way around. It has to do with what race primarily controls the mass media, and I’m sorry if that societal qualm makes you feel guilty.
I have yet to hear one argument that consists of anything other than
1. It’s not racism because this is dating and the definition of the word does not apply. Preference sounds better.
2. I’m white and don’t like being called racist because of who I will/will not date.
I’m sorry, but those arguments do not make sense.
@Another Jeremy
your response to Dev was pretty good.
Though I am not sure I got my point across successfully.
When talking about HIV I thought I would point out it is a multifactorial problem and I wanted to add to the mix. Yeah, the truth is that Black gay men tend to have higher rates of HIV because they are gay and because they are black. Two double whammies, the first because of what I explained and the second because of their socioeconomic status, lack of knowledge and subcultural norms.(Clumping people by race offend some because a majority does not mean totality. ) But yes “a problem that plagues a minority isn’t a good way to justify their inferiority”
–then again Nom didn’t said or imply they were inferior–
On @Nom ‘s defense HIV has plagued us for too long and there is no reason why someone should be judged for wanting to lower their chances, whether racist or not. This applies more to promiscuous behavior on a friday night than dating the person within.
Dating and relationships although they are based mainly on personalities are also based on sexual attractiveness. If the chemistry is not there then … the relationship is bound to stop working after a while. You say people don’t choose friends on race because this would be seen as overtly racist but the truth of the matter is that when you choose your friends you are not choosing them on sexual attractiveness, in the end you are not going to fuck them. the person you date? yep that one you have to get hard for so you better be attracted to them.
You say it is taboo for someone to criticize who you date but in reality, why should anyone be criticizing who you date? (with the exception of your parents?)
Green eyes, Asian or Blacks, you missed my point. All I was saying was that it was just another trait just like skin color. As far as I know I have not met any Asians or Blacks with green eyes, though I have met European, Latin and middle eastern and indian people with green eyes.
And although you say “people are open to a wide variety of relationship possibilities” not necessarily accurate either. There are guys who will only date others that are bigger than 8inches. Im not even kidding, they are out there walking among you. but you know, i dont judge them, thats what they want, and good thing they are sure of what they want because its better knowing what you want before getting in a relationship instead of finding out you dont like who you are with and break their heart. AMEN.
Anyway, it seems like you are more into discrediting what others say and making them feel racist instead of discussing the matter openly.
(Yes I’ve dated black men and like other “races”)
@Another Jeremy: As I mentioned in my post, I was responding to Rob’s claim that “there’s been an insidious rumor for years that black men are more likely to be HIV positive. Could that be part of the “just not my taste” cop out? Ignorance and fear?”
And I need to correct your characterization of my argument as being “about black people tending to have HIV”
My response was that it’s not a rumor that black men are indeed more likely to be HIV+ It’s a fact. I really don’t want to get into a whole discussion about HIV, but part of what bothers me about the whole dysfunctional discussion is that people too often let emotions get in the way of cold, hard science. We let our feelings about boyfriends (“he would never cheat on me!”), racial dynamics (“that’s just ignorant to say black gay men have high rates of HIV!”), drugs (“pass me that used syringe full of H!”) and all sorts of other nonsense get in the way of the reality that, when you’re considering mixing certain bodily fluids with a high-risk population, you need to protect yourself! We need to educate ourselves about the facts, whatever they may be. I’m not ignorant for saying that black men are, at least in DC, far more likely to have HIV than white men. If anything, ignorance is a big part of the reason why this is a problem in the first place.
As I said above, this information should not be used as a tool to discriminate against people or marginalize them. By bringing up some real information about the nature of the problem, hopefully we can come up with some strategies to address it. As it turns out, it looks like black men aren’t getting the care they need by any stretch of the imagination.
I also didn’t say anything about who I’m attracted to. Yeah, I’m a white guy whose dick tends to get hard around other young white guys. Crazy, I know. I’m still gonna use protection anyways, because that’s what an intelligent person ought to do. I’m also not the kind of guy who’s going to be a jerk to a black guy. I can’t stand people who trap themselves in a social clique of any color — that’s a pretty big turn off for me. [Coming from the south, I'm actually pretty offended by the way that so many people up here won't even return a "good morning," regardless of race, but whatever...] When I’m out to party or just out and about, I’m there to show respect and expect the same back. Whatever goes down under the sheets is up to me.
If it’s racist for me to choose white sex partners, then it’s sexist/transphobic for me to fuck dudes, and it’s ageist for me to fuck younger guys my age. I would however agree that it’s racist to avoid associating with non-white people, misogynistic to avoid or ignore women, transphobic to hate on transpeople, and ageist to disregard older people. Notice the former is defined positively (what one likes, leaving an opening to expand the circle of what’s possible) and the latter is defined negatively (what one doesn’t like, closing off any possibility for change). I think that’s the difference.
One should be able to choose whoever they want to have sex with without being called a racist; and the same goes for sexual attraction. However, if one doesn’t want to interact or socialize with an individual just because of their race or the color of their skin, then that’s racist and/or being prejudice. And when I say socialize, I mean on a nonsexual level, and when both individuals share the exact same hobbies and interests.
What I’ve personally discovered is that most gay white men are very cliquish and tend to gravitate toward men who look like them. Why? Because they think they look cool, hot, and fabulous. And anyone who doesn’t look like them or fit into what they think is cool, hot, or fabulous, is ugly and beneath them. And sadly, that includes gay black men.
@GW, I think in large part we’re seeing the same thing, but I think you’re offering a generalization in a way that can be problematic. If you want to ascribe a characteristic such as “most white gay men are ___” then is it alright for me to say that “most black gay men are ___”? Of course not. I don’t think you’ve got anything other than, as you suggest, anecdotal evidence for that claim. What about all the white gay men you’ve never met? Not to mention that you seem to know what other people think.
Do I even need to mention that there are plenty of social spots around DC where it would be just plain laughable for this white boy to show up and ask for a drink, if I ever even made it past the bouncer? You’d have to be massively delusional not to realize that. I mean look… the one time I went to a lesbian club here to meet some friends, I got so hassled at the door (uninviting looks, holding me up for a good five minutes while ladies breezed by…) Buzz kill. Probably not going back. But hey whatever, at least I tried..
In reality, I’d be willing to bet that, on the whole, white guys are just as diverse as black guys in terms of their tastes, the types of people they hang out with, activities/interests, etc etc.. I think that the critics of “the white gay guy” are to some extent beholden to their own stereotypes of us, and when they inevitably encounter someone who does act that way, that preconceived notion is reinforced. Folks need to understand that there are way more white gay guys out there than your stereotypical deranged circuit queen.
One I thing I do know is that I can control how I act, which has an influence on the people around me. As for me, I don’t think I’m above being able to hold a conversation with anyone who’s willing to show me a little decency in return. In fact, I think that’s part of what it means to be a “real man” – if you’re the kind of guy who’s unable to interact with people who don’t look like you, then you’re kind of a wuss in my book.
Bizarrely, most commentators seem to be missing the point regarding my post, save a few who actually read it properly. Racism is a learnt behaviour, obviously. Innumerable academic,studies demonstrate the fact that children do not “discriminate” on the basis of colour, only gender. “RACISM AND ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION ARE LEARNT BEHAVIOURS”.
Is it then remotely surprising that white males of European descent whom enjoy “white privilege” and maintain an alpha status identity by the continued portrayal of the aesthetic (ideal)by the media, inter alia, as self, would then discriminate against those who don’t meet their criteria, not only aesthetically, but culturally? It is the general lack of knowledge which renders the majority of posts on this subject absurd. To speak of pitiful examples of reverse discrimination as a defence , “I can’t go to black clubs or bars” is demonstrative of one who reasons like a juvenile and lacks the skill of critical reasoning.
Further, to assert that white gay men discriminate against black men because of HIV is absurd as the notion is frightening. Weimar Deutsch-land circa 1933 anyone? The statistics which were published by the AHB were deemed by European researchers to be inaccurate due to the haphazard collecting and reporting of the aforementioned data. If a black man presented with HIV at any government clinic or hospital in the survey they were simply recorded as just that. A black man whom is HIV positive. At my hospital we would most certainly want to know how the infection was derived? Intravenously, i.e. Drug paraphernalia sharing? Sexually? Blood transfusion? That the survey was so lackadaisical and unprofessional beggars belief. My highly rational colleagues and I are more than suspicious of the conclusions.
Statistics can be manipulated to demonstrate many differing conclusions according to how one collects and manipulates the data. Recent published statistics European have demonstrated that “white European homosexual males between the ages of 17 and 34 and white European females between the ages of 17 and 38″ are most likely to contract chlamydia and HIV through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. An interesting highlight in this study was the number of homosexual men who were presenting with chlamydia. This is the result of bi-sexual men engaging in unprotected sex with women as well as men. The statistics were the culmination of a highly controlled Europe-wide five year study and the results were shocking. So are white European men going to now discriminate against their own and seek out those whom are less likely to be infected with HIV or an STD, of course not.
Again, I would suggest that commentators ought read some history, in particular the history and effects of Europe’s global empires. Most especially, texts analysing the “education” of colonial subjects; (India, the British Caribbean and America are highly interesting subjects and very telling), and the subsequent sociological and psychological impact on the aforementioned subjects, their societies and newly imposed “racial identities”. Perhaps then we can have a more interesting debate instead of the visceral indignation and hysterical comments that have been posted above in defence of discrimination and blatant racism.
Further, to those whom have appreciated my previous post, thank you for your comments, I just try to be as rational and scientific as possible. To those whom have requested that I publish the excerpts from my doctoral thesis, I am alas afraid I cannot as it forms the basis for a book and documentary series which will both be available for publication late 2011.
@Aulus, the study that I posted way up above wasn’t from the Nazis; it was from the D.C. Government, from the past year, studying men who have sex with men in DC. Its the first of its kind, and considering the population that was studied, it’s very relevant to me. I’ve never been to Europe.
I never once said that we should discriminate against black gay men because they are more likely to have HIV (at least in my city). I was responding to someone who claimed that it’s “ignorant” to assert that black gay men are more likely to have HIV. I was responding with well-documented evidence that it’s “ignorant” to believe that black gay men don’t have high levels of HIV. My message was: Fuck whoever you want and protect yourself! Nazis hahaa.
Yeah, I understand that white privilege exists. And no, I don’t really care that there are black-oriented clubs that would laugh me out the door. I was responding to someone who wanted to imply that it was really only “most gay white males” who hang out in cliques and that “most gay white males” think they’re better than everyone else. But hey, let’s not mention that all kinds of people obviously hang out in all kinds of self-segregated cliques, while there’s plenty of other people of all types who hang out with a more diverse crowd of people.. that would be too privileged of me, right? So basically, you’re saying it’s totally cool to resort to stereotypes as long as its a stereotype of white people. Got it.
@ aulus – It would be really great if you could give us a ‘heads up’ regarding the publishing of your book and the screening of the documentary series. Many thanks…
@Nom
What you don’t seem to understand is that the gay culture is heavily influenced by the popularization of the gay white male. You see them popularized everyday in films, tv shows, music, and gay publications. And this has a profound affect on how most gay white men behave and how they treat other gay men who don’t look like them. The fact is the gay white male, especially the young gay white male, is held up as some kind of popular icon and image for the gay culture. If this weren’t true, you wouldn’t see such a preponderance of mostly gay white men in gay publications, in films, in tv shows, and the entertainment media in general. When one is bombarded constantly by these images, it does have an effect on the gay culture and the community at large. You just can’t say it doesn’t.
@GW: I think your argument is sounding more reasonable this time around. Instead of saying that “most gay white men” think they’re better than everyone else, now you’re just saying that “most gay white men” are influenced by the way that pop culture portrays the young white athletic male as the ideal against which others are judged in our culture. Sounds valid to me, in the sense that everyone is influenced by pop culture to some degree. Nowhere on this thread have I claimed otherwise.
I still suggest that when you then decide to say that gay white males are the only ones causing this dynamic, or try to make claims about what “most gay white men” think, then your argument breaks down. I don’t, for example, have the slightest idea what “most gay black men” think. I also agree with you that we shouldn’t be called racist for who we choose to have sex with, but that the things we do in a social setting certainly could be. If you’ve followed my reasoning, I have clearly stated that I have more respect for people who can handle interacting with a diverse group of people than those who insulate themselves in *any* sort of a demographic clique.
@ Milo
“–then again Nom didn’t said or imply they were inferior-”
Yes he most certainly did imply that they were. He implied that there was a logical reason for him to not go after/accept the advances of black people, yet he made no mention of the likelihood of someone having or not having HIV with respect to any other race and/or any person that he ends up sleeping with/dating. He was using this information as a weapon to protect anyone who says they do not go after gay men. It’s also very interesting that he didn’t say that the was attracted to black men until he found out they are more likely to have HIV. It almost seems like he went out and searched for a reason to justify his aversion to black men. You do realize that any of these HIV and std statistics can be used against the gay community by society at large. Does that mean we should go after straight men because the risk is lower?
“On @Nom ’s defense HIV has plagued us for too long and there is no reason why someone should be judged for wanting to lower their chances, whether racist or not. This applies more to promiscuous behavior on a friday night than dating the person within.”
So which is it? Are you arguing that the behavior is not racist or that people should not call you racist?
“Dating and relationships although they are based mainly on personalities are also based on sexual attractiveness. If the chemistry is not there then … the relationship is bound to stop working after a while. You say people don’t choose friends on race because this would be seen as overtly racist but the truth of the matter is that when you choose your friends you are not choosing them on sexual attractiveness, in the end you are not going to fuck them. the person you date? yep that one you have to get hard for so you better be attracted to them”
If there is one idea I hope is laid to rest it’s that I am trying to say that anyone who says they are not attracted to a black person is racist. I am absolutely not saying that. The point is that often a lack of “physical attraction” is used as cover language for racist motives. Thus, many white men have typically had much LESS exposure to black men than white men, but often have MORE notions about how they look/act. The result of an evaluation of the attractiveness of a black person need not have favorable results by a white person to avoid the label of racist, but my point is that said evaluation does not often even take place. Once white people finds out someone is black all other factors go by the wayside and they are immediately “unattractive.” People are more comfortable hiding behind an looks as a factor than race because they cannot admit to themselves that they didn’t even notice the looks due to the skin color.
“You say it is taboo for someone to criticize who you date but in reality, why should anyone be criticizing who you date? (with the exception of your parents?) And although you say “people are open to a wide variety of relationship possibilities” not necessarily accurate either. There are guys who will only date others that are bigger than 8inches. Im not even kidding, they are out there walking among you. but you know, i dont judge them, thats what they want, and good thing they are sure of what they want because its better knowing what you want before getting in a relationship instead of finding out you dont like who you are with and break their heart. AMEN.”
If by that statement you mean that it doesn’t directly concern my I absolutely agree. But neither does a straight person teaching their kid to stay away from gay people. I am not seeking to criticize anyone that people are dating, but rather their criteria for selecting. And with the penis comparison you have still missed the point. There is a difference between liking big penises and disliking men with small ones. If two people are dating each other because of penis size then they should take no issue with being called superficial. Because that’s what that behavior displays. You can not date someone because they’re black, but don’t start squirming when people say you’re racist.
“Anyway, it seems like you are more into discrediting what others say and making them feel racist instead of discussing the matter openly.”
I do not give two shits about whether or not you or anyone else “feel racist.” The behavior speaks for itself. I am merely trying to make you “feel” illogical by dismantling arguments that are inconsistent and irrational. People have strong emotional reactions to the accusations of racism, but that doesn’t have to keep them from being able to use their brains or remaining intellectually honest.
@ Nom & GW
My oh my these posts are getting steadily more absurd. You can use whatever language you want to let yourselves off the hook, but you have not presented one coherent reason as to why dating choices cannot be labeled racist when the term is applied to the exclusion of an entire race. The idea that you can exclude people because of their race from dating, but not from “social interactions” is completely ludicrous. Dating IS a social interaction.
“I think your argument is sounding more reasonable this time around. Instead of saying that “most gay white men” think they’re better than everyone else, now you’re just saying that “most gay white men” are influenced by the way that pop culture portrays the young white athletic male as the ideal against which others are judged in our culture.”
You can blame society for making you prejudiced, but my point is that every gay person who is happy with who they are has to overcome societal pressure and misrepresentations in the mass media in order to have a healthy self-concept. Yet when the issue is race, gay white men are all too happy to say they aren’t to blame because of our culture. You are an adult and should be able to own up to what the things you do mean. All this self-congratulatory sophistry will not distract from the point. If you will not date someone because they are black, then that is racist behavior. Period. You would actually be more consistent in saying that as long as the subject at hand is who one will interact with socially, a person can use whatever criteria they see fit without being called racist. But this position is simply not defensible, even in main stream America. The argument is not over your view of dating, but rather the meaning of the word racist.
And to the idiot way up who tried to conflate Ebony magazine with every other primarily Euro-centric magazine in the US, your argument does not hold water. There are black magazines that pander specifically to black issues because of their exclusion from most other magazines. The separatist culture that has been created by black people was a reaction to being left out of the mainstream media for centuries. An entire culture that has always excluded anything that wasn’t white is not the equivalent of a reactionary subculture that exists primarily due to its separation.
@another jeremy
“And no, there are not as many gay black men that say they are exclusively interested in black men as there are white men who say they are only into white men.”
of course there wouldn’t be because blacks only make up 13.5% of the population.
I’m sorry that you believe that having an affinity for a certain look makes you a racist but i’m sorry sir it doesn’t.
To the point of this article I highly doubt the author has met every type of black guy in the world and to dismiss them all is just silly. There are outliers out there, I’m sure he wouldn’t be opposed to an attractive one with Anglo features and a natural light tan.
*outliers: referring to the same recycled black people you see in the media.
I’m sorry that you believe that having an affinity for a certain look makes you a racist but i’m sorry sir it doesn’t.
FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME YOU CANNOT NOT HAVE AN AFFINITY AGAINST SOMETHING, BUT ONLY FOR SOMETHING. I could say I have an affinity for having only friends of a certain race, but that does not change the fact that this is racist behavior and you have still not presented one logical reason to the contrary with respect to dating.
of course there wouldn’t be because blacks only make up 13.5% of the population.
DUH! And not all of that 13.5 percent are gay people?!?! The point is that everyone does not see their race as the best, which is what underlies the arguments about black people “doing the same things” despite the fact that they cannot because of their numbers in society.
Hey everyone! I have a preference for not having conversations with white people. Just because I have an affinity for conversations which certain races doesn’t mean I’m racist. Ciao!
There’s really no need to yell in here. All I can say is that you either can’t read what I wrote or you’re deliberately trying to mischaracterize me. For the last time:
-My point about gay black men and HIV was in response to someone who said that it was “an insidious rumor” that gay black men are more likely to have HIV. I pointed out that it’s not a rumor. If you want to do a better study than those racist bastards at the DC Department of Health, go right ahead. Until then, the rest of us are going to be trying to figure out what we can do to fight back against the public health disaster (we’re several multiples past “crisis”) that is by far disproportionately affecting black people in DC. Or were they just spreading insidious rumors when they put “AIDS is DC’s Katrina” on the bus stops?
-I said I tend to be attracted to white guys. You don’t know what all I’ve done under the sheets. I dare you to quote a line from one of my posts where I said that I will not sleep with a black man. Seriously, five bucks. Meanwhile, I’m going to show respect to any person by being willing to genuinely interact if they’re coming at me with the same purpose. My approach to life opens the door to far more possibilities than your view of the world, in which as soon as you see a young white gay guy, you start banging on the keyboard and having apoplectic visions of Weimar Germany. I assert that my way is better, and it makes for a lot less unnecessary stress.
-I’ve been very clear that I think we should avoid make sweeping negative statements about what one type of person is like. I have not made any statements about what “most/all black gay men” are like, whether they think they’re inferior to white men, or whether they’re perfectly happy to be who they are. You, on the other hand, continue to make disparaging generalizations about most or all gay white men. News flash: “most” of ‘em are probably just trying to get on with their lives far away from the gaggle of airheads that can be found circle jerking at any overpriced nightclub on planet earth. If anyone has become overly influenced by a caricature of gay white males in the media, it’s you. I, on the other hand, am quite aware that I’m not really like the pretend fabulous people on the T.V., in much the same way that I suspect black men realize that they’re not really like the one-dimensional caricature of black men that are often encountered in the shallower depths of the various media. As I said before, pop culture affects us all… in many ways. But you don’t have to let it control your mind. You do have the power to hit the off button.
-And finally, yes, there is a difference between who I choose to have sex with (privately) and how I interact in my social life (publicly). The only time I could see this being an issue is for people who engage in random public group sex. You can go on peddling your two well-constructed stereotypes of white guys all you want:
A) when a white guy sleeps with a white guy, he’s being racist against black guys
B) when a white guy sleeps with a black guy, he’s playing out some sick master/slave dynamic
Meanwhile, I DGAF about who you F. It’s how you treat people that matters.
@Nom You said, “I still suggest that when you then decide to say that gay white males are the only ones causing this dynamic, or try to make claims about what “most gay white men” think, then your argument breaks down.”
Actually, my augment doesn’t break down. Gay/bi/or straight white males do cause this dynamic. They are the ones who control the media which publishes these gay publications, make the films, and create these tv shows. Do you actually think gay black men are behind the manufacturing of these publications, films, and tv shows? These white men are in positions of power to manufacture anything they what the gay culture and public to see. Who do you think creates, writes, and produces shows like Queer As Folk, How I Met Your Mother, Desperate Housewives, Brothers & Sisters, Glee, Modern Family, Will & Grace, Sex and the City, Friends, and on and on? All these shows either have a gay *white* character(s) or a gay *white* gay couple. They very rarely, if ever, show gay diversity. All they do is constantly show the representation of gay white men or gay white couples. The gay black men is invisible or ceases to exist.
And when it comes to the popular gay publications, they are mostly owned by gay white men…and they all heavily focus on gay white men either in image or their lifestyles as it relates to either sex, gay marriage, political issues like the don’t ask don’t tell policy, or celebrity news. And if they do focus on gay black men, it’s usually always pertains to either AIDS, HIV prevention, or HIV statistics.
So if you still think gay white men, or at least white men, aren’t the ones behind the fueling of the racial bias within the gay culture, then YOU are definitely fooled.
@Another Jeremy -> Said “The idea that you can exclude people because of their race from dating, but not from “social interactions” is completely ludicrous. Dating IS a social interaction.”
Yes, dating IS a social interaction. BUT, dating is often a form of “courtship”. And “courtship” usually precedes, if one is lucky, sex, a commitment, or a marriage. And if one isn’t sexually attracted to me because of my race, then I can’t call them a racist…even if they might be! Just as I wouldn’t want a woman to call me sexist if I’m not physically or sexually attracted to her. One shouldn’t be judged by who they don’t want to have sex with. That is their body and they can choose whoever they want to share bodily fluids with! BUT, I do feel it’s racist to not want to be friends with or socially interact with a person on a “platonic” level based on their race.
And if you can’t platonically love another person because of their race, then you’re also a racist.
@GW: “The gay black men is invisible or ceases to exist.”
I think that remark reveals more about a fault with your own argument than mine. Pop culture is not the totality of our culture at large, and it does not dictate the realities of the complex subcultures of which we are all a part (e.g., religious, social class, academic, sexuality, etc.) I don’t disagree that it has an impact, but I also believe that I have the agency to, for example, not watch any of the shows you just tallied, or let them define my life. I know that there is a difference between the multifaceted, diverse, complicated reality of people I encounter in the world, and the shallow image of the gay white male fruitcake as seen on T.V., or as ridiculed by 50-Cent.
The stereotype of the gay male as white and wealthy was not constructed solely by white men, solely through pop culture. Allow me to render black people “visible” for a moment, if you will. While running for President, Obama noted in a speech to a church in Georgia that the black community does, just like the larger society, have a problem with perpetuating homophobia. By bringing this up, I am not painting “most black people” as being a certain way. What I will note, as you have about a relatively small group of elite white males, is that there are a number of black leaders who have not only refused to even be neutral on the issue of gay people — they actively promote a negative stereotype of the gay male as white and wealthy. Some (not all or even most) powerful black religious leaders, for example, speak of the gay male as only being white, rendering black gay men invisible in their own discourse.
For example, in his crusade to stop gay marriage in DC, Bishop Harry Jackson said:
“Homosexuals have no history of slavery, Jim Crow, lynching or being legally defined as 2/3 of a person.”
This claim is incorrect, because there are gay people who are black. For Bishop Jackson, however, gay equals white, such as in a later speech where he refers to gay people as “rich K Street lawyers.” But, I’m not going to engage people like him in the comparison game of oppression that his divisive language invites. I don’t need to mention that gay men of all races routinely face physical assault today in America. Or that these assaults are often fueled by the kind of anti-gay rhetoric that issues forth from certain pulpits.
Let’s take Marion Barry, a powerful black Democratic leader in DC, who asserted that “you’ve got to understand [that] 98 percent of my constituents are black and we don’t have but a handful of openly gay residents..” before warning of a possible “civil war” between the “black” community and the “gay” community (as he defines them). To his credit, in Barry’s view of his community, there are a very teeny tiny number of gay black people. What an ally!
Since I see black people as having agency to act in society, then I see black people as capable of both perpetuating and dismantling disparaging stereotypes. If you don’t agree that black people have the capacity to influence society, then you’ll have to assume that the civil rights movement’s successes were the result of the tireless efforts of JFK.
An article from University of Chicago professor E. G. Ward that appeared in the journal “Culture, Health and Sexuality” argues:
“Indeed, the risk of HIV/AIDS – which disproportionately and overwhelmingly impacts blacks in the USA – is augmented by the silence and denial around homosexuality. Not only black gay/bisexual men, but increasingly, women and black teenagers are affected. According to the US Census Bureau, black adults and adolescents in 2001 had an AIDS case rate ten times higher than whites. Observers, ministers, activists and researchers have reached the conclusion that homophobia is one of the most significant factors crippling the willingness of the black church to respond positively to AIDS (Cohen 1999, Fullilove and Fullilove 1999, Linsk and Warner 1999, Brown 2002, Wright 2003)”
Ten times higher. The author, who is incidentally a black man, goes on to assert:
“These homophobic religious moralisms have dovetailed with the urgency of a racial consciousness of survival and preservation among blacks, that sought to construct black masculinity as the struggle against white domination. Crichlow refers to this racial consciousness as bionationalism. The fallout from this ideological joining together of religion-driven homophobia and bionationalism has been that whiteness and homosexuality are both understood to connote weakness and femininity; conversely, black masculinity has been constructed in hypermasculine terms.”
Again, I am referring to some black leaders, not most or all black people. As a counter-example, the NAACP leadership has recently made important efforts to support LGBT issues.
A similar analogy could be made with the Catholic church in America. Most of its mostly white leadership traffic in virulently anti-gay propaganda that relies on stereotypes of gays as immoral. However, a Gallup poll from May 2010 showed that 62% of ordinary Catholics support social acceptance of gay and lesbian people, including 59% support for adoption rights. I think that sort of information can help dispel the stereotype of Catholics as gay-haters.
So, I maintain that stereotypes of gay white males are perpetuated by all corners of our homophobic society. A survey of several studies on homosexuality and income, for example, has shown that gay men as a whole actually earn less on average than straight men. I assume that this is true for the kind of people who read TNG — we’re not by and large a wealthy elite. And for us — all of us — we have the capacity to see that our actual lives and cultures are not coterminous with the fake representations of our lives and cultures that are peddled by the powerful across the racial spectrum. If we were all more willing to break out of our insulated social groupings and interact with people as people (not caricatures), we might build the solidarity that we need in order to assert new ways of being gay in our society. (And we’d probably be more likely to hook up in the process!)
@ Nom
Your entire synthesis of my arguments and those of Aulus are as follows:
A) when a white guy sleeps with a white guy, he’s being racist against black guys
B) when a white guy sleeps with a black guy, he’s playing out some sick master/slave dynamic
From this I would gather that you are either mentally ill, not fully comprehending the comments, or (and this is what I most suspect) you totally lack nuance. I made reference to Aulus’s comment because I have made absolutely no mention of Weimar in any of my comments. Nor anyone made reference to any master/slave dynamic except you. I wonder why.
And your first comment has been directly refuted.
“If there is one idea I hope is laid to rest it’s that I am trying to say that anyone who says they are not attracted to a black person is racist. I am absolutely not saying that. The point is that often a lack of “physical attraction” is used as cover language for racist motives. Thus, many white men have typically had much LESS exposure to black men than white men, but often have MORE notions about how they look/act. The result of an evaluation of the attractiveness of a black person need not have favorable results by a white person to avoid the label of racist, but my point is that said evaluation does not often even take place. Once white people finds out someone is black all other factors go by the wayside and they are immediately “unattractive.” People are more comfortable hiding behind looks as a factor than race because they cannot admit to themselves that they didn’t even notice the looks due to the skin color.”
See? Did you not read this comment? I said that about 3 posts ago.
Further, I never contested whether or not your HIV statistic is factual, but rather that without proper context it says nothing about the black community as a whole, and then Aulus went on to clarify what troubled him about these numbers.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
See? Did you not read the comment?
Just like saying gay people are more prone to suicide should be followed by information about the demonization of the gay community and the fact that the community is an incredibly small minority if these “facts” are to carry any weight. The lack of the full picture in either case does display ignorance and prejudice.
And the argument that sometimes white gay men are just acting out of pragmatism doesn’t seem strong when you consider that the gay community is many times more likely to have stds than the straight one and yet gay men feel no inclination to avoid other gay men. Aulus presented you with a study that says that white people are most likely to contract Chlamydia and HIV through unprotected sex and drug use. So wouldn’t it be just as pragmatic for white men avoid white European men? And yet this does not seem to be the case. The point is that you are selective in choosing what you want to use “cold hard science” to justify.
The underlying theme of your arguments seems to be that it is a stereotype to keep referring to white men as the primary culprits of this type of racial supremacy. It is not. White people do not have a monopoly on racism, but in the US they have always controlled the status quo and are by and large the ones most culpable for this behavior. Aulus did not argue that we should ignore examples of reverse racism. It’s just that these examples are so few and far between that they seem paltry when confronted with the preponderance of whites discriminating against everyone else. A white person IS more likely to have ideas of racial supremacy (no matter how they are manifested) simply because they are the majority and they control the media. The equivalency of Ebony Magazine and being bounced out of black clubs to race relations in America with respect to most everything else is therefore a false one. I’m sure there are heterosexual people who have experienced “heterophobia,” but let’s not pretend this is the standard practice. You are pointing your fingers at the ones being discriminated against and blaming them or at best giving them equal responsibility and I’m sorry, but that won’t fly. That was my whole point in mentioning the Clark doll study which indicated that black people were influenced by the status quo, even when it excludes them.
But really, you should actually read what the comments say. If you’ll notice you came to the following “realization” several posts back:
“If it’s racist for me to choose white sex partners, then it’s sexist/transphobic for me to fuck dudes, and it’s ageist for me to fuck younger guys my age. I would however agree that it’s racist to avoid associating with non-white people, misogynistic to avoid or ignore women, transphobic to hate on transpeople, and ageist to disregard older people. Notice the former is defined positively (what one likes, leaving an opening to expand the circle of what’s possible) and the latter is defined negatively (what one doesn’t like, closing off any possibility for change). I think that’s the difference.”
If you had read my first post you would have realized that I said that and have continued to this entire time.
“Each new attraction is rule unto itself. There is a very important distinction between what A said and what I interpret as the point of the post. A talked about being ATTRACTED TO people who had a specific kink as opposed to being UNATTRACTED TO people who do not have the same kink. Many gay white men are quite sure in that they don’t like black men, but reserve such a broad judgment for all everyone else. I think there is a fundamental difference between being physically allured by people who have a certain characteristic and repelled by those who have another one. It’s like the difference between saying I really like bananas, and I hate oranges. You can really like bananas and still like oranges, but you can’t hate oranges and like oranges at the same time. You cannot say I hate oranges and then say you have no bias against oranges. And thus you cannot say I am not attracted to black men and then say that statement has no bias against black people. This is a non sequitor.”
Did you not read it? (This is turning into a jingle.)
I think you are the one who is getting emotional despite your reliance on “cold hard science.” You have gotten so defensive as to ignore the past and it’s very obvious affects on the present. Words like affinity and “preference against” do not change what is happening in practice. Also, no one said anything about who you will/will not date, but rather your reasons for selecting someone. Yikes. This is getting redundant. Please say something new this time.
GW you are almost there. Courtship does often precede sex (though more often in the straight community then the gay one), but if someone is not sexually attracted to you it is because of the way you look, not your race. Saying you are not attracted to someone because of their race implies that all people of that race look the same. All black people do not look the same, and neither do all white people.
Ciao!
@Another Jeremy said:
“Further, I never contested whether or not your HIV statistic is factual, but rather that without proper context it says nothing about the black community as a whole, and then Aulus went on to clarify what troubled him about these numbers.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
See? Did you not read the comment?”
Yeah, I read the comment. And I’d have to say that Aulus, despite touting his Ph.D. credentials, is not very good at providing well-sourced information about his claims. I think he should, as I do, tell us where these studies can be found about how many more sex partners gay men have than straight men. I’m going to call his bluff – he’s relying on a stereotype.
According to a 2007 study in “Sexually Transmitted Infections” (Goodrow and Golden):
“In 2005 over 50% of all diagnosed HIV infections in the USA were among gay men, say the authors. However, according to two large population surveys, the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women….
The reason is that HIV transmission rates are much greater for anal sex, compared with vaginal sex, write the authors.”
Will you look at that? A real live scientific study says gay men aren’t more promiscuous — it’s because unprotected anal sex is more conducive to HIV transmission. Wow — learning is great, ain’t it?
Aulus also cited a study, which I have read, that sampled men who have sex with men in Europe. Again, I have never been to Europe. I do, however have sex with men in DC, so that’s why I’m citing statistics about men who have sex with men in DC. I have also never said that, because gay black men have way higher rates of HIV, that I’m categorically not going to sleep with them. All I made was the rather unremarkable comment that I tend to like white guys. Aulus said he likes “buff jocks” and that’s just lovely.
But go on repeating your insidious rumors ad infinitum. It doesn’t make them true.
Aulus did not say gay men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners than straight men. And neither did I. He said the following:
“Recent published statistics European have demonstrated that “white European homosexual males between the ages of 17 and 34 and white European females between the ages of 17 and 38″ are most likely to contract chlamydia and HIV through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. An interesting highlight in this study was the number of homosexual men who were presenting with chlamydia. This is the result of bi-sexual men engaging in unprotected sex with women as well as men. The statistics were the culmination of a highly controlled Europe-wide five year study and the results were shocking. So are white European men going to now discriminate against their own and seek out those whom are less likely to be infected with HIV or an STD, of course not.”
He said that gay white men are the most likely to contract these stds in Europe. The point was and still is that the likelihood of contracting an STD is not the real reason for excluding an entire group of people, because if it was then some homosexual sex acts would be eliminated all together. You listed that black people are more likely than white on average to have HIV, but you did not go on to list why as you did you with gay men. Which still reiterates my point that statistics by themselves mean absolutely nothing. You have to look at a whole bunch of statistical information to come up with a synthesis of information that is reliable.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5654MK20090706?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+reuters%252FhealthNews+%2528News+%252F+US+%252F+Health+News%2529
And here is a study that indicates gay men are indeed more likely to engage in “risky behavior,” even though that was/is absolutely not my point. My point is only that you can find statistics to justify anything.
http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/1999/08200/Gay_men_report_high_rates_of_unprotected_anal_sex.13.aspx
Notice the bit at the beginning that says the following:
Objective: To examine patterns and factors that correlate with unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) practices among San Francisco gay men, including UAI with partners of unknown or different HIV antibody status.
Design: A longitudinal cohort recruited for the San Francisco Young Men‚s Health Study in 1992; re-assessed annually.
Participants and methods: A sample of 510 unmarried gay men who were 18 to 29years at baseline were originally recruited as part of a larger population and referral-based sample. Subjects participated in four consecutive waves of data collection.
Results: The prevalence of reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) increased from 37% to 50% between 1993-1994 and 1996-1997. Almost half of all men who reported UAI in 1996-1997 indicated that it occurred with a partner of unknown or discordant HIV antibody status. This high-risk practice correlated with greater numbers of male sex partners, use of nitrite inhalants, sex in commercial sex environments, perceived difficulty controlling sexual risk-taking, and negative emotional reactions following UAI.
Conclusions: These data on increasing rates of sexual risk-taking further confirm trends in sexual behavior previously suggested by rising rates of rectal gonorrhea in this population. Additional and sustained prevention efforts are urgently needed in light of the very high background rates of HIV infection found among gay men in San Francisco.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
I did not say they are more promiscuous, but rather that is what a lot of studies indicate. I went on further to assert that on its own, that factoid means nothing. So actually I did the exact opposite of what you are claiming I did which was to “repeat insidious rumors.” Also, the source of the information is the center for disease control. It is in the quote. Are you not paying attention?
I’m sorry. . . I’m getting confused. What is the name of this blog again? Are we arguing about whether or not the gay community faces stereotypes or whether or not black people are excluded within the gay community for “not being physically attractive” with the real reason is often an undercurrent of racism? How are any of these statistics related to whether or not someone will immediately dismiss the idea of dating someone because they are black?
I think your quotes from the black leaders does not prove that minorities help shape images of the majority, but rather that minorities are often microcosms of the majority. Thus the small sect of society that is black falls in line with the majority’s homophobia, and the even smaller sect of gay people falls in step with the majority’s view of black people.
But I think we’re getting distracted. This is the main point.
“Courtship does often precede sex (though more often in the straight community then the gay one), but if someone is not sexually attracted to you it is because of the way you look, not your race. Saying you are not attracted to someone because of their race implies that all people of that race look the same. All black people do not look the same, and neither do all white people.”
I’d love to hear a logical rebuke of this assertion.
Ciao!
@Nom Said: “Since I see black people as having agency to act in society, then I see black people as capable of both perpetuating and dismantling disparaging stereotypes. If you don’t agree that black people have the capacity to influence society, then you’ll have to assume that the civil rights movement’s successes were the result of the tireless efforts of JFK.”
Yes, black people are capable of both perpetuating and dismantling disparaging stereotypes. And yes, black people do have the capacity to influence society. However, you can’t deny that the people with the most capital, political influence, and who own corporations that ultimately control the entertainment/news/publishing media are in fact WHITE. So they have the ultimate power to green light shows, films, and publications that focus primarily on the “white” side of life, while ignoring other races and cultures. Or if they do present other races or cultures in their media, it’s usually done in a negative light or as an after thought. So the bottom line is it doesn’t matter if you or I read or watch their popular shows. Their media and shows are always going to have a powerful influence on the public and the gay culture at large, whether we like it or not. And what I find especially hypocritical is the gay white men who are either CEOs of these companies or who are executives and producers for these companies, and they’re doing NOTHING to help create gay diversity in the media.
And you would think such organizations like GLADD would do more in helping create more gay diversity in the media, especially since their primary focus is on discrimination in media. But I guess it’s going to take an organization with balls to stand up against these powerful media giants.
It is not true that ‘there is a difference between blacks and Puerto Ricans’. Many Puerto Ricans are black, many are white, and some are mulatto (mixed black and white). According to the Census, 9% of Puerto Ricans are black only, but historians and demographers agree that at least 35% of Puerto Ricans have some black ancestry (making Puerto Rico the most heavily white Caribbean island but still largely black).
It is very true that virtually all Southerners, both black and white, grow up interacting with and living in close proximity to people of the other race. On the other hand many Yankees never interact with blacks at all.
Yeesh.
It is unfortunate that the site is censoring comments. But this should about do it for me.
Aulus did not say gay men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners than straight men. And neither did I. He said the following:
“Recent published statistics European have demonstrated that “white European homosexual males between the ages of 17 and 34 and white European females between the ages of 17 and 38″ are most likely to contract chlamydia and HIV through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. An interesting highlight in this study was the number of homosexual men who were presenting with chlamydia. This is the result of bi-sexual men engaging in unprotected sex with women as well as men. The statistics were the culmination of a highly controlled Europe-wide five year study and the results were shocking. So are white European men going to now discriminate against their own and seek out those whom are less likely to be infected with HIV or an STD, of course not.”
He said that gay white men are the most likely to contract these stds in Europe. The point was and still is that the likelihood of contracting an STD is not the real reason for excluding an entire group of people, because if it was then some homosexual sex acts would be eliminated all together. You listed that black people are more likely than white on average to have HIV, but you did not go on to list why as you did you with gay men. Which still reiterates my point that statistics by themselves mean absolutely nothing. You have to look at a whole bunch of statistical information to come up with a synthesis of information that is reliable.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5654MK20090706?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+reuters%252FhealthNews+%2528News+%252F+US+%252F+Health+News%2529
And here is a study that indicates gay men are indeed more likely to engage in “risky behavior,” even though that was/is absolutely not my point. My point is only that you can find statistics to justify anything.
http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/1999/08200/Gay_men_report_high_rates_of_unprotected_anal_sex.13.aspx
Notice the bit at the beginning that says the following:
Objective: To examine patterns and factors that correlate with unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) practices among San Francisco gay men, including UAI with partners of unknown or different HIV antibody status.
Design: A longitudinal cohort recruited for the San Francisco Young Men‚s Health Study in 1992; re-assessed annually.
Participants and methods: A sample of 510 unmarried gay men who were 18 to 29years at baseline were originally recruited as part of a larger population and referral-based sample. Subjects participated in four consecutive waves of data collection.
Results: The prevalence of reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) increased from 37% to 50% between 1993-1994 and 1996-1997. Almost half of all men who reported UAI in 1996-1997 indicated that it occurred with a partner of unknown or discordant HIV antibody status. This high-risk practice correlated with greater numbers of male sex partners, use of nitrite inhalants, sex in commercial sex environments, perceived difficulty controlling sexual risk-taking, and negative emotional reactions following UAI.
Conclusions: These data on increasing rates of sexual risk-taking further confirm trends in sexual behavior previously suggested by rising rates of rectal gonorrhea in this population. Additional and sustained prevention efforts are urgently needed in light of the very high background rates of HIV infection found among gay men in San Francisco.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
I did not say they are more promiscuous, but rather that is what a lot of studies indicate. I went on further to assert that on its own, that factoid means nothing. So actually I did the exact opposite of what you are claiming I did which was to “repeat insidious rumors.” Also, the source of the information is the center for disease control. It is in the quote. Are you not paying attention?
I’m sorry. . . I’m getting confused. What is the name of this blog again? Are we arguing about whether or not the gay community faces stereotypes or whether or not black people are excluded within the gay community for “not being physically attractive” with the real reason is often an undercurrent of racism? How are any of these statistics related to whether or not someone will immediately dismiss the idea of dating someone because they are black?
I think your quotes from the black leaders does not prove that minorities help shape images of the majority, but rather that minorities are often microcosms of the majority. Thus the small sect of society that is black falls in line with the majority’s homophobia, and the even smaller sect of gay people falls in step with the majority’s view of black people.
But I think we’re getting distracted. This is the main point.
“Courtship does often precede sex (though more often in the straight community then the gay one), but if someone is not sexually attracted to you it is because of the way you look, not your race. Saying you are not attracted to someone because of their race implies that all people of that race look the same. All black people do not look the same, and neither do all white people.”
I’d love to hear a logical rebuke of this assertion.
Ciao!
It is unfortunate that the site is censoring comments. But this should about do it for me.
Aulus did not say gay men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners than straight men. And neither did I. He said the following:
“Recent published statistics European have demonstrated that “white European homosexual males between the ages of 17 and 34 and white European females between the ages of 17 and 38″ are most likely to contract chlamydia and HIV through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. An interesting highlight in this study was the number of homosexual men who were presenting with chlamydia. This is the result of bi-sexual men engaging in unprotected sex with women as well as men. The statistics were the culmination of a highly controlled Europe-wide five year study and the results were shocking. So are white European men going to now discriminate against their own and seek out those whom are less likely to be infected with HIV or an STD, of course not.”
He said that gay white men are the most likely to contract these stds in Europe. The point was and still is that the likelihood of contracting an STD is not the real reason for excluding an entire group of people, because if it was then some homosexual sex acts would be eliminated all together. You listed that black people are more likely than white on average to have HIV, but you did not go on to list why as you did you with gay men. Which still reiterates my point that statistics by themselves mean absolutely nothing. You have to look at a whole bunch of statistical information to come up with a synthesis of information that is reliable.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5654MK20090706?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+reuters%252FhealthNews+%2528News+%252F+US+%252F+Health+News%2529
I love the bit about how prejudice plays into gay black men tending to sleep with each other.
And here is a study that indicates gay men are indeed more likely to engage in “risky behavior,” even though that was/is absolutely not my point. My point is only that you can find statistics to justify anything.
http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/1999/08200/Gay_men_report_high_rates_of_unprotected_anal_sex.13.aspx
Notice the bit at the beginning that says the following:
Objective: To examine patterns and factors that correlate with unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) practices among San Francisco gay men, including UAI with partners of unknown or different HIV antibody status.
Design: A longitudinal cohort recruited for the San Francisco Young Men‚s Health Study in 1992; re-assessed annually.
Participants and methods: A sample of 510 unmarried gay men who were 18 to 29years at baseline were originally recruited as part of a larger population and referral-based sample. Subjects participated in four consecutive waves of data collection.
Results: The prevalence of reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) increased from 37% to 50% between 1993-1994 and 1996-1997. Almost half of all men who reported UAI in 1996-1997 indicated that it occurred with a partner of unknown or discordant HIV antibody status. This high-risk practice correlated with greater numbers of male sex partners, use of nitrite inhalants, sex in commercial sex environments, perceived difficulty controlling sexual risk-taking, and negative emotional reactions following UAI.
Conclusions: These data on increasing rates of sexual risk-taking further confirm trends in sexual behavior previously suggested by rising rates of rectal gonorrhea in this population. Additional and sustained prevention efforts are urgently needed in light of the very high background rates of HIV infection found among gay men in San Francisco.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
I did not say they are more promiscuous, but rather that is what a lot of studies indicate. I went on further to assert that on its own, that factoid means nothing. So actually I did the exact opposite of what you are claiming I did which was to “repeat insidious rumors.” Also, the source of the information is the center for disease control. It is in the quote. Are you not paying attention?
I’m sorry. . . I’m getting confused. What is the name of this blog again? Are we arguing about whether or not the gay community faces stereotypes or whether or not black people are excluded within the gay community for “not being physically attractive” with the real reason is often an undercurrent of racism? How are any of these statistics related to whether or not someone will immediately dismiss the idea of dating someone because they are black?
I think your quotes from the black leaders does not prove that minorities help shape images of the majority, but rather that minorities are often microcosms of the majority. Thus the small sect of society that is black falls in line with the majority’s homophobia, and the even smaller sect of gay people falls in step with the majority’s view of black people.
But I think we’re getting distracted. This is the main point.
“Courtship does often precede sex (though more often in the straight community then the gay one), but if someone is not sexually attracted to you it is because of the way you look, not your race. Saying you are not attracted to someone because of their race implies that all people of that race look the same. All black people do not look the same, and neither do all white people.”
I’d love to hear a logical rebuke of this assertion.
Ciao!
Another Jeremy said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Aulus did not say gay men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners than straight men. And neither did I. He said the following:
“Recent published statistics European have demonstrated that “white European homosexual males between the ages of 17 and 34 and white European females between the ages of 17 and 38″ are most likely to contract chlamydia and HIV through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. An interesting highlight in this study was the number of homosexual men who were presenting with chlamydia. This is the result of bi-sexual men engaging in unprotected sex with women as well as men. The statistics were the culmination of a highly controlled Europe-wide five year study and the results were shocking. So are white European men going to now discriminate against their own and seek out those whom are less likely to be infected with HIV or an STD, of course not.”
He said that gay white men are the most likely to contract these stds in Europe. The point was and still is that the likelihood of contracting an STD is not the real reason for excluding an entire group of people, because if it was then some homosexual sex acts would be eliminated all together. You listed that black people are more likely than white on average to have HIV, but you did not go on to list why as you did you with gay men. Which still reiterates my point that statistics by themselves mean absolutely nothing. You have to look at a whole bunch of statistical information to come up with a synthesis of information that is reliable.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5654MK20090706?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+reuters%252FhealthNews+%2528News+%252F+US+%252F+Health+News%2529
And here is a study that indicates gay men are indeed more likely to engage in “risky behavior,” even though that was/is absolutely not my point. My point is only that you can find statistics to justify anything.
Notice the bit at the beginning that says the following:
Objective: To examine patterns and factors that correlate with unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) practices among San Francisco gay men, including UAI with partners of unknown or different HIV antibody status.
Design: A longitudinal cohort recruited for the San Francisco Young Men‚s Health Study in 1992; re-assessed annually.
Participants and methods: A sample of 510 unmarried gay men who were 18 to 29years at baseline were originally recruited as part of a larger population and referral-based sample. Subjects participated in four consecutive waves of data collection.
Results: The prevalence of reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) increased from 37% to 50% between 1993-1994 and 1996-1997. Almost half of all men who reported UAI in 1996-1997 indicated that it occurred with a partner of unknown or discordant HIV antibody status. This high-risk practice correlated with greater numbers of male sex partners, use of nitrite inhalants, sex in commercial sex environments, perceived difficulty controlling sexual risk-taking, and negative emotional reactions following UAI.
Conclusions: These data on increasing rates of sexual risk-taking further confirm trends in sexual behavior previously suggested by rising rates of rectal gonorrhea in this population. Additional and sustained prevention efforts are urgently needed in light of the very high background rates of HIV infection found among gay men in San Francisco.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several
Another Jeremy said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Aulus did not say gay men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners than straight men. And neither did I. He said the following:
“Recent published statistics European have demonstrated that “white European homosexual males between the ages of 17 and 34 and white European females between the ages of 17 and 38″ are most likely to contract chlamydia and HIV through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. An interesting highlight in this study was the number of homosexual men who were presenting with chlamydia. This is the result of bi-sexual men engaging in unprotected sex with women as well as men. The statistics were the culmination of a highly controlled Europe-wide five year study and the results were shocking. So are white European men going to now discriminate against their own and seek out those whom are less likely to be infected with HIV or an STD, of course not.”
He said that gay white men are the most likely to contract these stds in Europe. The point was and still is that the likelihood of contracting an STD is not the real reason for excluding an entire group of people, because if it was then some homosexual sex acts would be eliminated all together. You listed that black people are more likely than white on average to have HIV, but you did not go on to list why as you did you with gay men. Which still reiterates my point that statistics by themselves mean absolutely nothing. You have to look at a whole bunch of statistical information to come up with a synthesis of information that is reliable.
And here is a study that indicates gay men are indeed more likely to engage in “risky behavior,” even though that was/is absolutely not my point. My point is only that you can find statistics to justify anything.
Notice the bit at the beginning that says the following:
Objective: To examine patterns and factors that correlate with unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) practices among San Francisco gay men, including UAI with partners of unknown or different HIV antibody status.
Design: A longitudinal cohort recruited for the San Francisco Young Men‚s Health Study in 1992; re-assessed annually.
Participants and methods: A sample of 510 unmarried gay men who were 18 to 29years at baseline were originally recruited as part of a larger population and referral-based sample. Subjects participated in four consecutive waves of data collection.
Results: The prevalence of reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) increased from 37% to 50% between 1993-1994 and 1996-1997. Almost half of all men who reported UAI in 1996-1997 indicated that it occurred with a partner of unknown or discordant HIV antibody status. This high-risk practice correlated with greater numbers of male sex partners, use of nitrite inhalants, sex in commercial sex environments, perceived difficulty controlling sexual risk-taking, and negative emotional reactions following UAI.
Conclusions: These data on increasing rates of sexual risk-taking further confirm trends in sexual behavior previously suggested by rising rates of rectal gonorrhea in this population. Additional and sustained prevention efforts are urgently needed in light of the very high background rates of HIV infection found among gay men in San Francisco.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several
Another Jeremy said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Aulus did not say gay men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners than straight men. And neither did I. He said the following:
“Recent published statistics European have demonstrated that “white European homosexual males between the ages of 17 and 34 and white European females between the ages of 17 and 38″ are most likely to contract chlamydia and HIV through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. An interesting highlight in this study was the number of homosexual men who were presenting with chlamydia. This is the result of bi-sexual men engaging in unprotected sex with women as well as men. The statistics were the culmination of a highly controlled Europe-wide five year study and the results were shocking. So are white European men going to now discriminate against their own and seek out those whom are less likely to be infected with HIV or an STD, of course not.”
He said that gay white men are the most likely to contract these stds in Europe. The point was and still is that the likelihood of contracting an STD is not the real reason for excluding an entire group of people, because if it was then some homosexual sex acts would be eliminated all together. You listed that black people are more likely than white on average to have HIV, but you did not go on to list why as you did you with gay men. Which still reiterates my point that statistics by themselves mean absolutely nothing. You have to look at a whole bunch of statistical information to come up with a synthesis of information that is reliable.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5654MK20090706?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+reuters%252FhealthNews+%2528News+%252F+US+%252F+Health+News%2529
And here is a study that indicates gay men are indeed more likely to engage in “risky behavior,” even though that was/is absolutely not my point. My point is only that you can find statistics to justify anything.
http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/1999/08200/Gay_men_report_high_rates_of_unprotected_anal_sex.13.aspx
Notice the bit at the beginning that says the following:
Objective: To examine patterns and factors that correlate with unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) practices among San Francisco gay men, including UAI with partners of unknown or different HIV antibody status.
Design: A longitudinal cohort recruited for the San Francisco Young Men‚s Health Study in 1992; re-assessed annually.
Participants and methods: A sample of 510 unmarried gay men who were 18 to 29years at baseline were originally recruited as part of a larger population and referral-based sample. Subjects participated in four consecutive waves of data collection.
v Another Jeremy said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Aulus did not say gay men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners than straight men. And neither did I. He said the following:
“Recent published statistics European have demonstrated that “white European homosexual males between the ages of 17 and 34 and white European females between the ages of 17 and 38″ are most likely to contract chlamydia and HIV through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. An interesting highlight in this study was the number of homosexual men who were presenting with chlamydia. This is the result of bi-sexual men engaging in unprotected sex with women as well as men. The statistics were the culmination of a highly controlled Europe-wide five year study and the results were shocking. So are white European men going to now discriminate against their own and seek out those whom are less likely to be infected with HIV or an STD, of course not.”
He said that gay white men are the most likely to contract these stds in Europe. The point was and still is that the likelihood of contracting an STD is not the real reason for excluding an entire group of people, because if it was then some homosexual sex acts would be eliminated all together. You listed that black people are more likely than white on average to have HIV, but you did not go on to list why as you did you with gay men. Which still reiterates my point that statistics by themselves mean absolutely nothing. You have to look at a whole bunch of statistical information to come up with a synthesis of information that is reliable.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5654MK20090706?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+reuters%252FhealthNews+%2528News+%252F+US+%252F+Health+News%2529
And here is a study that indicates gay men are indeed more likely to engage in “risky behavior,” even though that was/is absolutely not my point. My point is only that you can find statistics to justify anything.
http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/1999/08200/Gay_men_report_high_rates_of_unprotected_anal_sex.13.aspx
Notice the bit at the beginning that says the following:
Objective: To examine patterns and factors that correlate with unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) practices among San Francisco gay men, including UAI with partners of unknown or different HIV antibody status.
Design: A longitudinal cohort recruited for the San Francisco Young Men‚s Health Study in 1992; re-assessed annually.
Participants and methods: A sample of 510 unmarried gay men who were 18 to 29years at baseline were originally recruited as part of a larger population and referral-based sample. Subjects participated in four consecutive waves of data collection.
Results: The prevalence of reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) increased from 37% to 50% between 1993-1994 and 1996-1997. Almost half of all men who reported UAI in 1996-1997 indicated that it occurred with a partner of unknown or discordant HIV antibody status. This high-risk practice correlated with greater numbers of male sex partners, use of nitrite inhalants, sex in commercial sex environments, perceived difficulty controlling sexual risk-taking, and negative emotional reactions following UAI.
Conclusions: These data on increasing rates of sexual risk-taking further confirm trends in sexual behavior previously suggested by rising rates of rectal gonorrhea in this population. Additional and sustained prevention efforts are urgently needed in light of the very high background rates of HIV infection found among gay men in San Francisco.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several
Notice the bit at the beginning that says the following:
Objective: To examine patterns and factors that correlate with unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) practices among San Francisco gay men, including UAI with partners of unknown or different HIV antibody status.
Design: A longitudinal cohort recruited for the San Francisco Young Men‚s Health Study in 1992; re-assessed annually.
Participants and methods: A sample of 510 unmarried gay men who were 18 to 29years at baseline were originally recruited as part of a larger population and referral-based sample. Subjects participated in four consecutive waves of data collection.
Results: The prevalence of reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) increased from 37% to 50% between 1993-1994 and 1996-1997. Almost half of all men who reported UAI in 1996-1997 indicated that it occurred with a partner of unknown or discordant HIV antibody status. This high-risk practice correlated with greater numbers of male sex partners, use of nitrite inhalants, sex in commercial sex environments, perceived difficulty controlling sexual risk-taking, and negative emotional reactions following UAI.
Conclusions: These data on increasing rates of sexual risk-taking further confirm trends in sexual behavior previously suggested by rising rates of rectal gonorrhea in this population. Additional and sustained prevention efforts are urgently needed in light of the very high background rates of HIV infection found among gay men in San Francisco.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several
http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/1999/08200/Gay_men_report_high_rates_of_unprotected_anal_sex.13.aspx
Above is a study that indicates gay men are indeed more likely to engage in “risky behavior,” even though that was/is absolutely not my point. My point is only that you can find statistics to justify anything. Here is one that offers insight into why black people have such high instances of HIV. (Which you conveniently did not research.)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5654MK20090706?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+reuters%252FhealthNews+%2528News+%252F+US+%252F+Health+News%2529
I had to submit my long comment out of order because this site is not letting put in long comments anymore.
Ciao!
@Another Jeremy: “Aulus did not say gay men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners than straight men. And neither did I.”
You’re half right, I was mistaken. I thought that you were quoting Aulus when you were actually just re-pasting one of your own woefully misinformed comments, which was:
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do.”
I am still waiting for anyone to show me all these studies which show that gay guys have “several times” the sexual partners of heterosexual men. As in, you are using multiplication. I called bullshit on that. Why? Because it’s bullshit. Although we certainly don’t have 100% of the facts, we do know, based on a study that I cited of a large survey of Americans, that gay men have roughly the same number of unprotected sex partners per year as straight men and lesbians. The reason for the discrepancy in HIV transmission rates is because unprotected anal sex is significantly more likely to spread HIV than unprotected vaginal sex.
Again, please do show me all these studies that you’re talking about. Until then, judging by the way in which we have caught you with your pants down, it looks glaringly obvious that you persist in relying on a stereotype about gay men. And you know what, if this were some superficial issue, I’d let it go. But it’s not. Thousands of people are needlessly getting sick and dying in my city – and this crisis-times-ten is by far disproportionately affecting black people. And yes, I have very solid evidence when I say that the rate of HIV among blacks in the United States is “many times more” than among whites, gay and straight. As in, I’m correctly using that third grade mathematical concept known as multiplication. When you propagate misinformation about HIV, as you clearly have, you are putting people’s lives at risk. Stop.
Look, I know we’re all generally trying to be progressive here at TNG. I actually consider myself a progressive too. But that does not give us an excuse to ignore or distort a dangerous reality, just because it’s uncomfortable.
I also think it’s rather bigoted to assume that black people aren’t capable of doing anything wrong, just because they face oppression in society. That white men are the only ones who promote stereotypes. We have got to free our minds from that sort of paternalistic Old (White) Left nonsense. And yes, I have clearly acknowledged that there is structural oppression against blacks (e.g., access to health care), and most likely this too plays a role in the exorbitant rates of HIV among the black community in DC.
I’m sorry, for those of my fellow nice white people who would rather discuss gentrification over a five dollar latte with other white people at some nice new little coffee shop in Petworth, but the reality is that many black leaders, including some of the most powerful ones in DC, are completely ignoring the gay people in their own community by propagating the stereotype of the gay man as white and wealthy (and implicitly racist), and that this deliberately ignorant behavior is contributing to enormously devastating effects on the black community. Study after study shows that.
@ Nom
Do you have a learning disability? MY REFERENCE TO STATISTICAL INFORMATION REGARDING GAY MEN HAVING MANY MORE TIMES THE NUMBER SEXUAL PARTNERS THAN STRAIGHT MEN DO WAS TO DISCREDIT THESE CLAIMS AS INCOMPLETE, NOT HOLD THAT THEY ARE TRUE! This was stated in the quote from which you curiously selected one sentence which completely took it out of its original context.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_number_of_sex_partners_a_gay_man_has_in_a_lifetime
The point wasn’t that statistics like these are true, but THAT THEY MEAN NOTHING WITHOUT A PROPER CONTEXT. See how the first one holds that gay men have an average of 20-106 partners and straight men have an average of 8? Twenty is 2.5 times 8. And 106 is 13 times 8. So yes there is information that states that gay men have many more times the number of sexual partners that straight people do (as in multiplication), but the point is that YOU CAN FIND STATISTICS TO JUSTIFY ANY CLAIM YOU FUCKING WANT. I have said that now numerous times. Also there was NEVER ANY CLAIM TO PROMISCUITY BEING RELATED TO HIV EXCEPT AS A REFERENCE TO BIASES FROM HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE. ARE YOU EVEN READING THIS SHIT BEFORE YOU RESPOND?
AND NONE OF THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE OR MY ARGUMENT.
You clearly do not have the intellect to form rational arguments which has been displayed by your incendiary use of HIV in the black community as a red herring to distract from the issue of dating/physical attractions.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
It has been displayed as a red herring for the following reasons:
1. It implies that a physical attraction invariably leads to sexual behavior. Just because you find someone attractive or want to date them does not mean you will engage in a sex act with them.
2. It implies that avoidance of HIV is a primary issue across the dating field, and not just within the black community. This make no sense because gay men make up a disproportionate number of HIV contractions in society at large and yet there is no equivalence of gay white men avoiding each other for straight men in the name of “safety.”
3.Most importantly, you went out and delved deeper into the “cold hard science” that says gay men have more instances of HIV then straight men, but did not do the same for black people. You use statistics to to justify the exclusion of black men, and then get utterly hysterical when faced with the realization that the same idiotic arguments could be leveled against the gay community by the heterosexual one. You are an utter hypocrite.
The statement was inflammatory, and had no bearing on whether or not one should be attracted to someone of the opposite race. The use of comparisons between stats aimed at the gay community was to prove that this information often displays ignorance. Just like talking about the disproportionate rate of HIV in the black community displays ignorance without mentioning that they are the least desired partners in the gay community, and thus are three times more likely to have with other black men then they would be otherwise displays. Statistical information without a proper context displays intellectual dishonesty.
Your moronic tirade about me putting innocent lives at danger just demonstrates your lack of intuition/reading comprehension. I have made no false assertions about gay men or HIV, but have made several references to the various ways in which statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate claims. Your past few posts have made no sense and haven’t even attempted to address the issue of whether or not saying you are not attracted to one race is an inherently racist statement. It is. No one has made one logical assertion to the contrary. That’s why we’re sitting here arguing an issue that was never raised at all in the manner you are presenting it.
@ Nom
Do you have a learning disability? MY REFERENCE TO STATISTICAL INFORMATION REGARDING GAY MEN HAVING MANY MORE TIMES THE NUMBER SEXUAL PARTNERS THAN STRAIGHT MEN DO WAS TO DISCREDIT THESE CLAIMS AS INCOMPLETE, NOT HOLD THAT THEY ARE TRUE! This was stated in the quote from which you curiously selected one sentence which completely took it out of its original context.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_number_of_sex_partners_a_gay_man_has_in_a_lifetime
The point wasn’t that statistics like these are true, but THAT THEY MEAN NOTHING WITHOUT A PROPER CONTEXT. See how the first one holds that gay men have an average of 20-106 partners and straight men have an average of 8? Twenty is 2.5 times 8. And 106 is 13 times 8. So yes there is information that states that gay men have many more times the number of sexual partners that straight people do (as in multiplication), but the point is that YOU CAN FIND STATISTICS TO JUSTIFY ANY CLAIM YOU FUCKING WANT. I have said that now numerous times. Also there was NEVER ANY CLAIM TO PROMISCUITY BEING RELATED TO HIV EXCEPT AS A REFERENCE TO BIASES FROM HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE. ARE YOU EVEN READING THIS SHIT BEFORE YOU RESPOND?
AND NONE OF THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE OR MY ARGUMENT.
You clearly do not have the intellect to form rational arguments which has been displayed by your incendiary use of HIV in the black community as a red herring to distract from the issue of dating/physical attractions.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
It has been displayed as a red herring for the following reasons:
1. It implies that a physical attraction invariably leads to sexual behavior. Just because you find someone attractive or want to date them does not mean you will engage in a sex act with them.
2. It implies that avoidance of HIV is a primary issue across the dating field, and not just within the black community. This make no sense because gay men make up a disproportionate number of HIV contractions in society at large and yet there is no equivalence of gay white men avoiding each other for straight men in the name of “safety.”
3.Most importantly, you went out and delved deeper into the “cold hard science” that says gay men have more instances of HIV then straight men, but did not do the same for black people. You use statistics to to justify the exclusion of black men, and then get utterly hysterical when faced with the realization that the same idiotic arguments could be leveled against the gay community by the heterosexual one. You are an utter hypocrite.
The statement was inflammatory, and had no bearing on whether or not one should be attracted to someone of the opposite race. The use of comparisons between stats aimed at the gay community was to prove that this information often displays ignorance. Just like talking about the disproportionate rate of HIV in the black community displays ignorance without mentioning that they are the least desired partners in the gay community, and thus are three times more likely to have with other black men then they would be otherwise displays. Statistical information without a proper context displays intellectual dishonesty.
Your moronic tirade about me putting innocent lives at danger just demonstrates your lack of intuition/reading comprehension. I have made no false assertions about gay men or HIV, but have made several references to the various ways in which statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate claims. Your past few posts have made no sense and haven’t even attempted to address the issue of whether or not saying you are not attracted to one race is an inherently racist statement. It is. No one has made one logical assertion to the contrary. That’s why we’re sitting here arguing an issue that was never raised at all in the manner you are presenting it.
Ciao!
Do you have a learning disability? MY REFERENCE TO STATISTICAL INFORMATION REGARDING GAY MEN HAVING MANY MORE TIMES THE NUMBER SEXUAL PARTNERS THAN STRAIGHT MEN DO WAS TO DISCREDIT THESE CLAIMS AS INCOMPLETE, NOT HOLD THAT THEY ARE TRUE! This was stated in the quote from which you curiously selected one sentence which completely took it out of its original context.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_number_of_sex_partners_a_gay_man_has_in_a_lifetime
@ Nom
Do you have a learning disability? MY REFERENCE TO STATISTICAL INFORMATION REGARDING GAY MEN HAVING MANY MORE TIMES THE NUMBER SEXUAL PARTNERS THAN STRAIGHT MEN DO WAS TO DISCREDIT THESE CLAIMS AS INCOMPLETE, NOT HOLD THAT THEY ARE TRUE! This was stated in the quote from which you curiously selected one sentence which completely took it out of its original context.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_number_of_sex_partners_a_gay_man_has_in_a_lifetime
The point wasn’t that statistics like these are true, but THAT THEY MEAN NOTHING WITHOUT A PROPER CONTEXT. See how the first one holds that gay men have an average of 20-106 partners and straight men have an average of 8? Twenty is 2.5 times 8. And 106 is 13 times 8. So yes there is information that states that gay men have many more times the number of sexual partners that straight people do (as in multiplication), but the point is that YOU CAN FIND STATISTICS TO JUSTIFY ANY CLAIM YOU FUCKING WANT. I have said that now numerous times. Also there was NEVER ANY CLAIM TO PROMISCUITY BEING RELATED TO HIV EXCEPT AS A REFERENCE TO BIASES FROM HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE. ARE YOU EVEN READING THIS SHIT BEFORE YOU RESPOND?
Do you have a learning disability? MY REFERENCE TO STATISTICAL INFORMATION REGARDING GAY MEN HAVING MANY MORE TIMES THE NUMBER SEXUAL PARTNERS THAN STRAIGHT MEN DO WAS TO DISCREDIT THESE CLAIMS AS INCOMPLETE, NOT HOLD THAT THEY ARE TRUE! This was stated in the quote from which you curiously selected one sentence which completely took it out of its original context.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_number_of_sex_partners_a_gay_man_has_in_a_lifetime
The point wasn’t that statistics like these are true, but THAT THEY MEAN NOTHING WITHOUT A PROPER CONTEXT. See how the first one holds that gay men have an average of 20-106 partners and straight men have an average of 8? Twenty is 2.5 times 8. And 106 is 13 times 8. So yes there is information that states that gay men have many more times the number of sexual partners that straight people do (as in multiplication), but the point is that YOU CAN FIND STATISTICS TO JUSTIFY ANY CLAIM YOU FUCKING WANT. I have said that now numerous times. Also there was NEVER ANY CLAIM TO PROMISCUITY BEING RELATED TO HIV EXCEPT AS A REFERENCE TO BIASES FROM HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE. ARE YOU EVEN READING THIS SHIT BEFORE YOU RESPOND?
AND NONE OF THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE OR MY ARGUMENT.
You clearly do not have the intellect to form rational arguments which has been displayed by your incendiary use of HIV in the black community as a red herring to distract from the issue of dating/physical attractions.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
It has been displayed as a red herring for the following reasons:
1. It implies that a physical attraction invariably leads to sexual behavior. Just because you find someone attractive or want to date them does not mean you will engage in a sex act with them.
2. It implies that avoidance of HIV is a primary issue across the dating field, and not just within the black community. This make no sense because gay men make up a disproportionate number of HIV contractions in society at large and yet there is no equivalence of gay white men avoiding each other for straight men in the name of “safety.”
3.Most importantly, you went out and delved deeper into the “cold hard science” that says gay men have more instances of HIV then straight men, but did not do the same for black people. You use statistics to to justify the exclusion of black men, and then get utterly hysterical when faced with the realization that the same idiotic arguments could be leveled against the gay community by the heterosexual one. You are an utter hypocrite.
The statement was inflammatory, and had no bearing on whether or not one should be attracted to someone of the opposite race. The use of comparisons between stats aimed at the gay community was to prove that this information often displays ignorance. Just like talking about the disproportionate rate of HIV in the black community displays ignorance without mentioning that they are the least desired partners in the gay community, and thus are three times more likely to have with other black men then they would be otherwise displays. Statistical information without a proper context displays intellectual dishonesty.
Your moronic tirade about me putting innocent lives at danger just demonstrates your lack of intuition/reading comprehension. I have made no false assertions about gay men or HIV, but have made several references to the various ways in which statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate claims. Your past few posts have made no sense and haven’t even attempted to address the issue of whether or not saying you are not attracted to one race is an inherently racist statement. It is. No one has made one logical assertion to the contrary. That’s why we’re sitting here arguing an issue that was never raised at all in the manner you are presenting it.
Do you have a learning disability? MY REFERENCE TO STATISTICAL INFORMATION REGARDING GAY MEN HAVING MANY MORE TIMES THE NUMBER SEXUAL PARTNERS THAN STRAIGHT MEN DO WAS TO DISCREDIT THESE CLAIMS AS INCOMPLETE, NOT HOLD THAT THEY ARE TRUE! This was stated in the quote from which you curiously selected one sentence which completely took it out of its original context.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_number_of_sex_partners_a_gay_man_has_in_a_lifetime
The point wasn’t that statistics like these are true, but THAT THEY MEAN NOTHING WITHOUT A PROPER CONTEXT. See how the first one holds that gay men have an average of 20-106 partners and straight men have an average of 8? Twenty is 2.5 times 8. And 106 is 13 times 8. So yes there is information that states that gay men have many more times the number of sexual partners that straight people do (as in multiplication), but the point is that YOU CAN FIND STATISTICS TO JUSTIFY ANY CLAIM YOU FUCKING WANT. I have said that now numerous times. Also there was NEVER ANY CLAIM TO PROMISCUITY BEING RELATED TO HIV EXCEPT AS A REFERENCE TO BIASES FROM HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE. ARE YOU EVEN READING THIS SHIT BEFORE YOU RESPOND?
The point wasn’t that statistics like these are true, but THAT THEY MEAN NOTHING WITHOUT A PROPER CONTEXT. See how the first one holds that gay men have an average of 20-106 partners and straight men have an average of 8? Twenty is 2.5 times 8. And 106 is 13 times 8. So yes there is information that states that gay men have many more times the number of sexual partners that straight people do (as in multiplication), but the point is that YOU CAN FIND STATISTICS TO JUSTIFY ANY CLAIM YOU FUCKING WANT. I have said that now numerous times. Also there was NEVER ANY CLAIM TO PROMISCUITY BEING RELATED TO HIV EXCEPT AS A REFERENCE TO BIASES FROM HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE. ARE YOU EVEN READING THIS SHIT BEFORE YOU RESPOND?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_number_of_sex_partners_a_gay_man_has_in_a_lifetime
It would not let me post this stupid thing in order.
@ Nom
Do you have a learning disability? MY REFERENCE TO STATISTICAL INFORMATION REGARDING GAY MEN HAVING MANY MORE TIMES THE NUMBER SEXUAL PARTNERS THAN STRAIGHT MEN DO WAS TO DISCREDIT THESE CLAIMS AS INCOMPLETE, NOT HOLD THAT THEY ARE TRUE! This was stated in the quote from which you curiously selected one sentence which completely took it out of its original context.
“Study after study indicates that homosexual men have several times the sexual partners that heterosexual men do. According to the center for disease control, gay men make up approximately 2% of the population and yet accounted for over half of the new cases of HIV in 2006. Does this mean that heterosexual people are justified in regarding gay men as promiscuous, disease-ridden, morally bankrupt sluts? On its face this could most certainly be true. But what exactly do those statistics really mean?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_number_of_sex_partners_a_gay_man_has_in_a_lifetime
The point wasn’t that statistics like these are true, but THAT THEY MEAN NOTHING WITHOUT A PROPER CONTEXT. See how the first one holds that gay men have an average of 20-106 partners and straight men have an average of 8? Twenty is 2.5 times 8. And 106 is 13 times 8. So yes there is information that states that gay men have many more times the number of sexual partners that straight people do (as in multiplication), but the point is that YOU CAN FIND STATISTICS TO JUSTIFY ANY CLAIM YOU FUCKING WANT. I have said that now numerous times. Also there was NEVER ANY CLAIM TO PROMISCUITY BEING RELATED TO HIV EXCEPT AS A REFERENCE TO BIASES FROM HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE. ARE YOU EVEN READING THIS SHIT BEFORE YOU RESPOND?
AND NONE OF THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE OR MY ARGUMENT.
You clearly do not have the intellect to form rational arguments which has been displayed by your incendiary use of HIV in the black community as a red herring to distract from the issue of dating/physical attractions.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
It has been displayed as a red herring for the following reasons:
1. It implies that a physical attraction invariably leads to sexual behavior. Just because you find someone attractive or want to date them does not mean you will engage in a sex act with them.
2. It implies that avoidance of HIV is a primary issue across the dating field, and not just within the black community. This make no sense because gay men make up a disproportionate number of HIV contractions in society at large and yet there is no equivalence of gay white men avoiding each other for straight men in the name of “safety.”
3.Most importantly, you went out and delved deeper into the “cold hard science” that says gay men have more instances of HIV then straight men, but did not do the same for black people. You use statistics to to justify the exclusion of black men, and then get utterly hysterical when faced with the realization that the same idiotic arguments could be leveled against the gay community by the heterosexual one. You are an utter hypocrite.
The statement was inflammatory, and had no bearing on whether or not one should be attracted to someone of the opposite race. The use of comparisons between stats aimed at the gay community was to prove that this information often displays ignorance. Just like talking about the disproportionate rate of HIV in the black community displays ignorance without mentioning that they are the least desired partners in the gay community, and thus are three times more likely to have with other black men then they would be otherwise displays. Statistical information without a proper context displays intellectual dishonesty.
Your moronic tirade about me putting innocent lives at danger just demonstrates your lack of intuition/reading comprehension. I have made no false assertions about gay men or HIV, but have made several references to the various ways in which statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate claims. Your past few posts have made no sense and haven’t even attempted to address the issue of whether or not saying you are not attracted to one race is an inherently racist statement. It is. No one has made one logical assertion to the contrary. That’s why we’re sitting here arguing an issue that was never raised at all in the manner you are presenting it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_number_of_sex_partners_a_gay_man_has_in_a_lifetime
My last posts are woefully out of order. The order they were intended to be seen in this way
1. @ now
2. then links
3. then it wasn’t that the stats were true
4. then and none of that was the point
5. the one ending with ciao
@Another Jeremy, who said:
“talking about the disproportionate rate of HIV in the black community displays ignorance without mentioning that they are the least desired partners in the gay community, and thus are three times more likely to have with other black men then they would be otherwise displays. Statistical information without a proper context displays intellectual dishonesty.”
So, for you, the appropriate context is solely that black guys are the least desired sex partners? There’s no other context to the high rates of HIV in the black community? So, when I brought up contextual information such as unequal access to health care, or the fact that many black leaders refuse to even acknowledge the existence of homosexuality in their own community… those things weren’t relevant? For you, the high rates of HIV among black gay men are entirely the fault of gay white males, who are categorically racist and who don’t sleep with black guys often enough.
Oh, and your comment about black men being “three times more likely to sleep with other black men” needs some context. It was taken from a study conducted in San Francisco. Context: blacks are roughly 8% of the population in SF. More context: In DC, blacks are the majority (56%) and whites are a minority (36%). Further context: the report’s authors concluded that “social networks and access to community spaces may be the areas most amenable to action” to correct this problem. Which is exactly what I have argued — that we need more social interaction.
Again, I only bring this up because someone way up above said that white men aren’t sleeping with black guys because of a rumor about black guys being more likely to have HIV. I corrected his assertion that this information was a rumor, because it’s actually true. I also made clear that this information should not be used as a reason to marginalize black people.
A big part of this discussion has centered around the notion that, in the gay community, young fit white males are perceived to be the most desirable. Believe me, as one of these guys, I wholeheartedly agree that this dynamic exists. The question is why.
Many commenters suggest that the only reason why this exists, is either:
(a) because most or all gay white males are racists who think they’re better than everyone else, and/or
(b) because there are powerful white men who perpetuate a stereotype of gay men as white and wealthy, usually through pop culture, which influences our hierarchies of desire.
My response to (a) has been that this is a stereotype of gay white males. I acknowledge that there are indeed gay white males who are racists, or who either knowingly or unknowingly perpetuate racist structures in society, but that saying we all think we’re better than everyone else is a stereotype. I suggest that this caricature is also often drawn by powerful black men who are trying to increase their power by promoting a false gay/black dichotomy (e.g., Marion Barry’s “civil war”), and in so doing, they are ignoring the existence of black gay men. I argue further, that this ignorance among some black community leaders, does in fact contribute to the high rates of HIV in the black community.
My response to (b) is that yes, there are powerful white men who ignore the existence of black gay men when they create pop culture. I only add that white men aren’t the only ones actively ignoring the existence of black gay men — leaders and pop culture figures in the black community do it too.
But, you may argue, why should I, a white man, bring up these black leaders in the first place? Well, here’s where it gets complex. Way back when the Supreme Court decided to return Dred Scott to his owner, the “justices” based their argument on the false claim that blacks, being property, are not people. Property cannot act in a court of law – only people can act. This was obviously racist. Fast forward to today, when many (especially liberals) will not even countenance the idea that the black community might have a problem with homophobia that relies on their own self-constructed stereotypes about gay people. I suggest that this tendency is a recycled continuation of the same old assumptions, just under the guise of being progressive. This logic is problematic because it basically treats blacks in a similar way to children. For example, when a toddler scribbles crayon all over the walls, we don’t get all that upset because, after all, he doesn’t know any better. Worst case, we put him in “time out.” I suggest that many white liberals treat blacks in a similar manner, as being categorically innocent, and thus not capable of really making an error, because they just don’t know any better. So us adults (white people) blame ourselves for not sufficiently educating the kids (black people) or for some other fault of our own. When one of “them” invariably makes a mistake, the best we can do is put them in time out (prison). The bottom line is, no matter what problems may arise in society, the cause and solution rests with white people alone.
As for me, I treat black people as adults. For me, adults are capable of reflective thought, and as such, they can be held accountable for their actions, whether for good or bad. I think that black people are perfectly capable of educating themselves about things like the causes of HIV without the help of white people. I also think that black political and religious leaders, like Marion Barry and Bishop Jackson, can and should be held to account when they make ignorant comments about gay people, because even if they don’t know any better, they ought to. Because they’re grown-ups, and because their ignorance hurts all LGBT people, and black LGBT people most of all.
So, here’s the thing. You and I can both agree that there are powerful white men who promote a stereotype of gays as white and wealthy, which is basically a projection of their realities onto all gay men. As a white man, I’m willing to call these guys out for the harm they cause. I’m asking you, as I assume based on other comments that you’re a black man (but do correct me if I’m mistaken), to also have the courage to speak out against leaders in your own community, those who also ignore the very existence, let alone value or beauty, of gay black people. This silence plays a strong role in causing black gay men to not value themselves as desirable, because they have internalized the ignorant fairy tales that are spun by both powerful white and black men. I have met and supported awesome people like Rev. Darlene Garner (an elder at Metropolitan Community Church who was one of the first lesbians to marry in DC) for example, in speaking out against Bishop Jackson. I understand that what I’m asking you to do is harder than what I’m willing to do, because I’m white. That’s why I call on all of us to support people like you in speaking truth to power. Not simply because it’ll make my life easier, but because it will more directly benefit you as a black gay man.
@ Nom
You have an uncanny ability to argue points that have not been raised and alter the ones that have been made to make yourself sound less ridiculous. You have been called out for so many outright lies that at this point my engaging you is just a form of intellectual masturbation. You don’t even attempt to argue the meat of my posts, and this is just fun now.
This was your original statement regarding HIV in the black community.
Rob, to be fair, it is true that Black men who have sex with men (MSM) are indeed more likely to be HIV-positive. That certainly doesn’t justify discrimination, but I don’t think we can write off that sentiment as simple-minded “ignorance and fear” when it is backed up by study after study. For example, here’s the DC government’s most recent study on HIV rates among MSM, broken down by race and age:
http://bit.ly/ax2zFe [pdf]
The sample was only 500 men, but the findings were rather remarkable. For example, among Black MSM in DC over age 30, nearly one in three (!) were HIV positive, whereas *none* of the White MSM in DC under age 30 who were surveyed tested positive. (White men over 30 were 12.8% positive, and MSM of color under 30 were 12.2% positive) You could probably interpret the causes of these findings in many ways, but the facts are what they are. The study notes that, of course, there certainly are white guys under 30 with HIV, but that clearly the number is very low.
This statement has none of the contextual information you just tried to use at all. You have never uttered one syllable on this blog about unequal access to health care for blacks or the black to white ratio in DC. You threw out a statistic that means nothing by itself under the guise of presenting a fact, and then shrieked to the high heavens when I used a counter example about how similar stats within the gay community can be used to perpetuate prejudices. And just now you used the percentage of black people in the gay population in San Francisco to weaken the impact of a study that I cited without ever holding any of your stats to the same scrutiny.
And your reference to the black leaders had nothing to do with putting HIV within the black community in context. You were using it to “prove” that black people often stereotype of gay white people. You have still missed the point of the argument against reverse racism.
1. It does not excuse racism by the majority.
2. These instances happen far less often than racism from the majority, and any equivalency between the two is a false one. Since white people are the majority, it stands to reason that more black people will experience racism at the hands of a white person then the other way around. It is not a stereotype of white people to say that most instances of racism will happen at the hands of the majority (white) than the minority (black). The equivalency between the two is false.
This is common sense and it has been already been argued.
The argument has never been that all/or most gay white people are racist, but that many willfully exclude the possibility of dating/being intimate with a black person as a result of racism.
It is only “true” that black people are more likely to have HIV depending on where you are. You were not at all interested in Aulus’s European study because you “do not live in Europe.” Did Rob say where he was from? No. So how can you say this is “true” instead of a rumor unless you know where he is? And the point was not even whether or not the statistical information was true, but rather that it is the real reason why gay white men tend to “have a preference against” black gay men. It is not. If it was, then equal caution would be used by the white gay community with respect to dating each other instead of going after straight men.
Your call for me to educate other black people about HIV and prejudices within their own community because they’ve been rendered imbecilic as a result of white guilt since Dred Scott is utterly obscene. Do you even know what that assertion means? Even though you said you think black people are perfectly capable, you essentially argued THE EXACT OPPOSITE. You implied that without white people, black people are child-like and thus incapable of self-evaluations that will lead to the logical conclusions that there are gays in their community and that they are perpetuating stereotypes about gay men. White people have known the truth for a while now and have graciously agreed to keep quiet about this because of the legacy of slavery. All of this was used to assert that black people are propagating inaccurate/incomplete information about HIV in their community which is EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID. You want to call out black leaders for not acknowledging the existence of gay people within their own, but have made no call for gay leaders to acknowledge the blacks within the gay community. Nor have you made any call to right wing, white homophobic leaders who are the primary culprits of homophobia in this country. Are you actually trying to conflate Harry Jackson’s off color comments with the institutionalized discrimination that has been fostered by white political figures who enjoy far more influence? Of course black people can influence society, but the examples you gave are screamed louder and longer by white conservatives than black liberals! The people who are actively having the biggest negative impact on the white gay community (and the gay community at large) are Republicans like John McCain, not this handful of black civil rights leaders?!?
You have said that black people are unaware that there is a high instance of HIV with their community and now you, as a white person, have deigned to take up the sword to teach them what they are too stupid to figure out on their own. But then when this same kind of attack is launched against white gays people by black people (like Aulus’s study of white European gay men), there is just more to the story that they are too ignorant to know. For statistics used against the gay community everyone just needs to be better informed as to the real reasons why there are such high instances of HIV, but within the black community it’s primarily their own leaders and general lack of knowledge. This is utter hypocrisy and a textbook example of racial supremacy.
You have sat here all week and argued that white gay men are especially aggrieved within the gay community just like black people are. They are not. You cannot isolate black homophobia from the homophobia/racism in society at large. In the 11th hour you switched to this tactic of asking everyone to take a unified stand against prejudice (a far cry from your last post in which you were falsely accusing me of putting lives at risk), but your arguments have always been aimed at silencing or weakening the idea that racism plays a big part in white people having an “affinity” for selecting partners within their own race. You have characterized the issue as though black people are the biggest culprits in perpetuating homophobia against gay white men. In reality these culprits are primarily right-wing white men.
If you want to treat black people like adults then you shouldn’t feel any need to justify their exclusion or blame it on them. If it has nothing to do with racism there is no reason for you to be defensive. I am arguing against racism, not white people who do not currently sleep with/date a black person.
So here’s where we are.
First you were arguing that black men are more likely to have HIV than any other race, then said you didn’t mean that to discriminate, and then went on to ignore Aulus’s study that held that white men are most likely to have HIV in Europe.
Then you mentioned that we must address other races’s exclusivity, but this was of course rebutted by the Clark doll study that demonstrated that black people viewed themselves as ugly because of the control white people had over society’s perceptions of beauty.
Next it was that one should not be called racist anymore then someone who is called sexist for not sleeping with women, ageist to avoid old people, etc. This was rebutted in my first comment which held that there is a fundamental difference between having a preference FOR something and having a bias AGAINST something. You then repeated that in your own words as though you were the first one to come to that conclusion.
You then said that it’s a stereotype to say that all white gay men are racist failing to mention that no one said they are. The argument has always been that the exclusion of black men because they are “physically unattractive” is often a veil for racism. Which was substantiated by Aulus’s project in which white people had their skin digitally altered in photos. Further, the use of reverse racism as an argument draws a false parallel. These instances are, by their very definition, rarities.
Then you tried to say that I was just as guilty of stereotyping gay men by saying they are more promiscuous then straight men and that it had nothing to do with their high rate of HIV contractions. You did not interpret the use of that information correctly at all. I did not say that gay were more likely to have HIV than straight people. I was using this information to demonstrate how prejudices can be spread with the use of “cold hard science.”
Then you tried to say I made those studies up and was spreading lies about HIV and endangering lives. So I showed you the stats I was talking about. Then I reiterated the irony about your use of statistical information to justify white racism, but then discrediting the same kind of “science” as incomplete when used to propagate hetero-centric ideas about gay promiscuity.
And now you are saying that black leaders hold just as much responsibility for the image of the black gay man as lesser as gay white men, but then made no reference to homophobia/racism in our entire society at large which magnifies the role that black leaders play in holding black gays down. The fact remains that the primary oppressors of all these groups (gay, black and gays who are black) are white. Not because they are all bigots, but because WHITE PEOPLE ARE THE MAJORITY. The only view that you have consistently asserted this entire time is that you are indignant about black people calling white behavior racist. But none of that has anything to do with whether or saying you are not attracted to someone because they are black is an example of racism. It is.
Ciao!
I personally am attracted to people that are different than me… although I am kind of tall and prefer people around the same height or taller (I think it’s because I don’t want to feel dominant.) But as for race… well, the best sex I ever had was with someone of a different race than me, and although he was a little thin for my tastes he was uniquely beautiful.
I like the idea of finding a partner who’s different than me in all sorts of ways (not just physical.) I think it would help complete me as a person. I’d like to grow from my relationship… find a love that helps me to be a better version of myself. (You can puke from how sappy that was if you want to, but it’s sincere.)
I’m a 24 year-old gay black male living in Austin, TX and can personally attest to the validity of the “black aversion phenomena” discussed in this thread.
Austin is by all accounts, a very white city — and the gay community even moreso. It has been my experience that the gay white men here are extremely prejudiced and averse to ANY kind of interaction with black men.
And this seems to be heightened online — black men are frequently explicitely excluded when looking for sex, dates, and even friendship. I was SO hurt when a few months ago I placed an ad on craigslist’s platonic m4m section describing myself in hopes of meeting new gay friends.
Five men — all white and Latino answered. Two in particular were actually from my native Chicago and we shared many of the same interests. But wouldn’t you know – as soon as they found out I was black, the conversation was over.
It was just really shocking.
I don’t feel my experiences are out of the ordinary, and I don’t think Austin’s gay white men are any more or less racist than the general gay white population.
Yet, I get very mixed messages because in person, and at bars I’m often complimented and white guys try to hook up with me. I look the same in person than I do online — why such a disparity?
All in all, the message I get is just that I’m at the lowest of the low in terms of sexual desirability and am not worthy of even establishing a friendship with.
It hurts.
@ Christopher
I certainly empathize with your experience, and agree that there’s no need for people to be completely writing off any group of people, and that this happens more often online. I’ve come to realize that it’s better for people to just talk about what they are looking for (whatever that may be), instead of what they’re not.
But here’s where I have trouble. On the one hand, you make a generalization about gay white men in Austin as being “extremely prejudiced” and then you talk about going to bars and being in public and meeting white guys who want to interact and hook up with you. So which is it? Are the gay white males really, as a group, “extremely prejudiced”? Or, is it perhaps just that the people who hang around the internet all day are more prejudiced? These, of course, being the same folks who probably have more difficulty with face-to-face social interaction to begin with.
Again, I ask people to consider the assumptions they make about groups of people. As a gay white male, “it hurts” to be lumped in and branded with a capital-R racist before anyone even has a chance to meet me. I mean, if I took your same sentence about “the gay white men here are extremely prejudiced” and just changed two words, “the gay black men here are extremely loud” everyone would instantly recognize the problem with making such a sweeping generalization. So why can’t we get the same basic respect in return? I don’t think I’m asking all that much of people.
@ Nom:
I should clarify a few points I made.
First, I stand by my statement that most gay white men in Austin are prejudiced. Yes, it’s true, when I go out I am often lauded for my good looks, and the attention is mostly from white men.
But considering that the gay clubs here cater to a largely white clientele, it’s not entirely surprising that a few men out of hundreds in any given club would find me attractive.
This doesn’t negate the fact that the socioethnic dynamics of gay society here devalue men of color (most notably black men) while objectifying, dare I say, fetishizing white men.
Do I think EVERY gay white man in Austin is prejudiced? Absolutely not. Do I think most are? Most definitely.
I’ve realized though that it’s really a waste of time to discuss this. Invariably, most people will continue to stay within their comfort zones when looking for sex, dates, and friends. And unfortunately, for many gay men, this means limiting themselves to one race.
@ Christopher
I appreciate the clarification, but I still think your argument is laden with contradiction. On the one hand, you decry social dynamics that ascribe negative characteristics to black men as a group (which thereby devalues their desirability) and yet, you have no problem ascribing negative characteristics to white men as a group (they’re prejudiced). I strongly feel that we, as a community, desperately need to stop “pre-judging” people based on our assumptions about them, regardless of whatever category we perceive them to be apart of. I suggest that it is precisely this sort of habit which keeps many of us insulated in homogenous groupings, and that it’s not just white people doing this.
And, are you saying that the only people in a social setting who are attracted to you are the ones who approach you? “A few men out of hundreds” I mean, isn’t it possible that someone might simply admire your looks from afar, without you knowing? And besides, it seems like white guys are interacting and flirting with you anyways, which just undercuts your own generalization. You also have never met most of the white gay guys in Austin. What about the ones who don’t have the disposable income to buy overpriced drinks at your favorite club?
And yes, I agree that young fit white males are a dominant fetish among gay men in America. But what always gets me is how the same people who decry this “Adonis Complex” often are just as likely to complain that athletic white males aren’t giving them enough attention. For example, I happen to have an “A&F” look, and while I’m out at a club a few weeks ago, a middle aged man comes up and just gropes my ass. Then when I tell him to please fuck off because I’m not interested, he acts as though I’m just dismissing him because I think I’m better than him. On the one hand, he seems to think that he has some right to have a sexual interaction with his ideal all-American guy, and yet, I don’t see him out there seeking the attention of other types of men (like other bald middle aged dudes, etc). If he had just approached me and said hello, I probably wouldn’t have really minded a nice chat over a drink. I’m willing to give anyone the time of day, but they just need to show a little decency.
@ Nom:
I am not suggesting that white men are the only group who display racial prejudices — it has been my experience that Latinos and even blacks and Asians can be just as averse to established “undesirable characteristics”.
But in the context of this discussion, which was started by a white man, and largely focused on white sexual desire, I found it appropriate to share my experiences in a predominately white gay spaces.
And those experiences, regardless of how limited, have led me to conclude that most gay white men in Austin hold racial biases or prejudices.
I’m not suggesting these biases are entirely their fault — it’s quite difficult to grow up in the US and not have an automatic “preference” for white people — it seems to be that which is exalted above all else in terms of sexual desirability.
But in living here for two years, I’ve documented a number of experiences — both online and in person — which I feel strengthen my argument.
Some examples:
1. Being ignored and made to feel unwelcome in predominately white gay social settings and events (outside the bars).
2. Having my race come up randomly, and often derisively, in discussions in predominately white/Latino settings.
3. Posting platonic craigslist ads, and having online conversations with white/Latino men, only to be ignored once a picture establishes my blackness.
4. Seeing a preponderance of profiles/ads on gay networking/sex sites that explicitely single out black men as undesirable.
So it seems as though that while many guys may see me as “very handsome”, I’m still relegated to “second-tier” status because I’m black. And because the internet is an artificial place that doesn’t allow for face-to-face interaction, the dynamic is heightened.
The bottom line: under general circumstances, black men are often the least desired among all gay men sexually — and this probably is because black features tend to variate most from the established white ideal.
The most tragic part of this phenomena, however, is when gay men refuse to be friends with someone because of how they look — and I’ve spoken to many men of color who have experienced such rejection regularly.
Again, I don’t think this phenomena is limited to Austin at all. In fact, I think Austin acts as a microcosm of how gay society in America operates.
I also don’t think many white men here who are displaying anti-black prejudices are necessarily racist — rather, they’ve been influenced (just like gay men of other ethnicities) by what’s touted as conventionally attractive.
In closing, I’m admittedly jilted that unlike you, I can never be a member of that exclusive and universally sought-after A&F type — that I can have a perfect face, physique, and be hung, yet still not be as good as you because my skin is not white.
Although I may not be able to entirely live up to the white ideal, I must admit it certainly motivates me to stay fit and attractive.
To those who’ve followed this discussion:
Herein is additional evidence for dissenters of the widespread nature of the “black aversion phenomena” within the context of contemporary gay society.
You need to read the thread in its entirety, but many of the gay black men who post their experiences in largely gay white settings seem to mirror my own.
And just for reference, Denver presents a very similar cultural demographic to Austin: largely white, middle class, and educated.
For your consideration:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/denver/294556-denver-racist-against-gay-black-men.html
@Christopher
I don’t think there’s so much a “black aversion phenomena” in contemporary gay society as there is in contemporary white society, gay or straight. Or even a “other-racial aversion phenomena” in contemporary society PERIOD. There are a lot of people who don’t date outside of their race (probably varying more on the part of the country you live in and the level of education of those involved.) I don’t think it’s even so much a tendency to “not date outside their race” but rather a tendency to “date within their race.” Like a comfort zone or something, seeking what is familiar.
Among my peers, the only people I’ve actually heard specifically speak about not dating outside their race are straight black women.
In any case, like I said before, I really don’t get it on a personal level, because I believe all colors of the rainbow are beautiful, and I find differences to be very attractive. Hell, I’d love to marry a black man and adopt a whole mess of multiracial kids so we can have one big beautiful family photo that puts Angelina Jolie’s gaggle to shame.
@ Jake:
I am not suggesting at all that someone white, or otherwise, is racist for favoring a same-race romantic partner over a partner of a different race.
We all have a choice of who we want to have sex with and no one should be chastised for their sexual preferences.
However, within contemporary American gay culture, the negative stigmas attached to black men — which have resulted in lower sexual desirability — also seem to affected social desirability.
Meaning, that many gay men, white or otherwise, find it a waste of time to befriend someone they aren’t sexually attracted to. And for many gay men, being black seems to be a qualifier for immediate platonic dismissal.
And that is what I deplore.
And I’ve found straight people in general to be far less racist and condescending than gay men. As a whole, straight people don’t seem to exhibit the same racial hatred and biases that a large portion of gay men have adopted.
@Christopher
I know exactly what you mean, and you’re echoing similar comments I’ve made in regards of many gay white men, including gay men of other races with a “light skin complexion” (Asian, Latino, and etc.). When it comes to developing a friendship, most rather get to know only guys who share their same skin color, regardless if they share similar interests, likes, or hobbies. And it’s a shame for a culture that has experienced so much hate, homophobia, and discrimination from the straight culture to allow that same discrimination and hate to take over and not do nothing in combating prejudices and racism within the gay culture itself.
And you’re so right about straight people in general being less racist and condescending than gay men. I haven’t experienced real racism until I came out in the mid ’90s and tried to meet and socialize with other gay men. Somehow I thought the gay community was going to be a place I would find acceptance and refuge among my peers. Boy was I wrong. But the amazing thing is that the lack of acceptance is still going on this present day.
The gay culture as a whole has failed miserably in terms of unifying gay men from all racial backgrounds in a loving and positive way. But then again, the gay culture is also responsible for creating such a negative environment and creating an image that the gay white male is more desirable. There’s no wonder why as a culture we have the highest rates of gay suicide. Gays wouldn’t be committing suicide at such a high rate if the gay community did more to create an accepting and loving environment. Instead, the gay culture has become a culture filled with narcissistic, hateful, self-absorbed, and sex addicted gay men.
This is interesting because many of my white friends tell me they PREFER having sex with black men because they love big cocks and generally have better sex.
@ Tony:
The fact that many of the white gay men you know say they “prefer” black men for their supposedly large penises, is yet another example of the pervasive racism I’ve alluded to in this discussion.
It seems as though if they’re not being objectified, black gay men are just ignored. Invisible.
Neither is particularly appealing.
Whether it’s black or white, big cock is big cock! Gay men hardly ever discriminate when it comes to fucking.
I mean who cares!!! this such BS why do you think black men would care whether you are attracted to them or not.Those of us black gay men who know what time it is, never think about giving you the time of day, ha ha
I’ve read that in many cultures around the world, the “upper classes” are almost always the fairest/lightest skinned. How did this come about? Lighter skin was seen as more attractive by many people. We are animals after all, and this is hardwired in many of our brains. Similar to bird plumage or fur stripes, etc., which serve as physical stimuli in sexual competition.
In India, China, and the Middle East, the wealthier and more powerful males had first choice of sexual partners/mates. They usually chose the lightest skinned females, which resulted in children with fairer skin.
Generations and generations later, the result is the upper/wealthier classes tend to be lighter-complected. You can see this in those same countries today. Even in European countries, the upper classes tend to be blond, blue-eyed, taller, etc.
Perhaps subconsciously the gay community is simply “acting out” this sexual pecking order that is wrapped up in our DNA? It doesn’t make it right. I for one am white, but I’m very average looking. Sure I fetishize the athletic white male, it’s an image I’ve always found very alluring and I have no explanation for it.
Will I ever attain that look? No. Will someone look to me the same way. Most likely never. So I accept that fact and find solace, comfort and companionship in average guys who look more like me.
People are not biologically attracted to each other because of their skin color. We are biologically drawn to people who look healthy. That would include an even skin tone, but a not a particular shade. The skinny jeans wearing, limp-wristed, spikey-haired WASP look that most gay men describe as the epitome of beauty is entirely the result of cultural conditioning. Fair skin in some cultures was a mark of status because it meant one was not out in the sun doing menial labor. So it was about status, not biology. How do you account for the ridiculous number of tanning salons in the US if everyone is just predisposed to fair skin?
It is common knowledge that humanity originated in Africa, so at one point everyone had dark skin. Yet clearly the human race did not die out because people were repulsed by black skin. “White” people (particularly white males) have dominated cultural norms concerning beauty since this country began, and continue to do so and as such they are the de facto representation of current aesthetics. What I find most troubling about this entire discussion is everyone’s haste to assume that just because their aversion feels normal, that it is a scientific truth instead of learned behavior.
And your analysis of what you are attracted to is irrelevant. This is not about being attracted to light skin, it is about why people are UNATTRACTED to dark skin. There is a huge difference between those things. This has been addressed countless times already.
The most absurd thing you said however, was in your most recent post.
“I will never get a date with Chris Evans (see my previous post above), as much as I would feel his love is the only thing that would give me affirmation for living. But it’s unattainable. And when my brain isn’t functioning well I confuse this fantasy with what is really important in life.”
The real question is why you want Chris Evans. Have you met him? Do you know anything about him? You know he’s an attractive and wealthy actor, and the only reason you want him is that he’s the pinnacle of affluence and winsomeness. You have absolutely no reason to be in love with Chris Evans, and conflating this prepubescent obsession with a movie star to being categorically dismissed because of skin color is extremely shortsighted. I’ve noticed that gay people do a lot of conflating physical attractiveness with love/affection, and the two are often mutually exclusive. Love is about a person’s character and the compatibility of the values people have. It is possible for two people with different shades of skin to share such a deep connection.
So what was your point again? That the apparently suicidal poster above needs to realize that a black person catching the interest of a white person is just as futile as you trying to get Chris Evans? If so that’s an incredibly stupid comparison.
Who cares….
Blacks are just as racist as white people can be….
I’m sure there are black men who aren’t into white men and I say to that ” who cares? Sleep with a mop for all I care.”
I’m so sick of hearing about racism from white people. I would like to see more topics on blacks being racists towards whites.
If white men had a million man march we would be labeled racist and separatists. It’s always a race thing. Who fucking cares anymore? Everyone is so tired of hearing it. It’s time to move on and away from the civil war and the civil rights movement.
I get it… A great thing, yes but if you weren’t born then I think it’s safe to say “stop making excuses and knock that chip off your shoulder!”
@ Johnny J
You are too right. When we talk about the slavery, John Brown, the Civil War, Margaret Garner, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King jr., Medgar Evars, Rosa Parks, the Little Rock Nine, Ossian Sweet, Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, the KKK, and the systematic disenfranchisement of African-Americans we should also talk about individual instances of reverse racism to be fair and balanced. And history books should not play up the Anti-Semitism of the Nazis. After all, I’m sure there are just as many Jews who were prejudiced against Germans.
You’re a moron.
Name calling?
Not so nice. You can’t have a discussion without name calling?
You can’t tell me it doesn’t exist. Can you? Actually, maybe you could. I can’t see your head because it’s stuck so far up your ass you’ve forgotten what daylight looks like.
Good luck with that heavy shoulder…..
The “who cares” sentiment expressed by Johnny J echoes what I’ve heard consistently from many gay white men when confronted with their own racism.
Of course, when the discrimination is directed at them collectively, as it was in Prop 8 for instance, suddenly there’s this mass concern.
But black men? Their genuine claims of racism aren’t worthy of consideration or empathy, because they’re not sexually attractive. (Eye roll).
And I can assure you, if Johnny J, or any other white men who turn a blind eye to this deplorable reality actually experienced it firsthand for themselves, they certainly would not be saying “who cares”.
They’d be just as enraged as myself and the other black men who regularly bemoan the racist tendencies regnant amongst a large demographic of gay men in America.
“,Fair and balanced?”
Quit living in the past… It’ll hold you back.
Good lick with all that anger
I’m certainly not living in the past — I’m living in 2011 America, and what I experience regularly as a gay black man from other gay men is racism. Pure and simple.
If you can’t empathize with, or at least consider someone else’s experiences as just as valid as your own, you are, in fact a moron.
No one is discussing how blacks ARE racist towards whites. It’s true.
I’m sick of playing nice when I get disrespected by blacks for no reason. I’ve been polite, helpful, etc and I get shit on..
It doesn’t help I watched a black guy roll off with my 2000$ bike or the fact that ingot held up at gunpoint and had my expensive watch ripped off my arm….
After those few instances, I try… But I’m getting too close to not caring anymore….it pisses me off and makes me angry. I’m a nice guy but even nice people have their limits.
I don’t need a lecture on history and civil rights…I’m college educated and I get it but I’ve tried and again, no one has come to my defense on the issue. (eye roll and middle finger!)
(Middle finger)
Thanks for proving my point.
With the wealthy classes preferring lighter skin analogy, I was proposing a theory about why so many gays of all races and ethnicities fetishize the athletic white male. I didn’t say it was right or justified.
Plus there are plenty of people of all stripes who prefer their own kind when it comes to the bedroom. It doesn’t give anyone the right to mistreat or discriminate against people when it comes to jobs, education, or platonic friendships. But when it comes to sex, many people have differing views.
This whole argument is making my head spin. Why are we even arguing about this? There’s a sexual pecking order. And frankly none of us are at the top of it, no matter what your race is or else we’d be out on a Saturday night like tonight instead of sitting on here debating it. LOL!
See…it was my fault Tyrone ripped me off… Oh wait.. There were a few Tyrones.
I deserve it, somehow.
Having a gun pointed at my head must be fair and balanced too. Fuck you…and anyone who thinks like you. You’ll always be just a statistic!
Sorry, but the “preference” argument doesn’t hold up when many gay men collectively exclude the same groups of men platonically that they do sexually.
They’re racists, and would do themselves a huge favor if they just owned up to it.
As for why I’m not at the club on a Saturday night, it has nothing to do with my attractiveness. I got sick of the unjustified pretense, flaming queens, and overall trashy vibe.
Plus, inhaling cigarette smoke and consuming large quantities of alcohol does not bode well for the appearance.
Johnny I’m not sure what you mean above. Do you think that because you rejected some black gays at a club they robbed you? I had something similar happen that I just remembered.
One time about 5 years ago my friend (ex military and recently out of the closet) and I left JRs. We both were pretty trashed, me especially, and he had had enough drinks to where he probably shouldn’t be driving home.
Somehow this sketchy black dude followed us out of JRs to our car and got in the back seat. We were both kind of surprised because he had been trying to talk to us all night but we couldn’t understand a word he was saying (combination of music and alcohol), but we thought he had disappeared when we left to find the car.
Now all of a sudden he’s in the car telling us some story about how he lost his wallet and keys and whether we could give him a ride. I was so out of it I barely remember what the story was, but the guy was blabbing a mile a minute.
So my military friend drove a few blocks and then all of a sudden slammed on the brakes. I managed to look up to see him reach into the back seat and punch the sketchy dude in the face and was like “GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY CAR”. Next thing I knew my friend (who’s really HUGE) had jumped out the car and yanked this dude out the back seat and threw him on the ground. This dude had been rummaging through some shopping bags with new clothes on the floor of the back seat and still was holding onto a pair of jeans that he tried to steal.
My friend threw the guy against a building on P near Whole Foods and pulled some mixed martial arts moves. Guy booked down the street, but we got our jeans back. I got out of the passenger seat to look at my friend and realized his hand was bleeding and he was missing a shoe. Apparently he tried to kick sketchy dude and lost his footwear in the process.
I guess we got back in the car and he drove us home. I passed out til the next morning after getting sick a few times and he had to pull the car over.
Not saying this story is totally relevant to this argument, but I know that my friend refuses to even speak to black guys in the clubs. He’s just really mistrustful of gay black gays especially since he had just come out of the closet when this occurred.
@ Johnny J
The discussion is about why people often are expressly not attracted to black men and the role that racism plays in this aversion. It is not about the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement, your stolen bike, or your stolen watch. I called you a moron because you burst into this forum with nothing to contribute except indignation and a false equivalency between white racism and black racism.
@ johnny j:
Look asshole, my name certainly isn’t Tyrone, my name is Christopher. I grew up in one of the most affluent suburbs in the country, attended and graduated from an Ivy league university, and secured a lucrative job in finance right out of college.
And I just happen to be black.
What the hell does you being held at gunpoint by a black man have to do with me? Or any other black men for that matter?
Having personally experienced the bulk of latent, in-my-face racism from old rich white women, I could choose to vilify this group as a whole, as you’ve done with black men.
Or I could just say the white women I encountered were ignorant fucking cunts. And just leave it at that.
But that’s not what you did — because you’ve had several negative personal experiences with blacks, you chose to broad brush an entire race.
The classic definition of racism.
And I certainly don’t think had the assailants been white in both instances would you be so quick to stereotype whites the way you’ve stereotyped blacks.
@sqt
My primary objection to your comments earlier was your contention that these so-called preferences are “wrapped up in our DNA.” They are not. They are learned.
And your friend who was robbed, was he interested in black guys before he was robbed? Something tells me he was already averse to the idea of dating a black guy, and he used the robbery to justify what he already believed.
@ sqt:
Your friend sounds like a real jackass.
He probably wouldn’t want to speak to me either until he saw my BMW or realized my parents live in one of those ridiculously over-valued Highland Park houses near Whole Foods.
But I wouldn’t give him the time of day.
Would someone please explain to me why we have two WHITE males (the author of this article, Jeremy Gloff and musician John Mayer) who feel the need to let the world know that their DICK is not attracted to black people???
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/john-mayers-penis-speaks_n_459842.html
http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2010/02/singer-john-mayer-says-his-penis-is.html
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2010/02/10/john_mayer_douchebag
I didn’t even know John Mayer made this comment until I was discussing this current article/column with a friend. She then told me about another “white” male making the same exact comment about his “white penis” not being attracted to black females. He even made the comment that his “white penis” is like a white supremacist. WTF???
Do these white males feel so entitled that they feel the need to make such insensitive and stupid comments? I can understand if one tends to not be sexually attracted to a particular person or a race, but why would one make a public statement about it and mention their penis too? Did they ever wonder how that might make the other race feel, or how it makes them come across as someone who is narcissistic and self-absorbed. Men like them might not be racists, but they do have some deep underline issues that are racial in nature.
While I appreciate the discussion here, I feel that neither side is ever going to agree.
There are both ingrained as well as learned attributes as to why people find one race of people more attractive than the other. The whole legacy of slavery in this country has implications on the perceptions of blacks and whites and how each perceives the other. No other racial group has this dynamic.
However, statistics show that black males are disproportionately involved in crime and have much higher STD rates than white males. While there are reasons for both that can be traced to racism and limited opportunities, these reasons cannot be used as excuses or crutches to justify said behavior. Black men continue to commit crimes and continue to catch STDs based on their own personal choices, not because white men (or Latino men or Asian men) force them to do it. Eventually, some white gays like Johnny J just get frustrated of being burned too many times.
Is it possible that this perceived perpetual victimhood and the poor lifestyle choices of black males have done irreparable damage to how other men view them? Or have the ghetto-mentality and images glamorized in hip-hop culture been permanently seared onto the retinas of Americans as how all black people behave? Do the black businessmen controlling BET or hip-hop music labels perpetuate this thug image in the media, just like the white businessmen who control gay media fetishize the athletic wholesome white male?
We can keep going round and round on this issue.
@ sqt
The issue is not whether or not anyone is going to agree. The issue is that one side is simply wrong. Everything you said has already been addressed, but since you didn’t read all of the previous posts or didn’t comprehend them I will engage you further. Ingrained and learned are the same thing. The point is that these predispositions are not biological. Every argument that you have used to explain away the exclusion of gay black men could be used to justify heterosexual exclusion of homosexuals. And that is what Christopher was alluding to when he expressed frustration at the way white gay men often wanna shout “Who cares” about racism, but then beat the streets when the issue is homophobia and prejudice directed at them.
You are correct. Black people do have a higher instance of HIV than white people. But that is because they tend to have sex with members of their own race. Since there are far fewer black people than white people, diseases tend to spread much faster. Black gay men have sex with each other at three times the frequency they should be chance in part because there are seen as the least desirable among gay men. So they are often limited in their choices of sexual partners, and thus the diseases spread much faster because the community is smaller. And interesting side note is that in 2007 there were an estimated 139,676 white people had HIV. Of these 107,544 were contracted through male to male sexual contact and another 13,013 got it through drugs and homosexual contact. Black people had an estimated 133,588 and of those 62,124 were due to male to male sexual contact and another 10,946 got it though drugs and homosexual contact.. So 55% of the contractions of HIV in the black community come from gay black men (or those who engage in homosexual behavior), while 86% of the contractions of HIV in the white community came from gay white men. In 2008 52% of black people with HIV got it through homosexual contact and 78% of white people with the disease got it though homosexual contact. So black people are more likely to have HIV than white people, but gay black people are less likely to have the disease than white gay men.
http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm
So with this new knowledge are you now going to be especially careful in selecting white sex partners? For some reason I doubt it. You are all too quick to use statistical information (albeit incomplete) to justify why people exclude black men. Just remember that gay men have many more sexual partners in their life time than straight men, account for a disproportionate percentage of the STD contractions in this country, and are much more prone to suicide. By your same logic, gay men need to look to themselves about their lack of acceptance from society at large. It’s the gay magazine editors who are primarily responsible for the depiction of gay men as hyper-sexualized, immoral pigs incapable of real intimacy. And as such, straight people are quite right in their stereotyping and exclusion of gay men. If you say you agree with that, then I can say I respect your position. Otherwise, you’re just being a hypocrite. Do you not think the infidelity and no-strings-attached sex in the gay “community” has something to do with the fact that monogamy is not seen as a reality for gay men because of laws like Proposition 8, and as such promiscuity has been heaped on the gay community by the heterosexual one and there is not often a viable alternative?
It is astonishing to me that in your defense of Johnny’s blatantly racist remarks that you cannot see the obvious parallels between homophobia/racism in society at large and the fact that that the gay community has become a microcosm of many of these same issues. Gay men are on the outside of society and as such have created this separatist “faggy” culture, that relishes in superficiality and promiscuity. Black culture created a hyper-masculine vision of idealism in their men to combat their feelings of helplessness due to the overt prejudice that kept them on the outside of the “American Dream.” Obviously, both have done some harm.
I would like Johnny J to make a list of every person who has ever wronged him and post it on this website. Beside each person or instance he should put down the individual’s race, and then we can decide who has “burned” him the most and what other conclusions he has drawn about any other race from these experiences.
The bottom line is that people who do not date outside of their race have simply made a decision to behave in that manner. And if you or anyone else has done the same then just say so, and stop with these paltry attempts to shove the blame off on everything else.
I never denied I am racist but I am racist towards individuals rather than an entire race…if you have no class, you have no class…white, black, Turkish, whatever, wherever…
Honestly, I don’t care what anyone thinks about what I’ve said. I will defend it to my last breath. However, it’s funny how everyone wants to live in a shaded past and live unparalleled lives. I refuse to let someone treat me poorly, steel from me, OR, last but not least, hold me up a gunpoint ( I guess that’s even and paralleled for you ).
FFFFFF UUUUUU CCCCCC KKKKKK you! Haha…..
And by the way, I have some other views on other people from other places… I’d be glad to share but I will keep it to myself…
It just goes to show…people are not ready for the complete truth. The truth hurts, and that’s has nothing to do with me it has to do with how a person is raised, in what culture, part of the world, individual differences, social class, etcetera…etcetera….
I know I’ve offended some of you..it’s not my intention but I do have my views, my experiences, and these will not change unless it happens within. I’m fine with my opinions and I’m fine with you having yours but don’t elk me being held up at gun point and being discriminatory is ok, balanced, and even on any side. It’s wrong, in a perfect world…..
Later!
And round and round we go. I’m not even sure what we’re arguing about anymore.
Another Jeremy, you posit that white men find black men unattractive. Got it, and understood. And Johnny J says that because he’s been mistreated by black men he refuses to date them, much like my military buddy who busted the dude stealing his jeans.
So why do white men find black men unattractive? Nobody seems to answer WHY. Every explanation I’ve offered has been ignored and instead some tangent argument comes up, like straight society’s impressions of gay people. Or that due to limited opportunities, HIV rates among black men are higher only because they share a smaller pool of partners.
But we’re not talking about straight people. And we’re putting the cart before the horse when we talk about HIV rates. If black men are not using protection, then they will have higher rates of HIV regardless of who they sleep with. Are you blaming white men for the HIV rates of blacks? Put the damn condom on or don’t have sex at all and you will see lower HIV rates. This goes for everybody.
This inability to accept responsibility for one’s actions is a turn-off no matter WHAT race the man is. If you’re an idiot, I don’t care what you look like. I’m not interested. And then to blame it on the white man, just makes you look like a double-wuss.
So are black men unattractive because they represent this irresponsible underclass? Do white men learn this at a young age and develop an aversion to black men as they mature? What is it that white men are LEARNING in society that turns them off to black men? Blacks say they are shut out and keep acting recklessly which just reconfirms whites’ impressions of them. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So when a white dude meets a black dude like Christopher at a club or sees his profile online, what is the disconnect?
For me, I mentioned either in this thread or another, that there are certain masculine attributes that have to all come together for me to get turned on. I don’t have casual sex, because I don’t want to get STDs or HIV. And with all aspects of my life I don’t do things half assed or settle for second best.
Height — I prefer men over 6 feet tall. Not a deal breaker, but this puts most Asian men and Latino men out of the running.
Skin tone — I like a medium tone. Too pale skin is a turn off (sorry English lads) and too dark doesn’t appeal either. Many Asian, Middle Eastern, Latino and black guys just don’t have this characteristic. Why is this? Did I “learn” this somewhere? Perhaps. No one taught me this. Interestingly, I find Latina women, Asian women and Middle Eastern women much sexier than most white women. There are also many black women I find hotter than white women. But alas, I don’t date women, so when it comes to a man, I itch for lighter skin. I don’t have an explanation why. No one taught me this, it just is.
Eye Color — blue and green eyes are HUGE turn-ons. I have hazel, and I won’t rule out a guy with brown eyes at all, but how many Asians or black men have blue or green eyes?
Body hair. I love body hair but in the right places: chest, arms, and legs. Backs and shoulders, no. I have a few stray hairs in those places and pluck them out. Just find it unattractive. Maybe because it reminds me of my dad. The texture of the hair must be soft. I love to play with a guys’ leg hair and chest hair, but really wiry dark hair for some reason turns me off. The lighter the color of the hair is important. Blond hairs on a guy’s ass are a a HUGE turn-on.
Muscles are nice, but I don’t like them too big. I like guys feet to have long toes and high arches. I guess like a statue of David kind of model. Leg muscles and calves should be in proportion or even thicker than upper body and the longer the legs the better.
So it’s not just one thing that turns me on, but a combination of factors. Not every white guy has all of these qualities combined, in fact very few do. But that is an honest depiction of what turns me on. And why I don’t sleep around.
When I find a guy like this, I don’t have unprotected sex with him. I value my health and would never throw away my self-worth for a one night stand to feel validated.
@ sqt
We are arguing about whether or not having an aversion to the idea of dating a black man is racist. The only person who seems to keep getting confused is you. You are the one who has used every tangential argument you can think of in an attempt to weaken the assertion that preemptively excluding someone as a potential partner because they’re black is racist behavior. If you do are not open to the possibility of dating someone who is black it’s either because you don’t see the members of that race as your equals or because you have a preconceived notion about how black men are. In addition, from birth we’re all pumped up with this idea that white beauty is the ideal beauty (see the Clark Doll Study reference above) and that black skin is indicative of inferiority by almost every major media outlet. And no, that isn’t a valid excuse. As a gay man, you must have grown up seeing a preponderance of heterosexual couples in the media, and I’m sure the depictions of homosexuals were negative if present at all. And yet you had to overcome your programming which had taught you that being gay was unnatural and realize that you are not lesser just because you are a minority. But gay white men seem unwilling to make the very simple connection between how this hetero-centric society we live in perpetuates prejudice against gay men and how ethnocentric ideas about beauty (and the violent history of race relations in this country) lead to an aversion of black men. Not all black people look and/or behave the same way (neither do all gay men), and to lump them all together as though they have less variety than any other ethnic group is racist.
You are the one (but not the first) that brought up HIV as evidence that black people are irresponsible, but do not seem at all interested in any evidence that suggests gay white men are more prone to engaging in risky sexual behavior than gay black men. The only time most gay white men seem especially concerned about HIV is as it applies to people who are black, but do not use this as a reason to avoid other gay white men. If you think black people lack the ability to take responsibility for their actions, then you should have no problem turning to your white gay friends/partner(s) and telling them that they need to not blame straight people for this vision that they’re shallow, sex-crazed whores who couldn’t handle marriage even if it was legal for them to do so. When gay people are discriminated against gay white men go running in the name of the cause, but when black gay men claim to be the victims of this same kind of prejudice they just need to buck up and own up to their actions. If they are not black they don’t give a shit. The comparison between homophobia in society at large and racism in the gay community was to illuminate how hypocritical these arguments are. You would not be ok with a straight person using some of the statistical information I used to justify not associating with you, so why is it acceptable to use these same rationales to exclude a black person?
NOTE: All of these arguments have already been made. Your question why has been answered numerous times previously. Have you read all of the posts?
I also find it interesting that so many gay men claim to be looking for something “real,” but yet the only thing they seem capable of doing is producing a list of physical wants that conveniently line up with whatever white guy is on the latest issue of GQ.
@ Another Jeremy, who said:
“I also find it interesting that so many gay men claim to be looking for something “real,” but yet the only thing they seem capable of doing is producing a list of physical wants that conveniently line up with whatever white guy is on the latest issue of GQ.”
Ok, let’s do something real. I went to GQ’s “Covers Gallery” website, and tallied up all of the covers from Jan 2000 to Dec 2005. I included extra tallies when they had multiple covers for a given month. In any case where a black person was featured, either by themselves or with others, I tallied that as a black person being on the cover. If they were featured with white people, I also put a tally next to white. So what did I find in my admittedly brief overview?
Out of 80 tally marks, I’ve got 15 for black folks, which represents about 18.8% of the total. Nationwide, blacks make up roughly 13% of the population.
By over-representing blacks, GQ must clearly hate white people.
Ebony magazine, on the other hand, is totally cool for only putting blacks on the cover, because they’re creating a space for black people in an oppressive society where blacks are only slightly over-represented on the cover of mainstream “white” mags like GQ. Give me a break.
But honestly, if there was a magazine that only put 100% hot shirtless white guys on the cover, then what difference would that really make to you? Don’t like it? Don’t buy it. I don’t watch BET or listen to gangster rap, because it’s not my culture and it just doesn’t speak to me. In America, you are free to change the channel, or better yet, just turn off your various electronic boxes altogether and meet us for a “real” game of pick-up at the gym. I know it’s hard for some people, but you really can push that button.
When people like Another Jeremy see that our society tends to represent white people more often, it’s always in every case an example of Racism. This tendency can’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that white people happen to be a majority of the population.
For example, in Another Jeremy’s world:
– If a club has a majority white clientele, it’s not because white people make up a majority of the population, it’s because the club owners and patrons are racists.
– If a club has a 100% black clientele, it’s not because the club is racist, it’s because black people need a separate space to segregate themselves from the oppressive white-dominated society.
It’s the same thing when a gay black guy goes around thinking all the gay white guys around him are racists. He already has his mind made up, and then if he ever does interact with a white guy, he’s either consciously or subconsciously giving off a “I hate whitey” vibe. And that sort of attitude just isn’t gonna get ya laid, because it takes two to tango. Frankly, if you hate us so much (and we’re already too over-sought as it is), then stop trying to sleep with white boys.
I’m sure you can find something else to watch.
@Mike
I agree with you. I feel that Another Jeremy kept goading me to say something. Every one of my points was painted as either an example of deliberate white racism and exclusion of gay blacks or it was a byproduct of white racism where black gays were the victims. Frankly I couldn’t win.
So Another Jeremy and Christopher. What do you want from me and my white gay brethren? Do you want us to have affirmative action dating where white guys are required to date black guys just to fill a quota? Perhaps this is all a desperate plea to trick us into giving you our phone numbers/email addresses to prove we’re not such bad guys after all? Or maybe you want us to flat out say black men are ugly and we white dudes aren’t ever going to change our minds?
So which is it? I know I sound awfully blunt, but I’ve tried to offer various insights into my mind and my desires and to show you which attributes in a man set me off. It just so happens that those characteristics come together in white men. I don’t deliberately seek out to exclude anybody. That would be too much negative energy. Rather I choose to follow my hormones. And that’s not racism.
@ Mike
You made the following crucial error in your counting of the white and black people on the covers of GQ magazine: You counted the percentage of magazine covers that had black people on them instead of the actual number of black people on the covers. I counted 150 people on the covers between 2000 and 2005. Of these 150, 64 were men and 86 were women. There were 6 black men present which is about 11% of the men and exactly 0 black women. So black men were not extremely underrepresented on the cover of GQ magazine, but black women were. Black people make up 4% of the people on GQ magazine. Less than 1/3 of their representation in society which you aptly pointed out is 13%. So between 2000-2005 black people were not overrepresented on the covers of GQ magazine. They were under-represented. Nice try though. Someone else can count and tell me if I miscounted somewhere.
http://www.whosdatedwho.com/what/magazine_view.asp?ID=246&year=2005
To be fair, since this debate is about the exclusion of gay black mean in particular, I should have referenced OUT or another mainstream magazine. Of the 93 OUT covers present, 3 have black men on them. The percentage as it applies to people on each cover is even on the covers is even smaller. I counted 104 excluding the covers that had more than 5 people. About 3% was the number of blacks in each case.
http://out.com/covergallery/covers.asp?category=Hot%20Guys&pid=68
So your argument that black men are not under-represented by the mass media (within the admittedly limited context we have been able to cite) has been effectively debunked. And for the record, the people arguing on the behalf of white men who do not want to date black men on this blog have consistently been the first ones to throw out statistical information about black men to discredit the argument that racism is at the core of this issue, but when counter statistics (that are frankly more complete) are presented then the subject sort of evaporates. *See the HIV arguments above between Nom and I.
What is most unusual about this whole issue is that white gay men fail to realize that they are a minority and as such are subject to special protections and privileges. Nom, Johnny, Sqt and Mike are very ideologically opposed to the separatist behavior prevalent in the black community and quickly use that to explain away black exclusion from the gay majority. But no one sees the irony of the fact that we’re arguing this issue on a gay forum. The initial argument was about racism on a gay hookup site called Adam4Adam. Affirmative action (which gives aid to more than just black people)has been brought up a few times on both of these blogs, but no one has mentioned the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act that adds sexual orientation to 1969 Hate Crimes Prevention Act that was signed in 2009. After all, there are no laws to prevent straight people from being the victims of hate crimes. People have talked about Ebony magazine, but no one has talked about Instinct, DNA or OUT. So are these magazine that focus on gay lifestyles the reason homosexuality is seen as so immoral and unacceptable by many Americans? Are gay pride marches discrimination against straight people? Why do we need gay bars when gay men can just meet at bars that don’t pay special attention to sexual orientation.? Gay men have created just as much of a separatist culture that black people have, so where is you indignation about gay culture creating a divide in society? There is no indignation because gay culture insulates you from the institutionalized bigotry that has been leveled against the gay community for a very long time. So it goes with black people. Like many gay white men, you want all of the benefits of being in a minority but make none of the obvious connections between your disenfranchisement and that of any other minority. Yes, I realize we are not talking about refusing to hire someone or beating them to death in the street, but dating/sexual attractions and how the deep-rooted racism in our country has caused this race more than any other to be consistently faced with the reality that they are not desirable by the white majority and why this seems to be heightened in the gay community. If you want to bask in white privilege and blame black culture for the ostracism of its men within the smaller gay culture then so be it. But you should also turn your back on all of the governmental and cultural safeguards that shield gay men from prejudice as the similarities are readily apparent. Otherwise you’re a ridiculous hypocrite.
I’m also glad you are a self appointed expert on who I hate and am currently trying to sleep with. I live with two white gay men now (one is leaving to study in Vienna in a few days so he will be replaced by a white woman), and I was the first interracial adoption in the state of AR. My entire family (except my interracial, adopted brother) is white. So I do not hate anyone because they’re white. Also, I could not sleep with myself at night if I was constantly chasing after men as vain, banal and ignorant as you have displayed yourself to be irrespective of the tightness of their six pack. So if you are operating under the delusion that I spend my evenings chasing after spikey-haired white guys named Randy and then cry myself to sleep every night when they turn me down, you are sorely mistaken. But please, do tell how many black men you have been friends with/attempted to date since you are so sure that everyone who think this behavior is racist is merely jealous.
Ciao!
@ Mike
You made the following crucial error in your counting of the white and black people on the covers of GQ magazine: You counted the percentage of magazine covers that had black people on them instead of the actual number of black people on the covers. I counted 150 people on the covers between 2000 and 2005. Of these 150, 64 were men and 86 were women. There were 6 black men present which is about 11% of the men and exactly 0 black women. So black men were not extremely underrepresented on the cover of GQ magazine, but black women were. Black people make up 4% of the people on GQ magazine. Less than 1/3 of their representation in society which you aptly pointed out is 13%. So between 2000-2005 black people were not overrepresented on the covers of GQ magazine. They were under-represented. Nice try though. Someone else can count and tell me if I miscounted somewhere.
http://www.whosdatedwho.com/what/magazine_view.asp?ID=246&year=2005
To be fair, since this debate is about the exclusion of gay black mean in particular, I should have referenced OUT or another mainstream magazine. Of the 93 OUT covers present, 3 have black men on them. The percentage as it applies to people on each cover is even on the covers is even smaller. I counted 104 excluding the covers that had more than 5 people. About 3% was the number of blacks in each case.
http://out.com/covergallery/covers.asp?category=Hot%20Guys&pid=68
So your argument that black men are not under-represented by the mass media (within the admittedly limited context we have been able to cite) has been effectively debunked. And for the record, the people arguing on the behalf of white men who do not want to date black men on this blog have consistently been the first ones to throw out statistical information about black men to discredit the argument that racism is at the core of this issue, but when counter statistics (that are frankly more complete) are presented then the subject sort of evaporates. *See the HIV arguments above between Nom and I.
What is most unusual about this whole issue is that white gay men fail to realize that they are a minority and as such are subject to special protections and privileges. Nom, Johnny, Sqt and Mike are very ideologically opposed to the separatist behavior prevalent in the black community and quickly use that to explain away black exclusion from the gay majority. But no one sees the irony of the fact that we’re arguing this issue on a gay forum. The initial argument was about racism on a gay hookup site called Adam4Adam. Affirmative action (which gives aid to more than just black people)has been brought up a few times on both of these blogs, but no one has mentioned the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act that adds sexual orientation to 1969 Hate Crimes Prevention Act that was signed in 2009. After all, there are no laws to prevent straight people from being the victims of hate crimes. People have talked about Ebony magazine, but no one has talked about Instinct, DNA or OUT. So are these magazine that focus on gay lifestyles the reason homosexuality is seen as so immoral and unacceptable by many Americans? Are gay pride marches discrimination against straight people? Why do we need gay bars when gay men can just meet at bars that don’t pay special attention to sexual orientation.? Gay men have created just as much of a separatist culture that black people have, so where is you indignation about gay culture creating a divide in society? There is no indignation because gay culture insulates you from the institutionalized bigotry that has been leveled against the gay community for a very long time. So it goes with black people. Like many gay white men, you want all of the benefits of being in a minority but make none of the obvious connections between your disenfranchisement and that of any other minority. Yes, I realize we are not talking about refusing to hire someone or beating them to death in the street, but dating/sexual attractions and how the deep-rooted racism in our country has caused this race more than any other to be consistently faced with the reality that they are not desirable by the white majority and why this seems to be heightened in the gay community. If you want to bask in white privilege and blame black culture for the ostracism of its men within the smaller gay culture then so be it. But you should also turn your back on all of the governmental and cultural safeguards that shield gay men from prejudice as the similarities are readily apparent. Otherwise you’re a ridiculous hypocrite.
I’m also glad you are a self appointed expert on who I hate and am currently trying to sleep with. I live with two white gay men now (one is leaving to study in Vienna in a few days so he will be replaced by a white woman), and I was the first interracial adoption in the state of AR. My entire family (except my interracial, adopted brother) is white. So I do not hate anyone because they’re white. Also, I could not sleep with myself at night if I was constantly chasing after men as vain, banal and ignorant as you have displayed yourself to be irrespective of the tightness of their six pack. So if you are operating under the delusion that I spend my evenings chasing after spikey-haired white guys named Randy and then cry myself to sleep every night when they turn me down, you are sorely mistaken. But please, do tell how many black men you have been friends with/attempted to date since you are so sure that everyone who think this behavior is racist is merely jealous.
Ciao!
@ sqt
You’re correct in that you couldn’t “win” if by that you mean making a racist statement and then being exempt from the label racist. You cannot make a blanket judgment about an entire group of people with whom you have had limited interaction and then make excuses when someone pokes holes in your logic. And what is with this assumption that all black men just categorically desire you? Have one of us asked for your phone number? Frankly,you sound as though you have all the appeal of a rancid tomato. I cannot speak for Christopher, but what I want is to stop hearing these incredibly stupid excuses for your behavior. I would prefer men like you say something like “I am expressly averse to dating black men because I am racist.” It’s more honest and it makes more sense.
Ciao!
As far as GQ is concerned, I think of it more from the perspective of what percentage of the time does a black person look up at the latest GQ and see their culture represented? You said that white guys are always on the cover, and I found black people were represented more often than a strictly proportional amount of time. From my personal perspective, I don’t care what’s on the cover of a magazine, because it’s that company’s choice.
What “governmental and cultural safeguards” for gay men are you even talking about? I can see the federal hate crime statute as a good thing, but how often is that ever used? Otherwise, what else do we have now, the right to go to war? Ok. Meanwhile we can be fired in thirty some odd states on the grounds of being gay, can’t recognize our marriages, can’t even donate blood, etc etc. And yet, nowhere is there a law in America that allows discrimination against black people for being black. I do not in any way want to diminish the historical legacy of race relations in this country, but narrowly defining the issue in terms of current legal status, gays aint shit.
I’m all for gay guys of all kinds interacting together more and standing together against this b.s. And I honestly think that in the process of even being around each other more, probably more hooking up would happen.
But if you’re going to go around painting all white gay guys as being white supremacists, then how are you going to be able to meet an individual white man as an equal?
I don’t care one bit that black people have gone and made social spaces for themselves any more than gay guys want to go out and make social spaces separate from others. It totally makes sense. (Or did you not catch the hint that I don’t care about Ebony magazine because I don’t read it?)
And where I live, the “big mainstream” gay clubs have a very mixed crowd that generally represents the area. There are some smaller bars that are a lot whiter, and others that have a clientele almost entirely made up of queer men of color. Most bars have a roughly proportional mix. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with any of that. I think that’s part of the freedom to associate that we all share. I think that most of us move in between same-race and heterogeneous spaces on a daily basis, just like we move between same-sex/sexuality spaces and “everywhere else” and that these patterns aren’t very remarkable or essentially bad in and of themselves. So what if there’s a white-as-the-driven-snow Irish Catholic church over here, a predominately Arab mosque over there, and an Ethiopian church over there?
If anyone’s a hypocrite, it’s you. You allow for all-black social spaces and bemoan predominately-white social spaces. I, on the other hand, think that neither same-race nor mixed spaces ought to be categorically taboo. But I agree that if we seek to advance rights for all gay men, then we need to work together on our issues, which requires us to learn how to relate to each other.
As far as our private sex lives are concerned, I think we can only really hold people to the general principle of mutual consent between adults. After that you just start sounding like the prudes we’re up against.
The important thing, and something that I’m all for, is black and white guys being better able to interact socially on an equal level. I happen to think that doing so requires both of us to at least suspend our stereotypes of each other long enough to give that individual person a chance to show their true colors. I’m perfectly willing to believe that not all gay black guys are DL thugz or Antoine Dodson impersonators, if you’re willing to let go of your admittedly funny Randy the Racist cartoon character. Deal?
In the meantime, I’m not going to criticize you over the ethnicites, genders, eye colors, ages, toe lengths, pain thresholds, or any other characteristics of your private sex life, because I think that’s kinda crude. And unless you’re someone I’m trying to hook up with, those are questions I probably won’t even ask. But I don’t get to enjoy the same level of respect back from you. Things like respect, self-confidence and decency are what most of us are looking for in any man.
What a great way to put it, Mike!
Interesting you say you saw no black women on the GQ’s 2000-2005. You don’t think Halle Berry is black? Or just not black enough to get a tally on your list, like Barack?
@ Another Jeremy:
I don’t want ANY of the benefits of being in a minority. People should have equal rights not special rights. One negative legacy of the civil rights movement for blacks is that in the passion for change, leaders failed to distinguish between the two. The impression is that blacks are treated as a “protected class”. As a result you have resentment from conservative white Americans who feel some blacks are in positions they don’t deserve, while you have many blacks caught in generational welfare cycles and public housing for years with no desire or initiative to get off of government assistance. Government assistance became quasi-reparations for slavery and Jim Crow.
Being gay is not a choice, much like being black isn’t. But I don’t see gay affirmative action ever coming into play, nor do I see development of publicly funded gay housing or welfare assistance. On a day to day level most gay Americans blend into the mainstream, and gays can “hide” if they so choose. There should be laws banning outright discrimination of any sort (racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia etc.) but I don’t want special rights or to be a protected class.
So please let’s bring this discussion back to the main argument. I looked up the definition of racism online:
racism or racialism (ˈreɪsɪzəm, ˈreɪʃəˌlɪzəm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n
1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief
I sleep with whom I want to based on what turns me on. See my previous arguments above. I don’t believe anyone is inferior or superior to me. But sex is a private matter based on physical and spiritual attraction. If I’m not attracted to you it’s not because I feel superior to you. That would be racist. I’m not attracted to you because my dick isn’t hard.
@ Mike
“But if you’re going to go around painting all white gay guys as being white supremacists, then how are you going to be able to meet an individual white man as an equal?”
“If anyone’s a hypocrite, it’s you. You allow for all-black social spaces and bemoan predominately-white social spaces.”
There are a number of claims that you have made about my position that are demonstrably inaccurate. You have used outrageous hyperbole (“I hate whitey vibe” even though I’ve already mentioned that my entire family is white) to bolster your points, and have weakened many of your assertions in the process. I have never said that all gay white men are white supremacists (I’m willing to wager that my exposure to ethnicities other than my own more than glimpses yours) or that the appearance of fewer black people in clubs is because of racism. I have consistently held that black people are under-represented in the mass media (which I have displayed) and the result is exclusion. The club hypothetical was all you. These are classic “straw man” arguments.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
I miscounted the number of black women on GQ magazine by one. But you’ll notice that I posted the link I used to come up with the numbers so I could be double checked which you did not. That would bring the total of black people on GQ magazine during that period to 7 out of 150 or 4.6%. This does not change the argument at all. If it was a deliberate exclusion, why would I have posted the link? And did I say somewhere that Obama wasn’t black? The larger point is that GQ is not a “White” magazine because the existence of such a magazine would be arbitrary as white is the majority. “Black” magazines like Ebony and “Gay” magazines like Instinct exist to give a voice to seldom heard minorities. GQ is a mainstream style magazine that grossly under-represents everyone who is not black. Go back and count the number of people on the cover who are not white and see if you come with the 34% that should represent everyone who isn’t white in the US and see what number you come up with. Also, where is your counter analysis of the people on the covers of OUT magazine, which is the real core of this issue?
“I’m perfectly willing to believe that not all gay black guys are DL thugz or Antoine Dodson impersonators, if you’re willing to let go of your admittedly funny Randy the Racist cartoon character. Deal?”
What part of that characterization was cartoonish? Did you not just say that white men are over sought after and that we lowly black guys are chasing after you incessantly? Where is your repudiation of Johnny referring to black men as Tyrone? You, Nom and sqt have all assumed that black men want you in particular and that’s what this is really about. Also, our claim of racism is formed by our own lack of desirability and racist tendencies and not our experiences, even though we have had a great deal of exposure to white people and gay white men in particular. We are the ones that need to open our minds? Right. So no, I do not want to shake your hand in agreement and I do not want your approval. There seems to be this idea that directly in the center of every issue lies the truth. You are not half right and I am not half wrong. You are simply wrong. No one on this blog has been attracted to every white person they have ever seen, and yet this has not been synthesized to mean that white men are not attractive. With white men attraction varies from person to person (as does everyone’s), but being black is a deal breaker. This presupposes that our looks, personalities and perspectives have less variety than those of white men. I have never argued about who anyone has to choose as a partner, but rather whether or not their criteria for selecting have ingrained racial biases. Excluding someone for dating because they are black is racist. Feel free to point out to me where I have varied in this standpoint on this blog or the other one.
Ciao!
@sqt
You are not racist because of who you have sex with or choose to date. You are racist if the reason you WILL NOT date someone/have sex with them is because they are black. This has been stated about a dozen time now. You have juxtaposed erratically between the role of your dick and the role of your spirit in selecting a mate, but either way you are attracted to a person because of how they look and act and not because of their skin color.
I do love that you brought welfare into the discussion. (First it was HIV, then it was quotas, and now welfare. Is affirmative action next?) Yes black people represent a disproportionate number of people on welfare—I believe something like 35-40% despite them representing 13% of the population, but the majority of people on welfare are white. So are you equally incensed by the white people who receive aid from the government? And what do the odds of black men being on welfare have anything to do with whether or not you are attracted to them? There are black men who are not on welfare. Just like there are white men who are on welfare.
We wouldn’t need so much HIV awareness if gay people would stop spreading it like wildfire. Why do gay men account for such a disproportionate number of the STDs in America? All this attention they get causes resentment from conservatives who engage in safe behavior, so why should they be bombarded with information about a primarily homosexual disease? Are straight people justified in this bigotry against gays? Surely it has nothing to do with the limited number of outlets in which gay men can be themselves. They are simply prone to debauchery and are thus unsafe, and any program, law or exclusively gay venue that helps them is fundamentally discriminatory against the straight majority. Hopefully one day your ideas will develop and you’ll realize that all of your disdain for programs that assist blacks is being leveled against you tenfold by the common enemy of both blacks and gays: intolerance and ignorance. But until then, keep preaching that you don’t accept the benefits of being in a minority, like commenting on this very blog that is expressly designed to target gay men.
Ciao!
@Another Jeremy.
Q: “What part of that [Randy the Racist] characterization was cartoonish?”
A: The spikey hair and six pack made me chuckle a little.
Basically, you and Christopher are both for some reason unable to shed your preconceived notions about white gay guys, even when your own personal experience contradicts this illusion.
Both you and Christopher feel justified in making the claim that white gay guys as a group have a superiority complex because they don’t hook up with enough black guys. And then Christopher goes on to talk about how he gets plenty of attention from white guys at the club, and you talk about how you live with what I presume are some rather agreeable white gay guys.
I mean, the cognitive dissonance required to mesh your various realities together must be mind-bogglingly frustrating. White guys are categorically bad, and yet the white guys in your lives don’t seem to fit that category. Funny how stereotypes aren’t really all that useful at explaining the world, huh? Oh wait, you already sort of know that, because we’re not supposed to generalize about black guys. Just white guys. Oh and we all know that GQ always has white guys on the cover every month, except they don’t if you actually look at them. Gay pop culture always sucks when it’s produced by white people, but black pop cultural, political and religious figures aren’t responsible for drawing caricatures of gay men as queeny white haters, because black culture is infallible. Anyone have some duct tape I could borrow to hold all this together?
Like I said before, I couldn’t care less what’s on the cover of a magazine, because I simply read the ones I like and ignore the ones I don’t. Just like any other normal American consumer. If there really is this huge untapped demand for a queer person of color oriented publication, then people are stupid for not cashing in on it yet. Or maybe you just don’t know how to use the Google, because believe me, anything you could ever possibly want to see can be found and ordered/viewed with astonishingly minimal effort.
“I have never argued about who anyone has to choose as a partner, but rather whether or not their criteria for selecting have ingrained racial biases.”
I guess the issue is that you see attractiveness as an indicator of intrinsic or ascribed superiority, whereas I just see attractiveness as that which gets me off. I don’t think I’m better than women or elderly men, for example, I just don’t sleep with them. I mean really, my bed ain’t exactly a Woolworth’s lunch counter. One establishment is open to the public and the other is decidedly not. If I was a sex worker, then maybe you’d have a tiny tangled up thread of a case.
For a behavior to be racist, there has to be an element of acting against a racial group on the basis of perceived inferiority. But several of us have simply made the rather un-extraordinary observation that when we get turned on, the person is a white male. Other white guys have vastly different sex lives, and I’m not gonna give them or anyone else any shit for their choices. But I’m glad that you now seem to agree that we shouldn’t criticize people for their choice of sex partners — just the reasons.
So yes, I’ll allow that if someone says they don’t sleep with black guys because black men are inferior to white men, then that sounds pretty racist. But if someone says that black guys just aren’t revving up their engines, then there’s not much we can do about that in the short term. Calling them racists definitely won’t change this dynamic. The best idea I’ve been able to come up with is that, if you really think there’s some compelling reason to change people’s sexual demographics, then you should promote more healthy forms of inter-racial social interaction. For some reason I don’t think you’ve endorsed this wild proposition.
Ultimately, no one has a right to have sex with white guys, so there’s no way that we’re depriving non-whites of some right by not banging them often enough. People do have a right to be treated with basic dignity, and I think we should all strive to do that in a social space. That’s why food stamps as a concept generally make sense to me (all people gotta eat), but sex stamps don’t (you don’t need access to a white dick to survive).
So yeah, I’m the crazy racist SOB who’s trying to offer a reasonable first step to address the issue. And since I’m a white guy, you already know that you’ve had more inter-ethnic interaction than me. You don’t know that I’ve spent over a year of my life working in rural parts of Africa where I was often the only white dude around, and that the source of my “let’s try to relate to each other” idea generally comes from the people who showed me, a complete stranger, quite a lot of hospitality. But yeah you have white friends lol so yeah you’re more diverse than me. Have a sticker!
But you know, maybe my suggestion is totally off the mark. Maybe the answer is to just go on flinging vinegar all over the place and whining about how white boys are racists because, astonishingly, most of them tend to bang other white boys. Sounds hot.
Go ahead and refuse to shake my hand as an equal. You can keep dancing around it from above or below or wherever the hell it is that you think you are. You can seethe and resent and call me names all you want and it doesn’t make one iota of a difference to me. I’ll still extend it to the next guy on the exact same terms.
Ah Nom. How I have missed you! But before I systemically dismantle every claim you just made, can you please show me where I have said that white gay men are categorically racist as opposed to saying white gay men who hold one particular view are racist.
One question: Is there a difference between having no friends who are Muslim and excluding people as friends because they are Muslim?
So much more to come I promise.
“show me where I have said that white gay men are categorically racist”
Sure thing. On Dec 12, you said, “I am often amazed at gay white men and their inability to draw immediate parallels between homosexual plight and the plight of any other minority.”
You drew a generalization about gay white men, and how “they” (as a group) are by definition unable to see parallels between oppression of gays and blacks. That’s a bullshit stereotype that implies that we don’t have any understanding of the issues facing black people.
On Dec. 13, you said, “when the issue is race, gay white men are all too happy to say they aren’t to blame because of our culture”
Really? All gay white men say that? Even your nice gay white male roommates? Would suck to live with people like that. I’m a gay white man, and I’ve already acknowledged that there are powerful gay white men who propagate the image of the gay man as young, white and buff. You continue to ignore the fact that there are also many powerful black men who propagate a very similar stereotype of gay=white, only in this sense, the goal is to imply that gay (white) men armed with flower boxes are out to kick poor straight black people out of their homes, destroy their straight marriages, and turn them away from God… we’ve all heard it before. Forget the fact that gay men earn less than their straight counterparts, couldn’t care less about your marriages, and are actually sitting there in the pews listening to this crap.
And on a side note, you went on to say that my “reference to the black leaders had nothing to do with putting HIV within the black community in context.” Yes it does. They’re ignoring the hell out of you and the silence is keeping people from talking about strategies to stop the crisis that is disproportionately affecting your community. So many black people are living in some sort of denial that, since gayness is just a white thing, and AIDS is just a gay thing, then they don’t have to worry about using a condom. Too bad there are plenty of free public libraries and other governent/non-profit programs available to provide information (and free condoms) to anyone who gives two shits about educating themselves on basic strategies for staying healthy.
Furthermore, this deafening silence from community leaders absolutely plays a role in how gay black men struggle to value themselves. If you don’t have a healthy sense of self-worth, people are going to pick up on that. Unfortunately, a lack of self-worth isn’t very attractive. I think this line of thought is another important piece of the puzzle that was posed by the original author. And homophobia is the main culprit here — not racism.
On the flip side of that, I would agree that white gay men probably have an easier time of finding their self-worth, since our communities don’t seem to be quite as un-supportive. Then again, many white religious leaders tend to suck pretty bad too. Nevertheless, if we assume that gay men are attracted to confidence in a man, and white men are more likely to develop self-confidence, then that could also offer a piece of an explanation as to why people think white is more attractive. Those underlying dynamics are not attributable to racism on the part of the person experiencing the attraction — I would say it’s more of a function of a relatively more accepting enviornment among white culture.
I guess you believe that, since the black community is just an unthinking “microcosm of the majority,” we can’t hold black leaders accountable for their ignorant and hurtful rhetoric? It doesn’t really matter when former DC Mayor Marion Barry threatens to unleash a “civil war” (like the kind with guns?) between the “gay” (white) and “black” (straight) communities, because you probably think he’s just mindlessly parroting what some white guy told him to say. Which is kind of racist, or at least rather patronizing, if you think about it.
Your question about Muslim friends is not germane to this discussion. I have already made abundantly clear that we should support increased social interaction between black and white gay guys. You won’t even acknowledge that’s a plainly obvious good idea. Again, I am open to the possibility of genuine social interaction with any man who seeks the same, and I think that’s the first step to making change.
You have offered no constructive ideas. You continue to fling epithets at white men who don’t feel sexual attraction from black men — not because we think you’re inferior (which would be racist), but because we simply don’t feel like hooking up.. and the explanations as to why are far, far more complicated and specific to the individual than your simplistic assertion that this dynamic is the same thing as Jim Crow. (Makes me want to laugh just saying that… It’s like you think Brown v. Board of Ed ought to apply to boners too lol). Moreover, your name-calling continues to slam the door in the face of any potential for change. You’re not even man enough to shake my hand, and yet I’m the one who’s excluding people.
@Nom:
Thank you for writing that. You know, something tells me that in some twisted sense, Another Jeremy is enjoying all this attention he’s getting from us “racist” white guys.
@ Nom
No dear. I have not said that all white men are racist.
“I am often amazed at gay white men and their inability to draw immediate parallels between homosexual plight and the plight of any other minority.”
If I said “I am often amazed to find that all gay white people do not draw parallels between their plight and the plight of anyone else” you would have a stronger case. I said I am often amazed by this behavior from white people, but not that all white people engage in it.
Here is the second statement in context.
Another Jeremy: “You can blame society for making you prejudiced, but my point is that every gay person who is happy with who they are has to overcome societal pressure and misrepresentations in the mass media in order to have a healthy self-concept. Yet when the issue is race, gay white men are all too happy to say they aren’t to blame because of our culture. You are an adult and should be able to own up to what the things you do mean. All this self-congratulatory sophistry will not distract from the point. If you will not date someone because they are black, then that is racist behavior. Period. You would actually be more consistent in saying that as long as the subject at hand is who one will interact with socially, a person can use whatever criteria they see fit without being called racist. But this position is simply not defensible, even in main stream America. The argument is not over your view of dating, but rather the meaning of the word racist.”
The reference to what gay white men would do was specifically directed at you and GW as the sentence immediately after demonstrated. But even so, if I did mean all gay white men were blaming black culture for the exclusion of black men (which I did not) that is not the same as saying they are all racist. I have had not ignored the existence of black leaders or their exclusion of gay white men. I just think your theory that they share equal culpability for the lack of representation of gay black men to the public through the mass media is just as stupid as claiming that gay rights leaders are among the primary culprits in the exclusion of gay men in a primarily heterosexual culture.
Your first comment on this blog was to remind us that black people are racist too and that black people have a disproportionate amount of HIV infections. Later, you added that black people were in the majority in DC and you didn’t care that the European study that Aulus cited showed white people are the primary contractors of STDs. He wasn’t presenting evidence to support his view, but rather launching an unprovoked attack on “those racist bastards at the DC Department of Health.” (Never mind that he never implied that the study was racist, but rather that he needed more information to judge it accurately.) When Christopher said he is unilaterally dismissed online, but that people are more than happy to try and get in his pants upon meeting him, he wasn’t saying that many of the white men he has met at bars saw him as an acceptable object , but not as a viable partner and friend. He was just saying that all white men who have rejected him are racist. I wasn’t arguing that black culture has a much smaller influence over white culture than the other way around because of the sheer number of black people there are, but rather that white media is terrible and black media is infallible. You also implied that I brought up my white friends—though you conveniently excluded my white family—to get extra credit for being around a lot of other ethnicities while never mentioning that it was to combat Mike’s bold assertion that I give off an “I hate whitey vibe.” Johnny has regaled us with two stories of violence at the hand of black men (with no mention of any other instances of violence or wrongdoing as they apply to any other race) and referred to all black men as “Tyrone.” What started as a debate about dating, has turned into free reign for every any white person who comes up to talk about HIV, welfare, food stamps, affirmative action, and racial quotas.
But Christopher, Aulus and I are the ones who have infused the conversation with inflammatory rhetoric in this discussion and I in particular have launched an assault of racial epithets on gay white men. Sorry, but no. The race card has been played to the hilt by the white people in this discussion much more so than the black people. Black people who do not agree with Thomas Sowell and John McWhorter on race relations should not be made out to be Al Sharpton.
When we present another perspective on statistics such as those on HIV and those about GQ magazine (and how Mike was essentially counting a cover that had one black person and four white person on it as 50% of each), it’s not because they represent a more comprehensive view of the issue at hand. We’re just whining because we want your dicks. Get over yourself. Everyone who disagrees with you about racism and happens to be black does not want to sleep with you. I guarantee that you are not as beautiful and desired as you think you are, and one day when you are left with nothing but the vapid shell of a person you have allowed yourself to become you’ll realize that. No one is entitled to have sex with anyone and none of us has argued that they are. The only assertion has been that often people use a myriad of excuses to justify what is inherently a racial bias, as you have brilliantly demonstrated.
Nom: “For a behavior to be racist, there has to be an element of acting against a racial group on the basis of perceived inferiority. But several of us have simply made the rather un-extraordinary observation that when we get turned on, the person is a white male. Other white guys have vastly different sex lives, and I’m not gonna give them or anyone else any shit for their choices. But I’m glad that you now seem to agree that we shouldn’t criticize people for their choice of sex partners — just the reasons.”
You are implying that it is just as stupid to criticize the reasons people choose as it is to criticize the end result. So explain to me how the following question is not germane to this discussion: Is there a difference between having no friends who are Muslim and excluding people as friends because they are Muslim? There is a difference between not having friends who are Muslim and excluding people because they are Muslim. One need not have a Muslim friend to be open to the idea of Muslim people being perfectly good friends. Therefore, no one needs to have black friends/boyfriends to not be racist. But to exclude on the basis of the race begs the question why are you selecting friends/partners according to their race. And if you don’t think your race is superior to others, then why is that part of your selecting criteria. Get it? This has been the entire crux of my arguing point, which you never had any intention of addressing.
Nom: “I have already made abundantly clear that we should support increased social interaction between black and white gay guys. You won’t even acknowledge that’s a plainly obvious good idea. Again, I am open to the possibility of genuine social interaction with any man who seeks the same, and I think that’s the first step to making change.”
But before that the right to choose as part of the “American Experience.” Nom: “Like I said before, I couldn’t care less what’s on the cover of a magazine, because I simply read the ones I like and ignore the ones I don’t. Just like any other normal American consumer.”
Before that Mike said, “I, on the other hand, think that neither same-race nor mixed spaces ought to be categorically taboo.”
You don’t think the appearance of black people on magazine is any reflection of how often there is interracial interaction? So we need to mix, but not mixing is ok? Do what?
Your point has been to redress the great grievances you have experienced as a gay white man in middle America at the hands of the numerous angry black gay men who are constantly accosting you with their crazy racist theories. You couldn’t even reference a gay black man in your response to Christopher, but you had to use an old white man. Remember when Christopher said this?
“Sorry, but the “preference” argument doesn’t hold up when many gay men collectively exclude the same groups of men platonically that they do sexually. They’re racists, and would do themselves a huge favor if they just owned up to it.”
You can call it an “un-extraordinary observation” if you want to, but it’s no different than if a straight person made the same kind of “un-extraordinary” observation that all of their friends are straight. So by your logic a straight person can choose not to be friends with you without being labelled a bigot? The solution is that you can find another unbiased straight friend just like I can pick up another magazine if I don’t like the ones that underrepresent black people? Sounds like someone is on a slippery slope . . . .
But yes, Christopher and I are just arrogant in assuming that most white men who hold these same archaic views on race relations are all cut from a similar cloth. It has nothing to do with the fact that we simply have a wider gamut of experiences than you, we’re just trying to tear down all white men. I defy you to put your money where your mouth is. Prove us wrong and tell us about all of your black friends. Since you derided us for mentioning our social experiences, let’s hear about yours. For all I know you grew up in Mississippi during the Civil Right Movement and your best friend there was a black girl named Ruth. Or maybe you’re just a generic, cardboard-cut-out white guy with almost exclusively white friends who is passing off one-sided statistics you read online because someone made you give pause about the role race plays in your selections of whom you interact with. Also, you’ve argued to the death about why exclusion on the basis of race within the realm of dating/sex is not racism, so please tell us what does constitute racism? Does there have be a KKK rally and a lynching?
Nom: “So yes, I’ll allow that if someone says they don’t sleep with black guys because black men are inferior to white men, then that sounds pretty racist. But if someone says that black guys just aren’t revving up their engines, then there’s not much we can do about that in the short term.”
“So yeah, I’m the crazy racist SOB who’s trying to offer a reasonable first step to address the issue. And since I’m a white guy, you already know that you’ve had more inter-ethnic interaction than me.”
“Go ahead and refuse to shake my hand as an equal. You can keep dancing around it from above or below or wherever the hell it is that you think you are. You can seethe and resent and call me names all you want and it doesn’t make one iota of a difference to me. I’ll still extend it to the next guy on the exact same terms.”
So which is it? Is there nothing we can do about it, are you tying to make a valiant effort to change the status quo (by doing things like mistaking your lack of reading comprehension for my spreading false information about HIV), or are you going to do exactly what you’re doing now? And make no mistake, I never said I wouldn’t shake your hand as an equal. I don’t want to shake your hand because I do not like you.
If you’re wondering what my solution is, it’s simple. Start at the beginning. If someone says ‘that’s gay” all the time” tell them to stop because that’s prejudiced. If someone says they aren’t attracted to black people, ask them how many black people they’ve ever even interacted with and then explain how they’re lumping all black men together. What would have colored this entire debate differently for me would have been if there had been more white people who simply said something like this, “I’ve never thought about it. It’s just never occurred to me because I haven’t known many.” Instead, everyone got defensive (over a position they then claim to not have) and without thinking launched a series of extremely trite diatribes and right-wing jingles that can be hurled right back in the faces of the gay community.
What’s the matter sqt? Can’t form your own arguments? If you’re so convinced this debate is a scam for us to get your numbers, now’s the chance to make your case.
Ciao!
*So by your logic a straight person can choose not to be friends with you without being labelled a bigot?
I obviously meant a straight person cannot be friends with you because you’re gay.
@Nom/Mike
Here’s a little more.
In the future you and Mike would do well to realize that when you’re engaged in a discourse you have to actually address the issues that have been raised by your opposition and not your incorrect syntheses of what has been asserted.
Observe.
Nom:
You continue to fling epithets at white men who don’t feel sexual attraction from black men — not because we think you’re inferior (which would be racist), but because we simply don’t feel like hooking up.. and the explanations as to why are far, far more complicated and specific to the individual than your simplistic assertion that this dynamic is the same thing as Jim Crow.
Before that, it was this.
Nom:
“I also agree with you that we shouldn’t be called racist for who we choose to have sex with, but that the things we do in a social setting certainly could be.”
Then (as I’ve already mentioned) it was this.
“Other white guys have vastly different sex lives, and I’m not gonna give them or anyone else any shit for their choices. But I’m glad that you now seem to agree that we shouldn’t criticize people for their choice of sex partners — just the reasons.”
Notice how you went from saying the reasons aren’t relevant to the reasons are exactly what determine whether or not behavior is racist. And no I was not “now seem[ing] to agree.”
Observe.
Another Jeremy:
If there is one idea I hope is laid to rest it’s that I am trying to say that anyone who says they are not attracted to a black person is racist. I am absolutely not saying that. The point is that often a lack of “physical attraction” is used as cover language for racist motives.
And then:
Another Jeremy:
Also
“I am not seeking to criticize anyone that people are dating, but rather their criteria for selecting.”
And your lie that I have conflated dating “preferences” with Jim Crow was refuted as follows.
Another Jeremy:
“The standards for what is acceptable with respect to race relations have changed drastically over even the last part of the century. You cannot refuse to serve someone a cheeseburger at a restaurant because of the color of their skin anymore. You cannot be sent to jail for being a participant in an interracial marriage. You can’t just lynch someone in the town square. But I think people are lying to themselves if they think the past is not lingering in some ways, and this dating issue is as fine an example as any.”
Notice how I specify that racism has come a long way and this refusal to date outside of your own is a last strand of racism, and expressly identify the progress made since Jim Crow.
Also your civil rights leader statements must be shot down as well.
And on a side note, you went on to say that my ‘reference to the black leaders had nothing to do with putting HIV within the black community in context.’ Yes it does. They’re ignoring the hell out of you and the silence is keeping people from talking about strategies to stop the crisis that is disproportionately affecting your community.”
First, you took the quote out of context to make it sound like I was saying that black leaders having nothing to do with the lack of acknowledgement of black gays. What I was saying was that this was not your intention when you initially brought up this issue, but rather that you intended to assert that black gay men are purporting prejudices about gay white men. This was an attempt to conflate white racism against blacks with black racism against whites.
Observe:
Another Jeremy:
“And your reference to the black leaders had nothing to do with putting HIV within the black community in context. You were using it to “prove” that black people often stereotype of gay white people.”
And here you are saying this.
Nom:
The stereotype of the gay male as white and wealthy was not constructed solely by white men, solely through pop culture. Allow me to render black people “visible” for a moment, if you will. While running for President, Obama noted in a speech to a church in Georgia that the black community does, just like the larger society, have a problem with perpetuating homophobia. By bringing this up, I am not painting “most black people” as being a certain way. What I will note, as you have about a relatively small group of elite white males, is that there are a number of black leaders who have not only refused to even be neutral on the issue of gay people — they actively promote a negative stereotype of the gay male as white and wealthy.”
There was no HIV reference, you were trying to say that black people perpetuate homophobia too. And only you have asserted that black people are not “visible.” This is immaterial to whether or not white people discriminate against black people because of race in the realm of dating. See red herring. Also, I defy someone to notice how many times Nom has taken quotes out of their context to alter their original intent.
Nom:
“we can’t hold black leaders accountable for their ignorant and hurtful rhetoric? It doesn’t really matter when former DC Mayor Marion Barry threatens to unleash a “civil war” (like the kind with guns?) between the “gay” (white) and “black” (straight) communities, because you probably think he’s just mindlessly parroting what some white guy told him to say. Which is kind of racist, or at least rather patronizing, if you think about it.”
Nevermind the fact the I never once said black people can do nothing except parrot the majority. I have however said the exact opposite.
Another Jeremy
“Are you actually trying to conflate Harry Jackson’s off color comments with the institutionalized discrimination that has been fostered by white political figures who enjoy far more influence? Of course black people can influence society, but the examples you gave are screamed louder and longer by white conservatives than black liberals! The people who are actively having the biggest negative impact on the white gay community (and the gay community at large) are Republicans like John McCain, not this handful of black civil rights leaders?!?”
But yet you continue saying that my position is that black people cannot do anything without the help of white people. This is a flat out lie.
Another example:
Mike
“If anyone’s a hypocrite, it’s you. You allow for all-black social spaces and bemoan predominately-white social spaces.”
The only people who have “bemoaned” social spaces that are designed for specific races have been white.
Nom:
“Do I even need to mention that there are plenty of social spots around DC where it would be just plain laughable for this white boy to show up and ask for a drink, if I ever even made it past the bouncer?”
Mike then made a great show of saying this.
Mike:
“For example, in Another Jeremy’s world:
– If a club has a majority white clientele, it’s not because white people make up a majority of the population, it’s because the club owners and patrons are racists.
– If a club has a 100% black clientele, it’s not because the club is racist, it’s because black people need a separate space to segregate themselves from the oppressive white-dominated society.”
Find a reference to black clubs that have100% black clientele are not racist or that a club that has a majority of white people by coincidence is racist. I defy you to do it. I said that Ebony magazine exists because black are excluded from most mainstream magazines. There would be no “Black” or “Gay” magazines unless the magazines that are about everything else did not happen to exclude both of these groups. That does not mean that white are inherently racist or that blacks cannot be racist.
Here is another example of debating a straw man.
Nom
“Oh and we all know that GQ always has white guys on the cover every month, except they don’t if you actually look at them.”
This was my original statement about GQ magazine.
I also find it interesting that so many gay men claim to be looking for something “real,” but yet the only thing they seem capable of doing is producing a list of physical wants that conveniently line up with whatever white guy is on the latest issue of GQ.
I did not say that most of the people on the front of the magazine are white. I did prove this to be true however, despite Mike’s failed attempt to make that out to be an example of me throwing pointless accusations of racism around. This was referencing sqt’s description of the men he likes which was as follows.
Sqt:
“Height — I prefer men over 6 feet tall. Not a deal breaker, but this puts most Asian men and Latino men out of the running.”
“Skin tone — I like a medium tone. Too pale skin is a turn off (sorry English lads) and too dark doesn’t appeal either. Many Asian, Middle Eastern, Latino and black guys just don’t have this characteristic. Why is this? Did I “learn” this somewhere? Perhaps. No one taught me this. Interestingly, I find Latina women, Asian women and Middle Eastern women much sexier than most white women. There are also many black women I find hotter than white women. But alas, I don’t date women, so when it comes to a man, I itch for lighter skin. I don’t have an explanation why. No one taught me this, it just is.”
“Eye Color — blue and green eyes are HUGE turn-ons. I have hazel, and I won’t rule out a guy with brown eyes at all, but how many Asians or black men have blue or green eyes?
Body hair. I love body hair but in the right places: chest, arms, and legs. Backs and shoulders, no. I have a few stray hairs in those places and pluck them out. Just find it unattractive. Maybe because it reminds me of my dad. The texture of the hair must be soft. I love to play with a guys’ leg hair and chest hair, but really wiry dark hair for some reason turns me off. The lighter the color of the hair is important. Blond hairs on a guy’s ass are a HUGE turn-on.
Muscles are nice, but I don’t like them too big. I like guys feet to have long toes and high arches. I guess like a statue of David kind of model. Leg muscles and calves should be in proportion or even thicker than upper body and the longer the legs the better.”
Who was the latest white guy on the cover of GQ magazine? Ryan Gosling. A blonde, muscular-but-not-too muscular, blue-eyed, 6’1’’ tall, hairless pretty boy with a medium complexion. Almost to the letter what he said he desired most. Ironic much? This fact got lost somewhere amidst Mike’s inaccurate counting of blacks on GQ.
What really bothers you guys is that we (Christopher, Aulus and I) have simply been more accurate in our analyses of the things that lead you to behave a certain way then you have of us. Which was belied in Mike’s “I hate whitey vibe” and “Or just not black enough to get a tally on your list, like Barack?” and your assumption that because Christopher has experienced what he has perceived as racism at the hands of white gay men, this must speak to his limited exposure. Despite the fact that he grew up in a rich suburb and went to an IVY league school. Mike assumed that he knew my position on the “blackness” of Barack Obama and that I “hate whitey” despite my being raised by white people. You wanted to imply that these are merely fringe positions from people with the same amount limited exposure to other cultures that you have, only to then turn around and mock me for bring up my white family and roommates.
Feel free to use as many properly outlined arguments and direct citations of my own words for evidence of my intellectual dishonesty and misquotes as I have done in this post.
You have used outright lying and misquoting to further your irrelevant argument which has always morphed back into “all white people are not racist,” which no one ever stated. You simply want to knock me off of my soapbox because I have made an extremely logical case for racism playing a role in which exclusion of black gay men and you personally feel the sting. Fear not. Just because your behavior has been identified as racist does not mean that I think all white people are racist. Yet I am the one who is contributing nothing to the debate but epithets. Do tell me this; where is the black equivalent of Johnny on this blog? Who has come forth and said that they were beaten by a racist cop and now hate all white people? Your position is not insightful or unique. It is simply wrong. And your skills at reasoning are pathetic. Perhaps more later, but this is getting silly.
Ciao!
My use of the “I hate whitey” vibe was aimed at any black gay who walks around thinking that all the gay white men around him are racists. For example, Christopher has stood by his claim that “the gay white men here [in Austin] are extremely prejudiced and averse to ANY kind of interaction with black men.”
As I mentioned, in a situation where any person already has their mind made up about how an entire group of people all have a negative trait, then yes, this attitude will shine through in their social interactions. If I think that all Arabs are extremists, for example, my interactions with Arabs will at the very least subtly display my prejudiced feelings towards them. Because of the negative vibes, they would probably rebuff any attempts to sleep with them. It’s the same thing if you mistakenly believe all white gay guys don’t want “ANY kind of interaction with black men.” It’s especially ludicrous when that same person goes on to talk about all of his interactions with white men.
And honestly, if five anonymous dipshits on the internet stop responding to your emails, what does that prove? That there are dingbats on the internet? I figured that one out circa 1995 when I first dialed in to AOL. Is that really grounds to say that all gay white (and in Christopher’s case, Latino) men in Austin are prejudiced … especially when the real live ones don’t seem to be? Seriously, there isn’t some grand injustice behind every random thing that happens in the world. For all we know, Christopher was just talking to some creepy picture collector dudes using fake personal descriptions. Talk about naive.
Oh no they put a good looking blond guy on the cover of GQ! haha seriously dude get a grip. They also probably put a lot of good looking black chicks in Lil Wayne’s latest video. And my question about why you didn’t count Halle Berry was serious.. I assumed you “overlooked” her because she wasn’t black enough for you, but I’ll take your word that it was an honest oversight.
You also need to stop accusing me of “conflation.” What I’m doing is expanding the realm of the possible. You have a very narrow, one-dimensional explantion of the issue: When white guys don’t sleep with black guys, it’s because they’re being racist. I think the world is usually much more multi-dimensional than that. That’s why I’ve brought up fairly common sense analyses of how rejection from within the black community might create barries to personal growth (which can lead to problems in your sex life), or how it may be possible that gay black men are internalizing a stereotype of white gays as racists (which might cause them to have difficulty interacting with white guys). I’m not denying that the phenomenon of putting young white buff guys on the gay pedestal doesn’t happen — all I’m saying is that this stereotype isn’t solely the fault of the Bravo network.
You’re placing almost all of the blame on white-owned “mass media” and I’m suggesting that even more forces might be at play. Pop culture is not the only culture (if we can even call it that). Others include, your own family’s cultural priorities, or the sermons you heard as a young child in church, cynical power plays from politicians, black-owned media (e.g., rap labels), perhaps even disparities in educational achievement, and who knows what else? And yes, there are also white, black or Jewish nationalists who don’t date outside their ethnicity. I don’t think that issues involving race are nearly as one-sided and easily explainable as you make them out to be.
And yes, we are both now in agreement that the reasons are what matters — not the choices themselves. That’s why I’ve been exploring other possible reasons besides your one-word, knee-jerk reaction. I agree that if someone says they don’t date black because they’re better then black people, then yes that’s pretty damn racist. But perhaps for others it is primarily an aesthetic issue (skin color, eye color, dick color, hair color, etc). For some it may be a cultural issue (levels of self-confidence, differing cultural norms, etc). Most likely, the answer is very complex, if there even is one.
If the mass media really did singularly control our minds to the exclusion of everything else, then I think we would all have the same perception of our ideal man — and yet, we don’t. At least in the gay world I live in, I see quite a lot of diversity in terms of what people are looking for. Some people obsess over twinks and others won’t touch em with a ten foot stick. I’ve been given some mild heat for showing up at a big burly bears’ watering hole without any body hair (didn’t lose sleep over it).
My straight white roommates once unknowingly walked into a predominately gay black bar because it seemed to be the only place still open. They were immediately asked by several patrons, half-jokingly I presume, if they were “sure they were in the right place.” Who knows why? Maybe the patrons assumed that these were straight haters out to cause trouble, even though they were outnumbered 50 to one. But since the bar patrons started with an assumption, the environment immediately became awkward, and they felt they had to leave. If the patrons had started with a “hey, what’s up” then my roommates would have quickly come across as the solid allies that they are, and perhaps stayed for a drink or two before heading back out to chase women. (And frankly, I’m not so sure one of my roommates is even all that straight, so maybe he was indulging his curiousity, but I guess the people at that bar will never get to find out). Ultimately, I don’t know what the patrons’ motivations were. And you don’t know what someone’s motivations for sex partner selection are unless they tell you. The best we can do is come up with some good guesses.
I don’t follow your line of reasoning that if someone doesn’t sleep with black guys, it’s because they haven’t met many. I don’t sleep with elderly men, but I’ve met plenty of them too. I can and do have meaningful relationships with black and elderly gay men, but I just haven’t found myself wanting to jump in the sheets with them. I’ve also been in monogamous relationships for ahwhile and simply haven’t slept around that much to begin with.
What I have tried to do is suggest a constructive way forward, which I think is part of what TNG authors and readers should try to do. You don’t seem to want to go down this road, and instead want nothing more than for white guys to agree that your disparaging, one-dimensional, all-encompassing explanation for their sex partner choices is true. Which brings us nowhere. Dialogue, interaction, seeking common ground… these are things we need to do. But it requires both of us to man up and be willing to approach each other as individuals instead of cartoons. And I still maintain that my way forward will result in far more interracial sexytime than your small-minded vitriol.
And now I’m starting to think that you didn’t actually look at the GQ covers, because Tyra Banks is front and center for the Jan 2000 issue. And you think I don’t know how to count. Psh.
Mike
“You have a very narrow, one-dimensional explantion of the issue: When white guys don’t sleep with black guys, it’s because they’re being racist.”
This is an outright lie that was directly refuted in my last two posts. You’re repeating arguments that have not been made to characterize my position as extreme.
“I don’t follow your line of reasoning that if someone doesn’t sleep with black guys, it’s because they haven’t met many. I don’t sleep with elderly men, but I’ve met plenty of them too. I can and do have meaningful relationships with black and elderly gay men, but I just haven’t found myself wanting to jump in the sheets with them. I’ve also been in monogamous relationships for a while and simply haven’t slept around that much to begin with.”
Sigh. NO! I did not say that men who did not have sex with black men have not had exposure to them, but rather that people who say they are not attracted to black men have most likely had very little exposure to them.
“What I have tried to do is suggest a constructive way forward, which I think is part of what TNG authors and readers should try to do. You don’t seem to want to go down this road, and instead want nothing more than for white guys to agree that your disparaging, one-dimensional, all-encompassing explanation for their sex partner choices is true. Which brings us nowhere. Dialogue, interaction, seeking common ground… these are things we need to do. But it requires both of us to man up and be willing to approach each other as individuals instead of cartoons. And I still maintain that my way forward will result in far more interracial sexytime than your small-minded vitriol.”
This was my “way forward.”
“If you’re wondering what my solution is, it’s simple. Start at the beginning. If someone says ‘that’s gay” all the time” tell them to stop because that’s prejudiced. If someone says they aren’t attracted to black people, ask them how many black people they’ve ever even interacted with and then explain how they’re lumping all black men together. What would have colored this entire debate differently for me would have been if there had been more white people who simply said something like this, “I’ve never thought about it. It’s just never occurred to me because I haven’t known many.” Instead, everyone got defensive (over a position they then claim to not have) and without thinking launched a series of extremely trite diatribes and right-wing jingles that can be hurled right back in the faces of the gay community.”
That’s vitriol? Note: Just because you are wrong on a position does not mean that the opposition is equally small-minded. You should admit you were wrong and bow out.
Also, this is the copy of GQ magazine I counted.
http://www.whosdatedwho.com/topic/7940/gisele-bundchen-gq-magazine-january-2000.htm
Giselle is not black. The link I used did not display the issue with Tyra Banks on the cover. Did you actually look at my website or did you just google black people on GQ magazine between 2000-2005 to make me out to be a liar? You’ll recall that I posted the link I used to count up blacks, white, men and girls on the cover and you did not. But please, let us put your website methods to the same scrutiny. Also, I thought GQ didn’t matter?
“Oh no they put a good looking blond guy on the cover of GQ! haha seriously dude get a grip. They also probably put a lot of good looking black chicks in Lil Wayne’s latest video. And my question about why you didn’t count Halle Berry was serious.. I assumed you “overlooked” her because she wasn’t black enough for you, but I’ll take your word that it was an honest oversight.”
Hypocrite much? But since the magazine covers matter again, please run to the OUT magazine website and tally up my numerous exclusions of black people.
Cheers!
http://www.whosdatedwho.com/topic/7930/tyra-banks-gq-magazine-january-1999.htm
Either the website made a mistake or you did, but 1999 is outside of the realm of 2000-2005. Excellent job at trying to characterize that as my deliberate mistake without actually looking at the source I cited. But again, I called your bluff about GQ magazine and was right. So please call mine about OUT magazine, and confirm my sinister motives in debunking your lies.
Cheers!
Yeah dude, I went to GQ’s own website. Like I mentioned in my original post where I said “I went to their Covers Gallery” section. And no, magazine covers don’t really matter. I was simply correcting your original false claim that we’re conforming our ideal of beauty to “whatever white guy was on the latest issue of GQ.” Which can’t be true, because the “latest issue” of GQ doesn’t always have a white guy on it. Anyone with half a brain can see that you were trying to make GQ out to be a big old racist discriminatory publication, and I found that on any given day, a person looking at the “latest issue” of GQ has over an 18% chance of seeing a black person on the cover, even though blacks make up 13% of the population. And then you brought up Ryan Gossling in a vain attempt to show that, at least right now, the latest issue is making black people across America spiral into a depression because they put a blond guy on the cover. Boo fuckin hoo.
I mean seriously, the boogie man is not hiding behind everything that happens everywhere. Worrying about some magazine you obviously haven’t even read is no way to go through life. Just like worrying about how the sex lives of people you’ve never even met are so damned racist. Which deprives you of absolutely nothing that you need to survive. There are actual fights out there worth fighting.
And no I don’t care who OUT puts on its cover. I think the guys they put on the cover look pretty fuckin hot. If you don’t agree, then don’t buy it. Put your money towards publications you like. Or better yet, take some initiative and start a magazine that looks like what you want to see. That’s what the creators of TNG have done — they didn’t see a space for what they wanted, so they made one.
And finally, I don’t think that gay media is really as bad as you make it out to be, anyways. Have you seen that Ru Paul reality show that they’ve got on LOGO now with all the drag queens? That’s about the farthest thing from a Norman Rockwell painting I’ve ever seen.
January 2000, from GQ’s own damn website, Tyra Banks welcoming the racist readers of GQ into the new millennium y’all:
http://www.gq.com/images/slideshows/mens/standalone/gq/feature/100107/gq_covers_gallery/00432f.jpg
See that “January 2000″ up in the corner? You really need to get a grip.
Since you insisted, I just checked the link you posted for January 2000 and you’ve got the German version of the mag up on the site. Or should Germans have to put at least 13% black people on their covers even though I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that that country is less than 1% black?
Someone take this man’s shovel, please!
@ Mike
You keep on saying that you want to meet me in the middle and move forward, and then you turn around make asinine points about an issue that blew up in your face. You keep saying the magazine isn’t a big deal, yet you keep coming back to it over and over again to imply my bias. None of this is material to the issue of racism as it applies to dating/sex, you just want to let everyone know that I have these radical views on race relations to weaken my stance.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Mike
“Since you insisted, I just checked the link you posted for January 2000 and you’ve got the German version of the mag up on the site. Or should Germans have to put at least 13% black people on their covers even though I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that that country is less than 1% black?”
Let this lay to rest forever the contention that you have had another aim besides trying to throw dirt on me and any argument that is against your bogus claims. You tried to imply that I went to the German website and counted those magazines for white and black people. When in reality, the website I used had all of the American ones on it, and that was the one they had for January of 2000. But yet you tried to imply that I went to the German website expecting them to have a smaller number of black people. You are a liar and you are grasping at the last straw you can to make it seem like you’ve had some point connecting your incoherent and flagrantly racist arguments. When I make a point, I just need to “get a grip,” but when you make a “point,” you’ve just caught me in something that you’ve been saying all along. And then you scream that I am the one who is using false characterization the issues. If you want to make this a legitimate debating point, then I defy you go count the blacks on the OUT website.
“Anyone with half a brain can see that you were trying to make GQ out to be a big old racist discriminatory publication, and I found that on any given day, a person looking at the “latest issue” of GQ has over an 18% chance of seeing a black person on the cover, even though blacks make up 13% of the population. And then you brought up Ryan Gossling in a vain attempt to show that, at least right now, the latest issue is making black people across America spiral into a depression because they put a blond guy on the cover. Boo fuckin hoo. ”
I was not implying that GQ was racist (you are again using inflammation to try and avoid the points), but rather that sqt was shallow. He claimed that he had these unique positions on physical attraction that were in fact not unique at all. Convenient that you left out the part about “looking for something real” that was in the same sentence you quoted. Did you even read the part about how sqt’s preferences are exactly what was on the cover of a magazine I tried to bring up?
Also, something I never addressed before. If there are now all of 8 black people in that period (2000-2005), and you had 80 marks (I also do not understand why you were counting marks instead of magazines), how are you coming up with them being on the cover 18% of the time instead of 10% of the time?
Before I limp away with my tattered pride because you have effectively ripped me to pieces, can you go a step further and refute this statement?
Mike
“You have a very narrow, one-dimensional explanation of the issue: When white guys don’t sleep with black guys, it’s because they’re being racist.”
Another Jeremy
“This is an outright lie that was directly refuted in my last two posts. You’re repeating arguments that have not been made to characterize my position as extreme.”
But you’re right. I am now defeated. I’ll mail you my shovel.
So I went to OUT’s website to check up on how racist they are, too. (Not some crappy third party website that you found on Teh Google) Out of 57 covers between 2005-2009, seven covers had black people on them. That means 12.3% of the time, a person looking at the latest issue of OUT on a magazine rack will see a black person represented. According to the latest census data, blacks represent 12.9% of the American population. So, turns out you’re right, OUT magazine is 0.6% racist. My bad.
Ok I must away for a few days. But I’ll be back with a vengeance to discuss the obvious glitches in your latest “debunking” of my contention. Be patient. It’ll be good I promise.
Cheers!
Mike:
“Out of 57 covers between 2005-2009, seven covers had black people on them. That means 12.3% of the time, a person looking at the latest issue of OUT on a magazine rack will see a black person represented. According to the latest census data, blacks represent 12.9% of the American population. So, turns out you’re right, OUT magazine is 0.6% racist. My bad.”
Imagine that someone is counting the number of blacks in 100 cities in the US. In thirteen of the cities, they find one black person. Clearly this must mean that the 13% of the population that blacks represent is proportionally distributed among these cities, since the 100 cities have a 13% chance of containing a black person.
If there are 100 classrooms in a school and 13 of those classrooms have one black person in them, this means that blacks (making up 13% of the population) are equally distributed among the student body because anyone walking into a given classroom has a 13% chance of seeing someone black.
This is the juvenile logic in dispute here. It is utter insanity.
My real mistake was in doing research myself when the burden of proving the accuracy of your studies (or apparent lack therof) was on you. Never mind that you have leapt from counting individuals that I miss as being specific examples of my deliberate exclusion of people who are “not black enough” and back to your ludicrous method of counting the percentage of time they are present being the most important factor. What I should have done was tell you to go back and count correctly if you were going to account for the population. Instead we are now arguing over the mistakes I made in my counting and not that fact that your “method” was purposely designed to maximize the number of black people on the magazine and ignore the number of times people of any other race are present. But let’s continue.
Mike:
“Out of 80 tally marks, I’ve got 15 for black folks, which represents about 18.8% of the total. Nationwide, blacks make up roughly 13% of the population.
By over-representing blacks, GQ must clearly hate white people.”
Even if we were to assume that the marks you counted did not imply that the only two races that exist in the US are black and white, that it was ever asserted that the magazine was a certain “percent racist” (instead of under-representing black people,) and that this is an accurate representation of the population (which it is absolutely not), your analysis of GQ magazine would suggest that at least 87% of the time you can expect to see a white person on the magazine. They make up 66% of the population. So by your stupid rationalizing the magazine would also be “21% white supremacist.”
Seriously?
And your “research” on OUT magazine contained the same egregious errors.
But again, let’s accept your patently ridiculous proposition that the odds of seeing someone of a minority in a given moment has anything to do with the percentage of the population they represent and ignore the fact that only 7 of the 90 or so human beings on the covers during this period were black (the individual counting of whom is crucial to any statistic claiming to be indicative of the population), and that of these 7, 5 were in group pictures. Why did you inexplicably ignore the fact that 55 out of 57 magazines contain white people, which would be 96.4% of the time, and where does that fit into your ludicrous puzzle? And 53 out of the 57 specifically contain white men. So 93% of the time, there is a white guy on the cover. You chose to focus on the fact that my third party website was crappy and not the fact that it had about twice as many many magazines as the period you listed pulled from a greater period of time. And when you observe this magazine for any large amount of time there is a great dearth of people who are not white and male.
You and Nom have had no real goal in your arguments except to accuse everyone who offers evidence of this racial dynamic of not looking at the whole picture or being racist in their own right. The real victims of this dynamic are not the black people who are excluded, but the poor gay white guys who have to deal with accusations of racism. “Boo-hoo,” “black men are not entitled to white men,” “all white people are not racist.” You have mistaken your wounded ego for a logical argument. I have found this entire discussion to be very informative about the lengths people will go to defend their own prejudices, and it has made some very important points about the comparative “racisms” of people who are “opening up the realm of possibilities” vs those who have been functionally desegregated.
For me, this is indeed a real battle worth fighting. If someone says they wouldn’t date me because I’m black, I have a hard time believing they wouldn’t be more apt to discriminate against me in other ways. Comments about “preferences” based on race seem to be less about skin complexion and more about relegating black men to a lower status, as if in some kind of 21st century caste system. This was perfectly illustrated in Aulus’s study. It demonstrated that when white gay men were evaluating the attractiveness of people they thought were black, the features were not acknowledged at all due to the race. The first step is to acknowledge what behaviors are racist instead of getting indignant because you are on the the receiving end of criticism.
But tell me, is this the point where you will simply shut the fuck up, or will you come back with more trumped up “research” to further your self-serving arguments to absolve yourself of responsibility for your own racist actions?
@ Nom
Another thing.
Nom:
“On Dec. 13, you said, “when the issue is race, gay white men are all too happy to say they aren’t to blame because of our culture”
Really? All gay white men say that? Even your nice gay white male roommates?”
Read definition number 3.
too (t)
adv.
1. In addition; also: He’s coming along too.
2. More than enough; excessively: She worries too much.
3. To a regrettable degree: My error was all too apparent.
4. Very; extremely; immensely: He’s only too willing to be of service.
5. Informal Indeed; so: You will too do it!
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the English language so you won’t make so many arguments based on false premises.
Cheers!
Your contention was that the powerful gay white men who produce gay pop culture are ignoring black people and rendering them invisible. Since you brought up OUT, I went out and did some research, using very simple standards that you couldn’t meet. At the very least, for example, I made sure to go to the actual source’s website and review the magazines cover by cover. Anyone who has done research before will understand that what you tried to do didn’t even come close. You used a glitchy third party aggregator website, and that’s why your numbers are all bunk.
For example, you provided a link to an image of the Tyra Banks cover, which your website claimed ran on GQ in 1999. But if you actually look at the link that you provided (http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_2764107/gq-magazine-united-states-january-1999/) and I mean, really look at it. With your eyes. Do you see how there is no writing anywhere on that cover about the stories inside? That’s a big bright Mao-sized red flag that you don’t seem capable of seeing. Someone has clearly doctored your image, and they did a shitty job of it at that.
Now compare that to the image of the Tyra Banks cover that I used: http://www.gq.com/images/slideshows/mens/standalone/gq/feature/100107/gq_covers_gallery/00432f.jpg
See how there’s words and even a date on it!
Or, how about when you told me that white girl Gisele was on GQ’s January 2000 cover? You obviously didn’t look at the link that you provided, because if you did, you would have instantly seen that there was German written all over it. And then you would have realized something wasn’t right. But you persist in repeating easily-refutable data because you need it to be true.
Therefore, any rational person has long since stopped listening to any claims that you want to make based on your own “research.”
Back to the issue that you raised — that gay white men who produce pop culture, like the owners of OUT magazine, are racists who are ignoring black people. Your basic claim is that these guys are rendering black people invisible. I think I have a valid argument that any time a black person is represented on a cover, whether alone or in a group, then black people are being represented (as opposed to not being represented). Based on this standard, OUT magazine is representing black people at a proportional rate. Frankly, I don’t care if this standard is good enough for you, because I don’t care what goes on magazines anyways. But, between your website’s bogus stats and the hard evidence that I used, your initial claim that OUT magazine renders black people invisible is now about as strong as a wet piece of one-ply toilet paper.
I know you don’t like to “equate” the racism and stereotyping coming from the black community with what’s coming from gay white men towards blacks. But if OUT magazine is the best you can come up with (and five anonymous skeez-bags at the Craigslist glory hole is all that Christopher’s got), then I’d say things really are nowhere near as bad as you think they are. And if you’re just going to completely ignore the calls for “civil war” against the (white) gays that are coming from black leaders, the demonizing of (white) gay people in much of black pop culture and many black churches, and the pervasive silence within the black community about so much as the existence of black gay people, which contributes to the spread of the HIV epidemic, then I’d say that you’re just being disingenuous. These things are very relevant, because they’re all putting a false social divide between an invisible you and the racist white gays.
You’re not concerned about fighting injustice in the real world, because you’re too busy seeking vengeance on the phantom demons in your head.
It sounds to me like you’re really only interested in having white guys admit that your false assumptions about us are true. Basically, you just want to “win” … and you don’t care if it takes defending a shittily photoshopped Tyra Banks cover to do it.
You’re not actually interested in having a constructive dialogue. You just want me to “shut the fuck up” so that you can continue with your “soap box” monologue. I’ve been willing to challenge my assumptions, to call out people (black and white) who are causing harm, and to promote more opportunities for better social interaction between black and white gay men, which would at the very least create a space to try to allow feelings about attractiveness to change. You won’t have none of that because you think that you’re 100% right all the time. Even when you offer one-word explanations for something as extraordinarily multifaceted and complex as attraction. Heck, you’ve now resorted to making bogus accusations about magazines you appear to never have even looked at, because you need them to be racist in order for your distorted worldview to hold together. You need me to be a racist, too. And the fact that I’m not is making your head explode.
I think that you have developed such a strong emotional dependency on the feeling that you get from being discriminated against that you can no longer separate legitimate instances of oppression from the illusion in which you live. Although I can’t diagnose you, I’d say that your predicament is really not much different from being addicted to a drug. You have far too many hang-ups to even be capable of meeting a white man on equal terms. On the other hand, I have said many times that I intend to show respect to any black man who extends the same. So now, the best the rest of us can do is wait for you to get your own self together. You need to be a man if you want other men to treat you like one.
1) I find it interesting that one black person can do something to one white person, and white people are comfortable holding it against an entire race.
2) I had a drunk white guy jump on my car and order me to give him a ride to Adams Morgan. I had to fight him off with my club. Then, he ran up the street and tried to attack me. Please step up if you are white and think I should now be wary of all white men.
3) I am AMAZED at how many people just accept and rationalize situations like the one I described above. Judging an entire race of people based on the acts of a knucklehead or two is the definition of bigotry.
4) If you judge someone based on the color of their skin, you are a bigot. What’s complicated about that? You either respect all human beings and judge us as individuals based on our own merits, or you lump people together because you’re too lazy to afford people the same equal treatment you’re demanding as a gay man.
5) If it stopped at who people “preferred” to screw, that would be one thing. However, this thread demonstrates what people of color have been saying for a very long time. The “preference” follows already existing prejudice. Explain how being attracted to a certain color of skin has anything to do with who you are willing to befriend or hang out with? What does it have to do with common decency and not judging based on stereotypes?
6) This thread illustrates why we can’t get anything done as a community. All this talk about equality is crap. It’s clear that some who have weighed in believe equality starts inside them and extends outward to those they “prefer.” Screw the rest. Right?
6.1) Start telling LGBTQ youth the truth. The “it gets better” thing is a bold faced lie. They survive the bullying, the torture, the isolation and ridicule, and for what? So they can then be judged and ridiculed by the community we promised them would be waiting if they were brave and didn’t take their own lives?
7) If we fall in love with people’s hearts and what’s on the inside, the outside is nothing more than a shell. I happen to have fallen in love with a man who wasn’t what I was looking for at the time. I love him in ways I never knew were possible. I thank God everyday that my life has been blessed with someone who loves me, respects me, cherishes me, and allows me to do the same in return.
So, go ahead. Keep focusing on the skin color of the person you want to stick your penis into or vice versa. Cling to your superficial, childish, bigoted views. Your anger and bitterness will keep you warm on all those cold nights you spend alone because you choose to limit your opportunities at finding love based on ridiculous, superficial nonsense. Guess what fellas. That six pack your bf has won’t always be there. He’s going to go bald or get hair on his back. The smooth, tight skin you love will wrinkle and sag. If he loves you because of your skin color, he will leave you for reason just as petty and juvenile.
I’ve been with my partner for 8 monogamous years. Yes! That’s eight years, and we’ve been monogamous. It works because we have shared values. We view ourselves as a gay family. You don’t have to be monogamous, but when you put skin color over whether or not you both believe in a little thing like fidelity, it leaves the back door open for cheating and other foolishness. Even in open relationships, if you put how “hot he is” before, will he respect the rules we put in place for hooking up with other guys, it’s going to end badly. Okay, you say skin color is only one factor. So is honesty, and I trust my one-day husband implicitly.
The fact that this is such a volatile topic, again, demonstrates that there are so many single gay men out there because of superficial garbage. Yes, physical attraction matters, but love is going to be the thing that keeps you together when he gains 50 pounds or things start shifting. Skin color, and that is what this is about, has nothing to do with shared values or life experiences. It is a social construct to which people continue to cling at their own detriment. No, you don’t have to go out and fall in love with the first person of color you meet, but why close yourself off. For example, you see a guy with white skin that you think is cute, but he’s having dinner with a black guy. You dismiss him because “he likes black guys.” Your ignorant ass doesn’t even bother to find out that it’s his sister’s husband or his best friend from college (with whom he’s never had sex), but because of your bigoted assumptions–this goes for everybody not just the white guys–you missed out on your one opportunity to spend the rest of your life with the man of your dreams.
Let’s talk about the real issue here. Ignorant, superficial people get what they deserve. If you are that shallow, you will either wind up alone or jumping from one miserable relationship to another. So, good luck with that whole “preference” thing.
No one has asserted that any magazine owner is racist or that all gay white men are racist. These contentions are entirely of your own making, and they have been directly discarded as rubbish so many times that I will not address them further. I will address your very colorful and selective analysis of GQ and OUT magazines as they have applied to this discussion.
You ignored the substance of my last post. The original reference to GQ magazine had nothing to do with the “racism” of the magazine. Sqt claimed to have very specific tastes that just happen to exclude black people. When put under any scrutiny, his tastes are as banal as any teenage girl with access to the internet. He had very generic tastes that happened to line up with very stereotypical white beauty, which was displayed by the most recent white person on the cover of a very mainstream magazine. Most people form their idea of a Prince Charming in very superficial ways which was perfectly displayed by his “preferences,” and these “preferences” do not often include anyone who is not white. In your idiotic haste to characterize this debate as merely an implication that all white men are racist, you ran to the website and counted the percentage of time black people were present because you incorrectly synthesized the tenor of the discussion.
What does how poorly photoshopped the picture was have to do with anything? It’s the same person who is the same race. What does the fact that the magazine covers I found displaying a random sampling of close to 100 magazines were not in consecutive years? None of that changes the fact that there are rarely black people on the cover and when they are they typically appear in group shots, while there are almost always white men. What I found interesting about all of your information about the Tyra Banks issue was how you tried to imply that I was using her picture to prove that the magazine was racist. When in reality it was you who was using her picture to prove that she was one of two black women on the cover in a five year period. I provided the link to demonstrate why I had not counted her because she was not listed between 2000 and 2005. The link I had showed her on the cover in 1999. And when I listed the link with the picture of Giselle it was also to indicate why I had not counted Tyra as a black person in this period. You said I was deliberately excluding black people, and I was not. You did not go back and count the way I counted on your website, you simply tried to imply that I was making things up to discredit me, instead of actually rethinking about the completely ludicrous method of “counting” you employed.
Even if you assume that everything I said was totally fictitious, you still did not count the number of white people on the covers. It is not that your methods are not good enough for me. They simply do not make sense. You cannot account for the population of the United States and then not actually count the population on the magazine covers. What you have done in light of this being pointed out to you is attempt to characterize the errors on the website and my omission of Halle Berry as proof of my unreliability instead of going back and counting the real way.
Most importantly, my claims based on my own “research” were not the crux of my last post. The crux of it was why you had conveniently omitted the fact that even within your own method of “counting,” you did not mention the likelihood of a white person being on the cover of the magazines, and in the case of OUT magazine there is a white man on the cover over 90% of the time even in your five year time frame that doesn’t actually account for the population. You averted that issue in all of your preaching.
And now all of a sudden you want to bring up arguments that Nom used to justify your claims?
What is most astonishing is your assertion that I used being discriminated against by white gay men as a drug, despite living with two of them and being raised by white people. You would love for it to be true that I just hate gay white men, but I do not. I presume you have very little interaction with people who are black, but yet you are spouting off stats and arguments that you stole from someone else on this same blog because you have no actual reason to come to the conclusions that you have. You are not empowered to tell any black person how bad anything is or how they should react. And yet you argue adamantly about how the “gays aint shit,” when I could just as easily say it’s because they are constantly representing themselves in the media as hyper-sexualized, superficial & effeminate? Why is it the fault of the black leaders, but not the fault of the gay leaders? HIV is not nearly as much of a “black problem” as it is a “gay problem” (as was displayed like 90 bajillion posts ago), so do we need to take a look at gay culture a little more closely? This has already been argued, but you simply want to bring up points that were not initially yours to strengthen your claims which seem to be devoid of references to the substance of the actual arguments. I don’t “need you to be racist,” because everything you’ve said displays your own ignorance! Just because you have some pat anecdotes about the black experience (Lil Wayne, Ebony magazine, Antoine Dodson, Barack is not black enough), does not mean that you are beholden to the real truth about the racial climate in the gay community.
Many arguments attempting to dispel the role of racism simply reinforce the narrative that black people think they are “entitled” to things they are not, and that the real victims are white people. And it’s simply nonsense. The first step toward having a constructive conversation is to stop using half truths about magazine covers, HIV and welfare to justify prejudices.
The assertion that if a white person will not date a black person because they are black is racist is 100% right. And that has not changed.
“The assertion that if a white person will not date a black person because they are black is racist is 100% right.”
No, I think the issue is “Why Am I Not Attracted to Black Men?”
You think the answer is simply that this lack of attraction is racism.
I’m arguing that this phenomenon is not in and of itself a racist behavior.
As another commenter noted, racism requires you to be actively treating one ethnic group differently because you believe them to be inferior. While it is certainly possible that individual people may think they are better than black people, and therefore cannot be attracted to them, this is not true for all people who do not experience arousal from black people. I have argued that the reasons behind this lack of attraction for some gay white men towards black men are most likely multifaceted, complex, and unique to the individual.
A secondary question that follows from this also addresses your primary assertion: how can you date someone that you’re not attracted to?
What I have also said, and you refuse to endorse, is a fairly non-controversial and yet practical first step to addressing this dynamic, which is to create more space for healthy social interaction between black and white gay men.
Another Jeremy: “What would have colored this entire debate differently for me would have been if there had been more white people who simply said something like this, “I’ve never thought about it. It’s just never occurred to me because I haven’t known many.”
and: “I presume you have very little interaction with people who are black”
This is a fundamental flaw with the way you approach life. You claim to already know what people are thinking and what they’ve done in the past before you’ve even met them. In short, you are, by your own words, presumptuous. You somehow intuitively know that every white guy who doesn’t find himself attracted to black guys is a racist who doesn’t know enough black people. You assume that this is the one and only reason behind what you presume to be our inherently racist feelings about attractiveness. I would offer as an easy counter-example to this claim that one can certainly be a card carrying white supremacist and yet have quite a lot of interaction with black people. Prison gang members, for instance.
If anything, I’d say it’s nice white pretend progressive people who probably don’t have a lot of social interaction with black people, claim to think everyone is equally attractive, and then go about having remarkably homogenous sex lives with people that they actually find hot. I just happen to be honest about how I feel, and not only that, I am actively looking for a constructive way forward. This is part of what separates the men from the boys: those who go out and make change happen versus those who think they already know everything.
And in response to your question: “What does how poorly photoshopped the picture was have to do with anything? It’s the same person who is the same race.”
Are you seriously asking me why that might be a problem? If your data set is magazine covers, and they’ve been heavily altered, then your data is flawed. For example, there is no date on your Tyra cover. Therefore, you cannot claim that it was published in 1999 just because the person who photoshopped the image says that it was. Since I used un-altered covers, I was able to easily verify that when GQ’s website said a cover was from Jan 2000, then I could look at the image and see “January 2000″ stamped in the corner. Does that make sense? Your website, since you didn’t bother to look, aggregates by default all of the countries where the magazine is published, including apparently “North Korea” (I would be astonished if you can actually buy a GQ in Pyongyang, let alone a roll of toilet paper, but I could be wrong) That’s how you ended up sending us all a link to the German version of GQ and making yourself look rather sophomoric in the process.
At the very least, I explained the rationalization for my method, and I used accurate data. Until you can manage to do that, your critiques remain invalid. You cast the issue in terms of black visibility, so I counted the number of times that blacks were visible (as opposed to invisible). I think it’s odd that you don’t want me to count black people who appear alongside whites, and yet you think that there’s not enough interaction between white and black people in society. Should we not represent mixed groups? And for a quick explanation … “population” in the context of social science research does not always need to mean a group of people. For example, in this case, the population that we’re discussing is magazine covers over a certain period.
Will you at least address some of the issues I raised about how black culture might also be rendering black gay people invisible? Do you think that these dynamics might play any role at all in how black gay men assess their own attractiveness? And if this does have a negative impact on self-valuation, could this lack of self-valuation correspond to an attention deficit from others (i.e., if you think you’re ugly/invisible/unlovable, then I’m more likely to find you unattractive.) For example, it seems that broadly speaking, white cultures (whether in America or globally) are relatively more accepting of same-sex desire than black cultures. That’s why you have gay marriage in Canada and only a few openly gay people at all in Uganda (according to their government) or DC’s Ward 8 (according to their representative on the city council). From that, I believe it stands to reason that white gay people are relatively more able to see themselves as desirable than black gay people. And, all else being equal, I think I’m more likely to be attracted to someone who sees themselves as desirable.
how do i turn this off?
see…this is exactly what i mean…. this shit will never end…EVER…. just allow one another to be racist, non-racist, confused, what have you… this is like asking what came first, the lawn jockey or the cracker???
Mike
“No, I think the issue is “Why Am I Not Attracted to Black Men?”
You think the answer is simply that this lack of attraction is racism.
I’m arguing that this phenomenon is not in and of itself a racist behavior.”
The statement “I am not attracted to black men” is an inherently racist statement because it presupposes that all black men look and/or behave the same way. Much like “I do not want my children around gay men” is an inherently bigoted statement. You can not make a blanket judgment about an entire group of people and then use HIV and a black leader with ridiculous views to justify why black people are viewed as unattractive. All that matters is that one be what you are looking for, but using pseudo intellectualism to explain why people feel a certain way does not change the matter at hand. Gay people are more likely to have psychological disorders like low self-esteem and STDs, and there are many complicated reasons for that. None of them, however, makes any straight person who uses them as a reason to not like gay people any less bigoted. So it goes with the issue at hand. Any statement about the attractiveness of individuals based on assumptions or statistics about the whole group is prejudiced.
And you absolutely do not have to have a willfully malicious intent or the belief that another group is inferior to be engaged in prejudiced or racist behavior. This has been demonstrated ad nauseum on this silly blog. I’ll use my earlier example of a heterosexual mother not wanting her children to be around gay people because they tend to carry too much baggage, emotional problems, identity crises, sexual infidelity, etc. She could then site a myriad of reasons for this baggage such as persecution by religious zealots and a lack of access to monogamous relationships that are recognized by the state, but her assumption that ALL gay people would not be a positive influence on her child is prejudiced. She did not necessarily intend to make them out to be inferior, but she did render heterosexual people superior in the process. So it goes with black people. You need not intentionally see them as inferior to render yourself superior.
Thus the reasons that cause people to feel a certain way about an entire group are not relevant. A judgment about the group is prejudiced in and of itself. And when a prejudice is based on race it is called racism. Do you follow? Now the reason you do not want to date a specific person with whom you have had personal interaction is a wholly different matter, but no one has referenced that.
Mike
“You claim to already know what people are thinking and what they’ve done in the past before you’ve even met them. In short, you are, by your own words, presumptuous. You somehow intuitively know that every white guy who doesn’t find himself attracted to black guys is a racist who doesn’t know enough black people.”
Remember this?
Mike:
“I don’t follow your line of reasoning that if someone doesn’t sleep with black guys, it’s because they haven’t met many. I don’t sleep with elderly men, but I’ve met plenty of them too. I can and do have meaningful relationships with black and elderly gay men, but I just haven’t found myself wanting to jump in the sheets with them.”
Um, that’s why I assumed you had not known many black people? Because you argued that it was illogical to assume that one who didn’t know many would have prejudiced views even though limited exposure to a group is more likely to lead to categorical assumptions about the entire group? I’m not sure that interacting with a lot of people in prison is the same as interacting with them of your own volition in the real world??
Mike
“At the very least, I explained the rationalization for my method, and I used accurate data. Until you can manage to do that, your critiques remain invalid. You cast the issue in terms of black visibility, so I counted the number of times that blacks were visible (as opposed to invisible). I think it’s odd that you don’t want me to count black people who appear alongside whites, and yet you think that there’s not enough interaction between white and black people in society. Should we not represent mixed groups?”
You can say my critiques are invalid for any reason you want. The fact of the matter is that your data is flawed even within your incorrect method because you did not acknowledge the percent of the time that white people are present. And it is way more often than it should be, particularly on the covers of OUT magazine. You most certainly should count group pictures! But you should not count a magazine that has one black person on the cover and two white as part of the percentage of the time that black people are present and conveniently ignore the part of the time white people are present. This is what you originally said.
Mike:
“Out of 80 tally marks, I’ve got 15 for black folks, which represents about 18.8% of the total. Nationwide, blacks make up roughly 13% of the population.
By over-representing blacks, GQ must clearly hate white people.”
The obvious implication was that because 18.8% of the magazines had black people then not enough have white people and this is a patently false statement because white people do not make up 80% of the population. You did not actually count in a manner that accounted for the presence of white people, but yet claimed that the magazine must hate white people because there was such a higher instance of black appearances than you inaccurately say is proportional. You keep arguing about GQ an OUT magazine as if they proportionally present races, and they simply do not. That’s why you haven’t gone back and counted anything but black people.
And I have not refused to acknowledge the need for more social interaction, I simply refuse to accept your notion that I am beholden to as many stereotypes about white people as you have demonstrated yourself to be about black people. I have social interaction with gay white men every single day, but not many on this blog can say the opposite. And I think that’s the core difference between our perspectives.
I agree with Johnny J.
@Mike & @Another Jeremy, you’re cranking out these diatribes and not listening to anything the other has to say. You’re both so determined to be right you’re passing up a genuine opportunity to learn.
You both make great points. You both say some stuff that’s not so great, but seriously. How much time have you devoted to being disagreeable? Are you trying to change the other person’s mind, or is it just self-indulgent ranting at this point?
How about this? Why don’t you both let me take you to lunch? You guys can sit down face-to-face and talk.
We’ll even make it interesting. I bet you that you two will be respectful to one another and be able to clear up misunderstandings that are common in these types of online forums. I bet you’ll walk away not hating each other. If I’m right, you guys buy lunch. If I’m wrong. I treat.
What do you say? Truce?
I agree with EOJ actually. I had to think for a while before posting my last comment because nothing new has been accomplished or stated in quite some time. Also, your previous comment is among my favorite on this blog.
well now if you both (@another Jeremy and @mike) actually go through this please post an update on how both of your perspectives changed.
Will another Jeremy understand not all white gays are racist?
Will Mike accept the media does in fact under represent black people?
Will they both agree HIV affects minorities disproportionately?
..yet according to some, gays avoid blacks because that would be a double whammy?
Lastly, will we come up with an accurate definition of racism ? sexual attractiveness?
I would also like to point out some info from mighty wikipedia on sexual attractiveness and skin color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Skin_tone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Cultural_effects
Most of this seems like cultural/social upbringing, yet it shows a common pattern across most cultures.
Clearly, we’re not going to agree on everything. But I think that in spite of some rough language, this is still a conversation worth having.
I have acknowledged and agree that white owned pop culture probably does over-represent white people. And, not trying to do the equivalency thing here, but black owned pop culture does over-represent straight black people. I only bring this up to say that I don’t think these trends are bad in and of themselves. I think a “diverse” world does not require everything everywhere to be 13% black. This sort of a proportionality logic is part of the reason why many state-funded historically black colleges and universities are being required to offer scholarships to recruit white kids.
I think diversity can also mean that there are a variety of types of social spaces, and for cultural reasons, some are just going to be whiter or blacker, gayer or straighter, hairier or smoother than others. No matter how hard you try, the Mid-Atlantic Mayonnaise Convention is going to be whiter because white folks are downright crazy about mayo.
It may also be possible that some mainstream gay social spaces are overly white, simply because black people might feel less comfortable being open about their sexuality (leading to fewer gay black people being seen in public as gay than there would otherwise be). I don’t know this for a fact, but I’m offering it as another possibility for a discussion on black queer visibility, just as I have done with the other issues we have discussed on this thread. I’m naturally skeptical when someone says they have found the one and only explanation for a social dynamic.
I feel that I have made some valid points to show that black people are being rendered visible in the mainstream publications that Another Jeremy has cited. We simply disagree on how black is black enough not to be called racist. But at least now we know where each of us draws that line, so I think this over-extended discussion has had some merit.
I sincerely appreciate Another Jeremy’s willingness to stake out and defend his position, even if I think it’s wrong. I have more respect for someone who can do that than for the vast majority of people who wouldn’t touch this topic with a ten foot pole (thereby guaranteeing zero change).
I have said all along that I’m willing to shake any man’s hand as an equal, if it’s offered in a spirit of mutual respect, and I stand by that because I mean it.
Okay fellas. You’ve both responded, and neither has said whether they are willing to take me up on my offer. @Mike was in the ballpark with his last semtence. @AnotherJeremy, thanks for the kind words about my post, but I have a serious offer on the table.
The battle over this “preference” silliness has been going on forever, and the internet has only exacerbated it. What we’ll say to each other sitting in our boxers at a desk in our bedroom is completely different from what we say to one another face-to-face–if we are willing to talk to one another at all.
You are both passionate and smart as hell. Our community needs men like both of you to devote as much time as you have to this conversation to things that will really make a difference. Let’s have lunch. I’ll bring my camera, and we can do a write up for TNG about our afternoon, and we don’t have to talk about race at all. We can focus on figuring out things you two have in common.
Being right is overrated. I don’t know if either of you are in relationships, but, after 8 years, I’d rather go to bed happy than right. If you two are going to devote your lives to solving this problem for our community, then go for it. Short of that, after 12 billion posts, where you’ve accomplished nothing that I can discern, it time to lead by example. You can go back and read the first article I posted on TNG. It was about race, and it was in response to a guy I thought “got it all wrong.”
I invited him over to our house a couple of times. We talked and got to know one another, and we are cut from the same cloth.
The offer stands. I’m not suggesting anything I haven’t done several times myself. @Mike, I appreciate your willingness to talk about the issue, but, again, where’s that gotten you? There’s too much talk in our community and not nearly enough action. I am proposing you two do something that most people refuse to do, which is 1) sit down with someone who doesn’t agree with you about something important; and 2) sit down with someone of a different race and chill.
I know both of you have friends of different races, you’re too smart not to, but I’m saying do something bigger. Step out of your comfort zone. I believe it could have a larger impact than everything both of you have posted on this site combined. There’s no pressure. I’m not going to judge you if you’re not comfortable with it. You should ignore anyone who does, but what if? What if having lunch sets an example for some gay kid, and he has lunch with someone who doesn’t look like him because he saw two guys who did it on TNG. Just think about that.
In the meantime, here’s a quick story for you about the other thing I’ve said-the thing about closing ourselves off to options and how it can impact our lives. Again, I’ve spent 8 incredible years with a man who wasn’t remotely close to what I was looking for when I met him. It’s okay. He knows. Anyway, I usually stay up later than him, which means he’s asleep when I climb into bed. Despite me telling him he can turn off the lamp on my side of the bed, he leaves it on so I can find my way. Now, I like it when he leaves the light on. On nights when we don’t go to bed at the same time, I quietly open the bedroom door as not to wake him up, but somehow he always senses me entering the room. He always gets a huge smile on his face and rolls over to face my side of the bed. Here’s the awesome part. He has no recollection of it the next morning. It’s happened hundreds of times, and he never remembers smiling at me and positioning himself so that we can fall asleep holding hands. I know! I know! It sounds like I’m making it up, but I swear on everything I believe in it’s true. Those little moments bring me so much joy that the idea I could be missing out on them because I “preferred” a different kind of guy back then seems stupid.
What are all the other people with preferences missing out on by placing ridiculous limitations on themselves because they care more about the packaging than the heart inside? What messages are we sending to baby gays who are looking to us to make things better? Even if we don’t meet, I want to put that out there again. And you (The general “you”) don’t even have to have sex with someone with a different skin color. I’m not saying that, but what if the man of your dreams plays soccer every Sunday with a guy you work with? However, you don’t talk to him because of the color of his skin? What if that guy turns out to be your best man at your wedding? Instead, you never befriend him. You never go to the soccer/hockey game or gallery opening or poetry reading or whatever. Instead, you wind up being the drunk guy falling off his barstool bitching about how stuck up everyone is. You know exactly who I’m talking about.
We can go round and round about the science, the stats, the magazine covers, and everything else, but, at the end of the day this all boils down to two things for me: 1) What community are we leaving baby gays? Is it going to be one where we are too afraid to talk to one another face-to-face? Talking about controversial issues online isn’t brave. Being the community you want to see is brave, but, again, no judgement. We are allowed to do that in whatever way best suits us as individuals; and 2) Seeing the smile on my one-day husband’s face when he rolls over to fall asleep with me is worth more than anything I could have possibly gained by not going out with him. I fell in love with my best friend, and I get to have sex with him. How awesome is that? LOL
Goodnight fellas.
I wonder what the comments on this blog would have looked like if the name of it was “Why am I not Friends with Gay Men?” I wonder how many gay white men would have allowed straight people to use stats about the problems that plague gay culture and the role of the gay media in perpetuating the idea that gay men are sex-crazed animals incapable of real love to justify these obvious prejudices. But this involves sex so that’s different right? You can’t help who you want to have sex with right? But then how can you know in advance that you will not be attracted to someone who is black? If this is biological then wouldn’t you have to make the determination upon meeting someone as opposed to making a judgment about the entire group? Just some thoughts.
I had three white gay friends with whom this very same discussion came up. Two of them had AIDs scares due to their really cool white boyfriends, and one of them stayed with an older white gentleman who professed his preoccupation with pederasty. But they’d be damned before they’d even entertain the possibility of dating someone black. I had to discontinue my friendships with all of them.
The real issue here is bigger than whether or not these gay white dudes who engage in this behavior are racist, but why they seem to have such ass backwards priorities and an utterly warped sense of morality. If what you’re looking for is companionship, why must be the companion meet a superficial check list before consideration? What is with the rampant superficiality in the “gay community” that excludes everything that isn’t beautiful enough despite the fact that most gay men are miserable and alone?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but this high school mentality about who Mr. Right is in the gay world has made me feel completely alienated from the “Gay Movement,” and the reason I think it has yet to be mobilized in the same way the Women’s Movement and the Black Movement were. No one cares about a social movement that still furthers the message that they’re not good enough. Grow up people. Because I have a feeling that one day you will not be beautiful enough either.
wow this blog was a great Sunday read for me, more particularly the deep discussions here in the comments.
sqt , don’t take this the wrong way but you come off to me as an internet troll with the use of those canned statistics to justify racist reasoning defending the main subject. I found it highly amusing that how you didn’t fray from those statistics but persistent as what trolls do best.
johnny j, why the dramatic attitude? It’s obvious that you are ve not over the events that may have happened to you in the past. Please seek therapy.
Mike and Another Jeremy, if I had to call who’s won the debate in this discussion I’d say it is clearly Another Jeremy. Jeremy made a stronger case on that it is racist if a person chooses not to date someone based on their skin color. Call it a personal choice preference all you want, but you should also realize that it’s still a racist personal choice preference. Saying it’s because statistics like HIV, Crime-rate, etc. should be detected as obvious bullpucky talk to anyone reading this blog with a intelligent mindset. Because I guarantee you sqt.that there are Blacks out there who abide the law, are college-educated, practice abstinence, et cetera like any non-Black that don’t fold into your little statistic.
Another Jeremy, though you did slip up to a little with Mike on the GQ/Out magazine cover comparisons, on who was right calculated the amount of B/W covers from said link, looking back it was an obvious red herring started with Mike looking at covers of Ebony magazine online not to find if it too contained anything written as what considered the ideal male for gay men like Another Jeremy mentioned citing GQ. But instead Mike you took that moment to push this discussion off into a gotcha discussion not pertaining to the main discussion whatsoever. But any-who great discussion everyone.
Thanks for your thoughts but I don’t need therapy.. I just mind my own business now. I don’t go out of my way to make friends with certain people because I’ve got burned so many times. I dont care how it makes me sound. I have given up trying as I could say for the other side, or so it seems. I do not and will not treat people disrespectively and I won’t be lumped into a racist category either. I have my reasons and for this I won’t apologize. It is what it is. I’m an individual that does not live through my past and I do not define myself through my past. If I did this I would never move ahead emotionally or spiritually and I can not have the company of people around me with that philosophy either. I feel for people and their circumstances under which they were born and live but everyone has had challenges in life, some more than others, but we work through them and become better people for it. If you don’t, that’s a problem and I can’t be a part of it.
Any therapist would give me the same text book cause and effect that I can simply give myself so thanks for your concern but I’m ok and staying that way. Later.
@ Another Jeremy -
Your arguments are thoughtful and certainly argued critically. I agree with most everything you’ve asserted.
I don’t know, however, if it will do any good. The criticism you aim at white gay men (and, more broadly, the predominance of whiteness in society) is invariably going to be met with resistance from these white gay men. You’ve done a great job dismissing their petty, insubstantial arguments, but I don’t know how much of what you say will really get through to gay men who hold these prejudices.
In the end, it’s a personal decision who one dates and involves themselves with sexually and romantically, and no amount of logic or reasoning can somehow “snap” prejudicial people out of their ways. So, I wonder what you hope to gain from posting what you’ve posted. Based on my own experiences with this very topic, I can assure you that it’s falling on deaf (and hostile) ears. Which is unfortunate, but (as the discussion should show) unsurprising.
I just noticed there is another Christopher here, so I’ll go by my first name, Adam. I just posted the above post to Jeremy.
@ Christopher 2.0/Adam
My real goal in arguing so vehemently with the numerous bogus ideas used on this blog was to demonstrate how many gay white men want all the privileges of having sex with whomever they want without being judged and then they want to turn around and use the same arguments that are used against their own lifestyle to justify their own behavior. They don’t care about injustice unless it applies to them and they have no problem identifying similar types of prejudices against them, but they then cross their arms and refuse to acknowledge their own prejudices against anyone else. It’s disgusting. That is why every time they get pinned down on a specific issue they switch tactics or piggy back off of arguments that are on their side even if they have nothing to do with what they originally posted. Even though at first a few people argued that this behavior was not racist (which they eventually agreed made no sense), it quickly turned into a discussion about how everyone who disagreed was racist in their own right.
The only reason I entertained this discussion for so long was because of how stupid the logic against it was. As you can see by some of the flagrantly racist comments made on this blog, many of the primary debaters had no intention of having their minds changed or examining their own role in this dynamic. They want to point the finger at those who call them out for it instead of using their brains to draw a parallel between this social problem and the similar one that gays face in society at large.
So yes I knew getting into this that I was going to meet hostility and blatant racism. But I don’t care. They are still wrong and I’m going to call them out for their bigotry and their hypocrisy. Despite what many have implied, it is not that I am jealous of these “gorgeous” and racist white men, it’s that they make me sick. And any gay man who actually addresses the issue with any intellectual honesty would be able to dispel his own defensiveness over the topic and realize what I and many have argued this entire time; which is that selecting a partner or excluding a partner on the basis of their race is racist behavior. But I’m glad you got something out of my attempt to “fight the good fight.”
This is just sad.
Instead of feeling the need to explain “it,” what attract us more to a particular race over another,I wish we could all just accept “it” and move on.
What’s the point in bullying someone into accepting that their actions are racist. This IS an issue of racism, sexual racism, whether we’d like to accept it or now. And it’s deep-rooted.
It’s obvious that the people who can’t see beyond race are rightfully defensive about it.
We’re all strangers. Living completely separate lives. Let’s just take it for what it is and move on.
What I think most people fail to realize is sexual attraction is mostly chemical and biologically based, and very complex. To try to put a label on it or categorize it will only complicate things further. If one is going to seriously tackle racism, it would be best to attack it on a social level, minus the sexual aspect. This isn’t to say sexual racism/discrimination based on attraction doesn’t exist. It’s just too complex to separate the racial aspect from the biological aspect. I’d rather tackle the issue regarding a lot of gay white men who won’t even become friends with or socialize with gay black men based on a nonsexual level, despite sharing common interests with them. I’d also like to know why the gay community chooses to idolize gay white men so much in their publications, websites, tv shows, and films. And if you’re a gay white male or a gay male who has light skin, racism doesn’t affect you as much as it would people of color, because you’re highly accepted and represented, while gay people of color aren’t. So if you’re a gay white or gay light skin male, whether you acknowledge it or not, you’re indeed privileged (at least by society’s standards). So please, don’t rant about how you feel like you’re being called out as a racist, because we all know not all gay white or gay light skin men are racist. But if you think you are, then I can see why you would be offended. I would be too.
http://www.xtra.ca/public/Vancouver/My_journey_through_sexual_racism-7373.aspx
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/opinion/?ak=5613
This was my favorite part of the last one.
But it isn’t ”just a preference,” because why one is attracted to what one is attracted to wasn’t written into one’s DNA. We come to our desires because of a profound socialization process. People are taught to value one thing over another throughout our early lives. When parents say things like, ”Boys don’t cry,” ”Good is in the light, and evil in the dark,” or when you are habitually exposed to certain kinds of bodies deemed attractive, the messages a person receives from those cues are internalized.
A ”preference” for ”straight-acting” men is not like Athena bursting out of Zeus’s brain: it emerges in part because of how you evaluated femininity and how you eroticize bodies and behaviors associated with masculinity. Likewise, racial preferences aren’t in-born. They are formed and entangled with associations about gender, body-type and behaviors that have been racialized and evaluated.
Quote: “We come to our desires because of a profound socialization process. People are taught to value one thing over another throughout our early lives.”
This is only partly true, because you still have to take into account the “biological” aspect of sexual attraction. You can’t say that every person who isn’t sexually attracted to another based on either race or looks is a racist. Because for someone to have a real sexual attraction, there has to be a chemical and biological response. If there’s no “spark”, there’s no sexual attraction. Period. I’m not going to pass judgment on somebody just because their body doesn’t respond “the political right way” I want it to. However, I do take issue with the words most gay men use when posting online or in ads when they say, “NO BLACKS, NO ASIANS, NO FATS, NO FEMS … or “Why Am I Not Attracted To Black Men?”. Because it comes across as arrogant, crude, unthoughtful, narcissistic, and as a put down to those individuals. It would be best to just state who you’d be interested in meeting or what you’re looking for. In other words, be respectful. And if one has to ponder out loud in a public forum why they’re not attracted to black men, they definitely need some professional help that the forum cannot provide.
Studies have shown ten ways to Sunday that sexual orientation is not learned and that value judgments on the basis of race are. Studies done on physical attraction show that the biological aspects of attraction apply to general health; specifically the symmetry of an individual’s facial features and the shape of their bodies.
The whole point is that if you are not attracted to someone BECAUSE they’re black than that is by definition racist behavior. This does not mean that you must be attracted to every black person you meet (or any), or that every white person who is not attracted to every black person they meet is racist. But these assessments must go from person to person without being aptly called prejudiced. This has been stated numerous times already.
You’re contradicting yourself. First you say, “if you are not attracted to someone BECAUSE they’re black than that is by definition racist behavior.” but then you say, “This does not mean that you must be attracted to every black person you meet (or any)..”. What is the “or any”?
So you’re saying if I wasn’t sexually attracted to any white men, or any men who appeared to look white, yet I still love them in an emotional and platonic way, I’m a racist?
Is there a difference between a straight person meeting gay men they happen to not like and a straight person refusing to be friends with someone who is gay? The difference is the same as not meeting any black people you have personally want to date and saying you will not date anyone who is black. The point is that an individual evaluation must be take place. If you had met every white man on the planet and decided that you were not attracted to them, then that behavior would not display racism. But I highly doubt you or anyone else has met any entire race of people, so making a judgment about the whole race is racist.
*wanted
I hear what you saying, and the example I used doesn’t pertain to me. I’m sexually attracted to men of all ethnicities, even if I haven’t met them all. lol
First, one doesn’t have to “evaluate” someone, if they already know that ethnic type doesn’t sexually turn them on. Just like I don’t have to “evaluate” a woman to know whether or not I’ll be be sexually attracted to her…because I won’t. Now, will I be her friend and love her unconditionally? Absolutely.
You have to understand that most people know what sexually turns them on, and they just can’t help it, nor fight it. It’s organic, biological, and instantaneous. And when it comes to dealing with prejudices and racism, it’s best to leave it outside the bedroom, and just focus on the social aspect of it. To me, this is where it’s most damaging. And that’s not to say that racism can’t come into play when one’s either dating or having sexual interactions. It’s just too complex to distinguish. Now, if you remove sex from the equation, and an individual doesn’t want to ether socialize with you, have you in their circle of friends, or interact with you based on your race, then that’s racist. And I’ve had many of these type of experiences to understand this kind of racism. For example, I’ve had many gay white men who assumed I was white just because of my interests and how I talked. And once they discover I wasn’t, they were outta there. I even had one apologize to me saying that he thought I was white. Mind you, this wasn’t a “hooking-up” or “dating” scenario, but only a platonic plus shared interests scenario. And after awhile, thinking this was only happening to me, I talked to other gay black men who shared the similar experiences. I was also surprise to discover from a few gay white men I talked to who weren’t racist, that they either had a gay white male friend who was racist or knew of one or a few who were.
So yes, gay racism within the gay culture is alive and well. However, instead of focusing on the sexual aspect of gay racism, I’d rather focus on the nonsexual aspect of gay racism. Because then, lack of sexual attraction cannot be used as an excuse.
If these attractions are instantaneous and biological then how can you know in advance you will not be attracted to someone who doesn’t possess certain characteristics?
I’m wondering what Mike and Nom think of this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2611561/posts
This is a blog on which the premise is that gay people are responsible for the high rate of suicides in the gay community and that attempts to blame heterosexual bigotry for these deaths are just to displace responsibility for their unsafe lifestyles. One person says that gay activists are the ones to blame for “preaching a message of hopelessness” by telling them they can’t change the fact that they’re gay. The hard truth is that it’s true that gay men do engage in much more risky sexual behavior and do in fact have more psychological problems. So if it’s the fault of black leaders and homophobia in the black community that gay black men are so regularly excluded in the “gay community” is it also the fault of gay leaders and gay lifestyles that cause so many young gay men to commit suicide? Is the mention of homophobia as a cause simply inflammatory and simplistic? Are these It Gets Better videos being disingenuous by not mentioning the fact that gay men do tend to lead unhealthy lifestyles and are the straight politicians who agree treating gay men like children incapable of being held responsible for their own actions? The questions are not rhetorical and I actually do want to understand what the difference is between these two things if you see one.
Since this is a conversation on sexual attraction, I’m going to try to keep my responses related to that topic. When I referenced how a significant number of black leaders are ignoring the existence of gay people in their own communities, I was bringing up another dynamic which might cause black gay people to feel invisible (and by extension, unattractive) or to remain more closeted and shy away from the spotlight of “mainstream” gay spaces. I don’t think that it’s simply the fact that gay pop culture overemphasizes white gay men that is causing black LGBT people to have issues with visibility.
And again, I’m not trying to play the oppression comparison game that you seem to want to play here. But let’s assume I were to continue with your line of attack against gay mass media (e.g., using your target of OUT magazine). I found that the “black visibility” percentage for that particular gay mag (12.3%) was essentially the same as the percentage of black people in the American population (12.9%).
I wonder what the “LGBT visibility” percentage would be on the cover of Ebony magazine? And it doesn’t matter if you didn’t like the way I counted for OUT? Let’s use the same standards over the same time period for comparison’s sake.
I’d be genuinely surprised if Ebony’s score was higher.
I’m not seeking to make a broad brush generalization that only black people are responsible for the lack of black gay visibility — I’m simply saying that you’re wrong to attribute this to only being a problem caused by gay white men. To offer a countervailing force to all this, there are black LGBT people (e.g., Wanda Sykes) who are certainly positive trailblazers within the world of black entertainment and pop culture in their own right.
My point here, as everywhere else, has been to highlight the complexity of these issues, because I believe your main error has been to reduce someone’s overwhelmingly involuntary sexual responses to racism. Myself and others like GW are calling for breaking down the public-arena social barriers between black and white gay men as the most constructive way forward. I argue that, if feelings about sexual attractiveness can possibly shift over the course of a lifetime, but that these sexual responses probably can not change immediately at will, then the only way to begin to alter this dynamic is to increase the amount of time and space for positive social interaction. You won’t improve this dynamic by calling me a racist before you know me.
“Are these It Gets Better videos being disingenuous by not mentioning the fact that gay men do tend to lead unhealthy lifestyles and are the straight politicians who agree treating gay men like children incapable of being held responsible for their own actions?”
This point is off-topic to the issue of race and attractiveness. The “It Gets Better” videos are not disingenuous because they help kids to see past the bullying that may seem at the time to be unbearable, as well as to talk to an adult, which is crucial. The other issue you raise, about the intersection of personal responsibility and gay men’s health, I think is also problematic. I feel like the message I get as a gay man from other gay men/activists is that I need to do my part in preventing the spread of the disease by using strategies to protect myself. The ads to sign up for the HIV clinical trials tend to have messages about “what are YOU doing to fight HIV?” etc.
Unfortunately, you keep furthering a stereotype of gay promiscuity which is not necessarily borne out by large scale surveys of Americans’ sexual behavior. The primary reason for this disparity, as mentioned above repeatedly, between straight and gay rates of HIV incidence has to do with the relatively easier transmission of the virus via anal sex versus vaginal sex. All else being equal, your average unprotected hetero-intercourse will be less likely to transmit the virus than your average unprotected homo-intercourse. Hence, why the message to all gay men from gay community leaders is that we need to *be responsible for our own health* and stay vigilant in protecting ourselves.
And yes, of course gay men do need support and accountability from across the heterosexual majority as well. Black LGBT people in particular need more black community leaders to step up to the plate and at the very least acknowledge them as members of that community, instead of demonizing them or propagating the ignorant and divisive notion that same-sex desire is something that only happens among rich white men who hate black people. As long as anyone persists in peddling this kind of dangerous nonsense, all LGBT people are justified in calling them out on it. None of us should be required to hold our tongues or pretend not to hear their dangerous and frankly violent rhetoric, just because they’re black. I believe that accountability ought to be equally required from everyone.
Mike, you’re right. Accountability ought to be equally required from everyone, and this includes the black community, the Asian community, the Latino community, and etc.. But you made a comment that you don’t think that the gay pop culture overemphasizes white gay men, and that it’s causing black LGBT people to have issues with visibility. Let me just make this clear. The overemphasizes of white gay men within the gay culture and media is a major part of the problem, but it isn’t the only cause. I realize that every community has it issues and problems regarding homosexuality. This includes the black community, the Asian community, the Latino community, and yes, even the white community itself. But the gay white community has more power and resources to make great positive changes that can affect and benefit ALL communities. Like the saying goes, “to whom much is given, much is expected”. And I expected more from a community that prides itself on diversity and using the “rainbow” as its symbol. And Mike, as a white gay male, you see so much representation of yourself in ALL forms of media, and not just the gay media. But we minorites, Asians, Blacks, and Latinos don’t. Or if we do, it’s very minor and not lasting. And I personally don’t need magazine statistics to show me wheather or not gay minorities are represented equally, because we’re not. And besides, hasn’t the main gay agenda always been about EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.
Whenever I talk to a straight person and ask them do they feel gay whites are represented more in the media, 99% percent of them say yes. And when I asked them when they think of the gay culture, what ethnic race comes in mind, almost ALL of them say Caucasian. So this my friend is what you call AN IMAGE PROBLEM. And it’s this image problem that affects EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING on many levels, even gay sexual attraction.
“I wonder what the “LGBT visibility” percentage would be on the cover of Ebony magazine? And it doesn’t matter if you didn’t like the way I counted for OUT? Let’s use the same standards over the same time period for comparison’s sake.”
Ok let’s do something real. Wanda Sykes was on the cover of the Ebony Magazine as part of their power 150 list in 2009. So if there are 60 covers of Ebony magazine in a 5 year period, then anyone looking at the magazine rack has a 1.6% chance of seeing a lesbian on the cover. By over-representing gay women, clearly Ebony magazine must hate straight women. And homosexuals make up approximately 2% of the population so the magazine is .4% homophobic. Any idiot can see that you were trying to say that Ebony magazine is great big homophobic magazine. Well boo fuckin-hoo! The idea that straight people exclude gay people is a bullshit stereotype of straight people. I guess in Mike’s world a bar that happens to have all straight people in it is homophobic whereas a bar that contains 100% gay people is just fine because they are merely reacting to an oppressive homophobic society. It couldn’t possibly be because they make up less of the population. Gimme a break.
“Since this is a conversation on sexual attraction, I’m going to try to keep my responses related to that topic.”
Not really.
Mike
“And if you’re just going to completely ignore the calls for “civil war” against the (white) gays that are coming from black leaders, the demonizing of (white) gay people in much of black pop culture and many black churches, and the pervasive silence within the black community about so much as the existence of black gay people, which contributes to the spread of the HIV epidemic, then I’d say that you’re just being disingenuous.”
This conversation is about the role racism plays in the formation of sexual attractions. It Gets Better is about emphasizing the role of homophobia and intolerance plays in gay teens killing themselves. The point of the comparison is that you are saying gay black leaders and their ignorance are the main cause of black exclusion by white gay people. So what is the difference between saying that and saying that gay leaders and figures need to stop perpetuating this image of gay men as shallow and sex crazed if they want gay teens to stop committing suicide at 5 times the rate that straight teens do?
I don’t think your assessment of It Gets Better is correct at all. It teaches kids that straight people are to blame for all of their problems. Gay leaders need to stop furthering the ignorant idea that straight people make them live dangerous lives which makes them ashamed of who they are. Someone should highlight the complexity of the issue to Dan Savage and tell him to stop blaming gay suicides on straight intolerance. He’s being disingenuous by ignoring the dangerous lifestyles of gay men. He’s wrong to blame everything on straight people.
Mike
“The primary reason for this disparity, as mentioned above repeatedly, between straight and gay rates of HIV incidence has to do with the relatively easier transmission of the virus via anal sex versus vaginal sex. All else being equal, your average unprotected hetero-intercourse will be less likely to transmit the virus than your average unprotected homo-intercourse. Hence, why the message to all gay men from gay community leaders is that we need to *be responsible for our own health* and stay vigilant in protecting ourselves.”
I don’t hear all gay leaders saying that. I hear them talking about how hard it is to be a gay man.
Mike
“None of us should be required to hold our tongues or pretend not to hear their dangerous and frankly violent rhetoric, just because they’re black. I believe that accountability ought to be equally required from everyone.”
I think I understand what you’re saying about HIV though and black leaders now. Gay white people are more likely to get HIV because anal sex is an easier way to transmit the virus, but gay black people are more likely to get it because they have been rendered invisible by the homophobia with the black community. All black leaders perpetuate violence toward gays, while all white gay leaders perpetuate tolerance and responsible behavior that will promote protection from HIV.
It is a fact that gay men average many more sexual partners than their straight counterparts. They tend to do a lot more drugs and have sex with a lot more people. Lots of straight kids get bullied and they still don’t kill themselves at the rate gay people do. Maybe gays are not accepted in school because they don’t love themselves. I for one am more likely to be friends with someone who is ok with who they are, and no one who engages in that kind of behavior is likely to have high self-esteem. Even critically acclaimed shows like Queer as Folk depict gay men as drug using sex-addicts. Gay culture revels in superficiality and promiscuity. So maybe that’s why so many gay kids kill themselves. Because they are constantly being sold this idea that they must live wild lives by powerful gay men which the rest of the populace sees as dangerous and this creates a lot of shame. Gay leaders always blame everything on bigotry instead of taking personal responsibility for the HIV epidemic that plagues the gay community. I don’t hear many gay leaders mention reckless gay lifestyles when they talk about homophobia and equality. I could say the same about the military. This phenomena of their exclusion until just recently was not just the result of homophobia. Gay men are much more likely to have psychological problems and it’s too dangerous to have someone who might flip out when lives are at stake because they’re ashamed of the lifestyle they lead. The military just made the rather unremarkable observation that straight people have tended to be their best soldiers. We should all stand together and call out the powerful gay leaders who help perpetuate this image of gay men as drag queens and sex fiends. That’s one of the main reasons why they were excluded from the armed services for so long. I’m just calling on you to speak truth to the powers in the gay community. You’re not going to fix anything by calling people homophobic. After all, this intolerance is not likely to go away in a generation.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/TF_in_news/08_0227/stories/2_julian_bond.pdf
Another Jeremy: “I think I understand what you’re saying about HIV though and black leaders now. Gay white people are more likely to get HIV because anal sex is an easier way to transmit the virus, but gay black people are more likely to get it because they have been rendered invisible by the homophobia with the black community. All black leaders perpetuate violence toward gays, while all white gay leaders perpetuate tolerance and responsible behavior that will promote protection from HIV.”
You are deliberately trying to mischaracterize me. I have said over and over that I’m offering additional explanations for why things are the way they are. You are the person saying that there is one and only one explanation for the lack of black gay visibility and associated feelings about attractiveness. I think that there is more than one dynamic at play here, which is a remarkably common-sense observation about most aspects of life.
There are three separate facts about HIV in the United States that we need to keep clear regardless of whatever confusing nonsense you continue to assert:
– Gay men have higher rates of HIV than straight men.
– Black people have higher rates of HIV than white people.
– Gay/bi black men have higher rates of HIV than gay/bi white men.
There may be different findings as to how large of a disparity this is, but again and again, these are the findings. If there is an HIV expert out there who thinks I ought to be corrected, please speak up and do so.
Now, again, as with most things in life, there are many reasons for why these things are so. The primary reason for the disparity between gay and straight men has to do with the different ways we tend to have sex. There are other issues, to be sure, but that’s the main one. Promiscuity doesn’t matter quite so much by itself as long as its safe. The studies to which I refer look at the numbers of *unprotected* sexual partners (the ones that typically transmit the virus) — and those figures are only slightly higher, if at all, for gay men as a group.
And yes, gay activists can and do call on the majority for more resources to fight HIV/AIDS. This is a perfectly valid demand from the broader society, and not only because HIV affects gay and straight alike. But I was also talking about the message from gay community leaders to gay men specifically. And maybe you and I do live in completely different worlds, but the message that I consistently get — the one that’s staring me in the face from that free packet of condoms waiting by the door at the club, or in the ads to fight HIV in gay publications, or on the bus stops, or from LGBT student leaders etc, etc — is that I need to do my part, get tested and protect myself.
Encouraging personal responsibility among the targeted minority while seeking support from the majority sounds like a good strategy to me.
There are also many reasons for the disparity between black and white rates of HIV. As has been mentioned above, this includes things like:
– Unequal access to health care
– Higher rates of black male incarceration (sex between prisoners)
– Higher rates of intravenous drug use (needle sharing)
And, yes, this may be hard for you to hear, but many black leaders are in fact demonizing, ignoring and ostracizing LGBT people within their own communities. When people stick their heads in the sand and yell nonsense about gayness being something that only sinful diseased racist white guys do, they are in fact contributing to the spread of HIV in the black community because they are pretending that things are not the way they really are.
Take Atlanta’s Bishop Eddie Long, for example. A man so well-respected by the black community that he presided over Rosa Parks’ funeral. A man who once warned all LGBT people in no uncertain terms: “God says you deserve death!” A man who turned out to be fooling around with young men himself, which is the only reason the media even paid attention to his rhetoric. I have made clear again and again and again that I’m not talking about all black leaders. Julian Bond is an excellent example of a positive black ally to LGBT people. He has stood strong in the face of criticism from other black leaders and the controversy his support has caused among the NAACP’s membership.
None of this changes the fact that when anyone calls for “death” and “civil war” that they’re being dangerous and creating artificial divisions between gays and blacks. Just this month, that call was repeated by one of the leaders of the National Black Church Initiative. Rev. Anthony Evans said: “This [D.C. marriage] law was forced down the church’s throat and what the Supreme Court has set up is the greatest civil war between the church and the gay community. And let me just state for the record, we don’t want that fight. We love our gay brothers and sisters.”
So, I guess it’s more like how the church loved the non-Christians so much that it had to launch several deadly crusades against them?
I am perfectly capable of realizing that not all black leaders think this way. But this kind of rhetoric does have an impact. I had a discussion with a black man who was holding a sign against same-sex marriage near the Washington Monument a few weeks ago. I wanted to really try to understand what was motivating his vitriol (and why he didn’t support my call for a ban on divorce if we really want to “protect marriage”). He started talking about homosexuality being like a “spreading cancer” that needs to be “exterminated.” On the one hand, I knew that this man probably didn’t really intend to kill me on the spot. But, am I the only one at least troubled by this sort of language?
Am I a racist for holding accountable the sources of semi-veiled threats to my physical safety, just because they happen to be black?
Am I surprised that black LGBT people might be relatively more reticent to take on a visible queer identity in such a context? Could this possibly contribute, at some level, to a situation in which there are simply fewer “out” queer people of color, which would by default lead to white people being over-represented among the “out” queer community?
If our pop culture is really just a somewhat distorted mirror of our community, maybe it’s not so far off the mark after all. Can it offer a fuller picture? Most certainly.
I do feel that black LGBT people ought to be the loudest voices speaking out against violent rhetoric coming from black leaders. But if they cannot or will not (and we should not criticize them regardless), then I believe the rest of us have a duty, frankly, to speak up.
For me, some of the strongest homophobia that I’ve had to deal with on a personal level has come from leaders of the faith community I was raised in — an overwhelmingly white Catholic community. So, I make it a point as a gay Catholic to speak out and organize in opposition to these mostly white religious leaders who are demonizing us. However, I’m not hearing them directly calling for violence (although they are allied with those who do) so much as they want to block legal equality or have me pray harder or something. On the other hand, several recent surveys of Catholic parishioners show that majorities of regular Catholics actually do support LGBT people. Complexity — I know it’s kinda crazy!
I also take issue with your assertion that LGBT people make up only 2% of the population. Obviously it’s a difficult number to pin-point, but in the last two general elections, 4% of voters self-identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual. There are clearly additional people who are sorta gay, or do have same-sex encounters/feelings but don’t identify as GLB, etc. There are also more people who are trans, and I think that some degree of biological gender variance is at around 1% of the population, but again that’s probably a difficult number to pinpoint. But I’d say a good guess for LGBT as an identity is more like 5% to 7% and growing. So, if you want to play the comparison game, OUT wins :)
But I don’t want to play your comparison game. What I’m doing is simply showing that there is more going on in the real world than in your one-dimensional mischaracterization of it. I have never disagreed that young white fit men are the most sought-after in the gay community. I just don’t think that white men are the only ones causing this dynamic. This means that solely going after us and absolving everyone else of responsibility won’t solve the problem at hand.
For example, a black man may have sex with other black men without thinking of them or himself as “gay,” because based on his cultural conditioning, “gay” is a white identity. This conditioning comes in part from LOGO TV (if he ever watched that..), straight-owned media, the church he went to every week growing up, the “no homo” music that he listens to, and elsewhere. So since he doesn’t think of himself as gay, he doesn’t associate with or feel attracted to openly gay white men. Conversely, if a black man embraces a “gay” identity and then goes to a mainstream gay space, he might start subconsciously avoiding (or be avoided by) other black men, causing him to be more likely to seek out a white partner because those guys are more comfortable being “gay”. There’s no need to blame someone for whom this occurs, or to call him a racist for having difficulty feeling attraction to other black men, because the vast majority of all this was beyond his control. And let me for the thousandth time add this qualification: I’m not talking about all black guys.
But for someone who may fit those profiles, or myself, or you, or any other gay man for that matter, what we do need is to figure out how to talk to each other, and allow each other to articulate who they are and what they stand for, on their own terms. Blanket condemnations prevent that dialogue from happening. Once we can figure out how to talk to each other (and I think many gay guys already do), it will be easier for us to stand together against anyone who is preventing us from living our lives as equal members of society.
Correction: I misspoke about Rev. Eddie Long. He presided over Coretta Scott King’s funeral. Rosa Parks’ funeral was apparently held an AME church in Detroit. Although that church has taken positions against rights for gays and lesbians, I don’t know of any leaders who have made violent remarks.
Mike
“I also take issue with your assertion that LGBT people make up only 2% of the population. Obviously it’s a difficult number to pin-point, but in the last two general elections, 4% of voters self-identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual. There are clearly additional people who are sorta gay, or do have same-sex encounters/feelings but don’t identify as GLB, etc. There are also more people who are trans, and I think that some degree of biological gender variance is at around 1% of the population, but again that’s probably a difficult number to pinpoint. But I’d say a good guess for LGBT as an identity is more like 5% to 7% and growing. So, if you want to play the comparison game, OUT wins :)”
That’s not gonna fly. According to the most recent census data, gay people actually represent 1.5% of the population. So by standards you created and justified, the representation of out gays in EBONY magazine is proportional to the US population. You do not get to inflate the number of gays with your own guessing just because the result disproves your claim that powerful black men are ignoring the existence of gay people in their own community. Now that claim is about as strong as one-ply toilet paper. Since you brought up EBONY magazine I went out and did some research using very simple standards that you couldn’t meet. It seems to me that if all you have to prove it are some made up theories about EBONY magazine and some quotes from a handful of stupid black preachers then maybe this dynamic isn’t as bad as you think it is. I think you have an emotional dependency on this idea that the Black Man is responsible for your white gay oppression. I’m no doctor, but I imagine it’s something very much like being addicted to a drug. You need most black people to be homophobic and the fact that they’re not makes your head wanna explode! You can’t even tell the difference between real oppression and your own unstable need to make-up prejudices about magazines you obviously haven’t read. You need to act like a man if you want black men to treat you like one.
Mike
“But I don’t want to play your comparison game. What I’m doing is simply showing that there is more going on in the real world than in your one-dimensional mischaracterization of it.”
Are you actually trying to insinuate that I am the one who started with the counting and this method? If so you have made yourself look very sophomoric. I’m merely trying to point out that homophobia is not the only cause of gay exclusion in the black community.
Mike
“For me, some of the strongest homophobia that I’ve had to deal with on a personal level has come from leaders of the faith community I was raised in — an overwhelmingly white Catholic community. So, I make it a point as a gay Catholic to speak out and organize in opposition to these mostly white religious leaders who are demonizing us. However, I’m not hearing them directly calling for violence (although they are allied with those who do) so much as they want to block legal equality or have me pray harder or something. On the other hand, several recent surveys of Catholic parishioners show that majorities of regular Catholics actually do support LGBT people. Complexity — I know it’s kinda crazy!”
After Prop 8 passed in CA Rush Limbaugh said that it was a sensible decision. He went on to say that if mothers could know in advance if the child was going to be gay, all gay men would be pro-life because they know not many mothers would want gay children. White leaders are creating a wedge between white gay men and the rest of white culture. This could explain why so many gay white men avoid other gay white men as sexual partners. Because powerful white leaders like Rush Limbaugh and John McCain ignore the existence of gay white men.
And are you actually trying to imply that black preachers are the only ones who use violent rhetoric toward gays? Um have you ever heard of the Woodsboro Baptist Church? Was the President of the US who suggested an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriages white or black? Was the senator who led the filibuster of the entire Defense Spending Bill because it contained a repeal of DADT white or black?
But so what if they wanted to keep DADT in place. There are many reasons for that other than the oft used knee-jerk explanation of homophobia. Gay people can select another profession if that one happens to bode best for straight people. The military has a preference for soldiers who are not gay for a number of reasons that are not related to prejudices.
“The primary reason for this disparity, as mentioned above repeatedly, between straight and gay rates of HIV incidence has to do with the relatively easier transmission of the virus via anal sex versus vaginal sex.”
If anal sex is more risky than vaginal sex, then it is a lifestyle choice that causes this disparity. Gay men do not have to engage in anal sex. Intolerance is not responsible for this disparity. No black leaders are out there making gays do each other up the booty. White Gay rights leaders may tell young gays to have safe sex, but maybe they should be telling them to stop sleeping with so many people and cut out some of the butt sex.
Dan Savage said this.
“Because monogamy is ridiculous and people aren’t any good at it. We’re not wired for it. We didn’t evolve to be. It’s unnatural and it places a tremendous strain on our marriages and our long-term commitments to expect them to be effortlessly monogamous.“
This is a perfect example of a powerful gay man perpetuating the idea that monogamy is unobtainable for gay men. Will you at least acknowledge some of the reasons I have laid out about gay exclusion including their high instance of psychological problems, their outrageously high instances of all stds and the fact that powerful gay white leaders promote an idea that monogamy is stupid? People who critique the social problems faced by the gay community are not necessarily bigots just because the people being critiqued happen to be gay. Gay leaders are not infallible.
Mike:
“For example, a black man may have sex with other black men without thinking of them or himself as “gay,” because based on his cultural conditioning, “gay” is a white identity. This conditioning comes in part from LOGO TV (if he ever watched that..), straight-owned media, the church he went to every week growing up, the “no homo” music that he listens to, and elsewhere. So since he doesn’t think of himself as gay, he doesn’t associate with or feel attracted to openly gay white men. Conversely, if a black man embraces a “gay” identity and then goes to a mainstream gay space, he might start subconsciously avoiding (or be avoided by) other black men, causing him to be more likely to seek out a white partner because those guys are more comfortable being “gay”. There’s no need to blame someone for whom this occurs, or to call him a racist for having difficulty feeling attraction to other black men, because the vast majority of all this was beyond his control. And let me for the thousandth time add this qualification: I’m not talking about all black guys.”
I completely agree with you! If a person is conditioned to believe something false about a group of people because of the way they are raised they are totally absolved of responsibility for their actions and there is no reason to call them out for it. That’s why people who are born into very religious households that teach them that gay men are an abomination should not be called intolerant, because the vast majority of this behavior is beyond their control. It is an error to assume that these overwhelmingly involuntary reactions are the result of homophobia. For those of us who live in the real world there are better ways forward then to simply call all straight people bigots.
To be honest, it’s gotten really hard to follow exactly what you trying to do with your cute new argumentative style, but I’ll do my best.
And no, just parroting my words and replacing “gay” with “black” and then going “a-HA!” doesn’t really do much of anything. This isn’t how people have a normal conversation (see above for my main point about learning how to talk to each other).
For example, your last paragraph seems to imply that you would be justified in calling a black man a racist if he wasn’t feeling attracted to other black men. This would be an interesting, and nobly consistent, addition to your flawed argument. Please do clarify.
And on that note, answer this question: Is a man a racist if he doesn’t feel attracted to black men, but wants to change that?
Another Jeremy: “According to the most recent census data, gay people actually represent 1.5% of the population.”
The census doesn’t ask you for your sexual orientation. The “most recent” one did allow for people to indicate that they are same-sex couples. So where does this 1.5% figure come from? I’ve seen a 2005 report from the Census Bureau that cites another study called the National Survey of Family Growth. This survey pegs self-identified LGB’s at 4.1% of the U.S. population. I don’t think my number is a baseless guess. Instead of citing the 4% who self-identified as LGBT during the last two big voting cycles, I could have gone with the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior that came out last year. Out of 6000 people aged 17 to 94 years, 7% of women and 8% of men self-identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual.
My replies on the magazines have been a response to your dire claims about black exclusion in gay pop culture. Using your target of choice as an example (OUT magazine), I’ve also shown that black people aren’t exactly invisible. Or we could talk about Ru Paul’s drag show (which is currently getting a ton of public promotion from LOGO TV) or just about any other real life drag show around America for that matter. The non-white-bread folk are out there on stage right alongside the go-go boys (and at least where I go, those boys come in all colors). I would be genuinely surprised to hear if an openly gay man has ever once been featured on the cover of Ebony magazine.
A.J.: “White Gay rights leaders may tell young gays to have safe sex, but maybe they should be telling them to stop sleeping with so many people and cut out some of the butt sex.”
Isn’t cutting out some of the butt sex (the unprotected kind) part of the safe sex message? I’m sorry, but I think white gay leaders are in fact telling us to be responsible for protecting ourselves, and they’re using all kinds of crazy facts to inform their messaging.
And yeah, monogamy sounds great, and people are free to choose that if they want. But monogamy doesn’t stop the spread of HIV — condoms do. Pretending that everyone’s monogamous when they’re not is even worse.
A.J.: “And are you actually trying to imply that black preachers are the only ones who use violent rhetoric toward gays?”
No… I’ve pointed out that there are black politicians and rap stars who are doing that too. But seriously, I clearly stated that “as long as anyone persists in peddling this kind of dangerous nonsense, all LGBT people are justified in calling them out on it.” Where do I personally focus a lot of my real-world effort? In the direction of the mostly white religious leaders of my own particular faith community. I’ve made clear that, although I haven’t heard them calling for my death, they are allied with people who are inciting violence against people like me. So… that’s why I’m focusing some effort there.
But herein lies the problem. All sane LGBT people already criticize Westboro Baptist Church on a regular basis. It’s really easy to do. I mean seriously, they intentionally try to be the Asshole Express so someone will over-react and they can sue to make money. Every mainstream news anchor can make a 100% justified disgusted-looking scowl-face every time the WBC fools do anything. Of course we should continue to call them out.
But, when I bring up the violent rhetoric of people like Eddie Long and Marion Barry’s, you start seeing Randy the Racist instead of someone who is legitimately concerned for his own safety, the safety of other LGBT people, and who is aware of the double impact this crap can have on black LGBT people. Especially when I’m encountering their supporters in the course of going about my day, and they’re telling me, to my face, that homosexuality needs to be exterminated.
Everyone gets a rainbow sticker for fighting against Westboro Baptist. You get a real merit badge when you’re willing to call out homophobic leaders in your own community.
A.J.: “No black leaders are out there making gays do each other up the booty.”
Not true for Eddie Long!
Mike
“The census doesn’t ask you for your sexual orientation. The “most recent” one did allow for people to indicate that they are same-sex couples. So where does this 1.5% figure come from? I’ve seen a 2005 report from the Census Bureau that cites another study called the National Survey of Family Growth. This survey pegs self-identified LGB’s at 4.1% of the U.S. population. I don’t think my number is a baseless guess. Instead of citing the 4% who self-identified as LGBT during the last two big voting cycles, I could have gone with the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior that came out last year. Out of 6000 people aged 17 to 94 years, 7% of women and 8% of men self-identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual.”
5. 1.51% of the total U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or 4.3 total million Americans. These numbers are based on figures provided by a broad-based coalition of gay rights organizations and homosexual advocacy groups. The primary source cited was the The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), published in the book The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994), by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels.
This percentage is significantly higher than estimates of the Canadian homosexual population obtained by the Canadian Community Health Survey, which was part of a comprehensive survey of more than 135,000 Canadians conducted between January and December 2003. This 2003 Canadian survey, which included questions about a wide range of health issues, found that 1.3% of Canadian men aged 18 to 59 were homosexual, and 0.7% of Canadian women were. On average, about 1% of the Canadian population was found to be homosexual. (See: “Canadian Community Health Survey”, 15 July 2004, on the official Canadian government website “Statistics Canada” http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040615/d040615b.htm). Researchers believe that the difference between these American (1.5%) and Canadian (1%) estimates of the homosexual population are due not to actual demographic differences between the populations of the two countries, but are due to differences between the methodologies of the studies and the sources of the information. The American figure (1.5%) comes from an independent study designed specifically to investigate sexual questions of behavior. The Canadian study was more general in its scope, and confidentially asked people about their sexual orientation. The sample size for the U.S. study (Laumann, et al) was 3,432 American men and women (far less than the sample size of 135,000 people in the Canadian study).
Referring to the Laumann study, the gay rights coalition stated that in the United States 2.8% of males age 18 or older, and 1.4% of females age 18 or older are homosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual. We have applied their figures to the 2003 U.S. population (284,800,000 total population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau). 0.9% of women identify themselves as lesbians (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.32% of total U.S. population being lesbians. 2 percent of men identify themselves as gay (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.7% of total U.S. population being gay men. Source: National study published in Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994), cited in Amicus Curiae in support of petitioners. Lawrence and Garner v. State of Texas, No. 02-102 (U.S. March 26, 2003), pg. 16. This friend of the court brief was filed by a coalition of leading pro-GLBT activist groups, including: Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD), Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Pride At Work AFL-CIO, People For the American Way Foundation, Anti-Defamation League, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Soulforce, Stonewall Law Association of Greater Houston, and others. See also: Peter Sprigg, 28 January 2004, “Homosexual Groups Back Off From ’10 Percent’ Myth”, InFocus (Family Research Council), Issue No. 260; URL: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04A01. From Sprigg:
EBONY magazine can not be held accountable for not representing people that may or may not exist. Is Wanda not gay enough for you? You need a more butchy dyke on the cover? I guess those homophobic bastards at the Census Bureau are out to get you too. We didn’t need to count black men on the cover of OUT magazine remember? If we had then three of those women in group shots would have to be cut out from the tally. We just needed to count how many times a black person was represented, and that’s what I did with gays on EBONY magazine. Someone take this man’s shovel!
Mike:
“For example, your last paragraph seems to imply that you would be justified in calling a black man a racist if he wasn’t feeling attracted to other black men. This would be an interesting, and nobly consistent, addition to your flawed argument. Please do clarify.”
A new assertion? Not really.
Another Jeremy
“Black men who say they are not attracted to other black men have a deeply rooted self-loathing whether they are aware of it or not.”
Mike:
“But herein lies the problem. All sane LGBT people already criticize Westboro Baptist Church on a regular basis. It’s really easy to do. I mean seriously, they intentionally try to be the Asshole Express so someone will over-react and they can sue to make money. Every mainstream news anchor can make a 100% justified disgusted-looking scowl-face every time the WBC fools do anything. Of course we should continue to call them out.”
You are exactly right! The Westboro Baptist Church is criticized by everyone, and this has led many white gay people to come to the conclusion that all other white people are not desirable.
Mike:
“Isn’t cutting out some of the butt sex (the unprotected kind) part of the safe sex message? I’m sorry, but I think white gay leaders are in fact telling us to be responsible for protecting ourselves, and they’re using all kinds of crazy facts to inform their messaging.
And yeah, monogamy sounds great, and people are free to choose that if they want. But monogamy doesn’t stop the spread of HIV — condoms do. Pretending that everyone’s monogamous when they’re not is even worse.”
Too right again! If someone has sex up the butt with a condom they are less likely to contract HIV than if they do not have sex up the butt at all. And monogamy is rather irrelevant now that you mention it. Just because someone has unprotected sex with one person they actually know very well, this does not make it any less likely that they will contract HIV than if they were to have protected sex with multiple strangers.
Mike:
“But, when I bring up the violent rhetoric of people like Eddie Long and Marion Barry’s, you start seeing Randy the Racist instead of someone who is legitimately concerned for his own safety, the safety of other LGBT people, and who is aware of the double impact this crap can have on black LGBT people. Especially when I’m encountering their supporters in the course of going about my day, and they’re telling me, to my face, that homosexuality needs to be exterminated.”
Listen man you are the one who has called on all of us to speak out against minority leaders who ignore the real cause of their disenfranchisement. Blacks have a huge problem with welfare and an HIV epidemic. Our leaders rely solely on the white man for support. And gay leaders do the same thing. It’s not just up to straight people to solve their problems. Dan Savage promotes the right for gays to get married and then preaches that monogamy is stupid. Perhaps gay people cannot get married because their own leaders market the idea that sex is king and they ignore the existence of gays who live more conventional lifestyles. Gays were banned from the military because they have this self-deprecating attitude about everyone being out to get them. This leads to a lowered company morale, because if one person in the group is unconsciously giving off an I-hate-heteros vibe it’s not gonna get them treated with respect. This is as good a venue as any to call on all LGBT people to speak out against this, the silent cause of gay injustice. It is imperative that we not hold our tongues just because these leaders happen to gay. When straight people/leaders call on gays to stay away from their children until they stop leading their dangerous lives, it’s partly because they are aware of the impact this lifestyle can have on the minds of homosexuals. And no one should ignore the dangerous rhetoric that Dan Savage is promoting by saying that gay men should continue to have anal sex with as many men as they want because monogamy is impossible. They’re killing themselves off and we should all take notice. You start seeing ignorant rednecks when some of these people are just legitimately concerned for their safety and your own. They share your zeal to fight the real causes of discrimination and always have the best interest of the gays at heart.
Mike
“The census doesn’t ask you for your sexual orientation. The “most recent” one did allow for people to indicate that they are same-sex couples. So where does this 1.5% figure come from? I’ve seen a 2005 report from the Census Bureau that cites another study called the National Survey of Family Growth. This survey pegs self-identified LGB’s at 4.1% of the U.S. population. I don’t think my number is a baseless guess. Instead of citing the 4% who self-identified as LGBT during the last two big voting cycles, I could have gone with the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior that came out last year. Out of 6000 people aged 17 to 94 years, 7% of women and 8% of men self-identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual.”
5. 1.51% of the total U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or 4.3 total million Americans. These numbers are based on figures provided by a broad-based coalition of gay rights organizations and homosexual advocacy groups. The primary source cited was the The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), published in the book The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994), by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels.
This percentage is significantly higher than estimates of the Canadian homosexual population obtained by the Canadian Community Health Survey, which was part of a comprehensive survey of more than 135,000 Canadians conducted between January and December 2003. This 2003 Canadian survey, which included questions about a wide range of health issues, found that 1.3% of Canadian men aged 18 to 59 were homosexual, and 0.7% of Canadian women were. On average, about 1% of the Canadian population was found to be homosexual. (See: “Canadian Community Health Survey”, 15 July 2004, on the official Canadian government website “Statistics Canada” http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040615/d040615b.htm). Researchers believe that the difference between these American (1.5%) and Canadian (1%) estimates of the homosexual population are due not to actual demographic differences between the populations of the two countries, but are due to differences between the methodologies of the studies and the sources of the information. The American figure (1.5%) comes from an independent study designed specifically to investigate sexual questions of behavior. The Canadian study was more general in its scope, and confidentially asked people about their sexual orientation. The sample size for the U.S. study (Laumann, et al) was 3,432 American men and women (far less than the sample size of 135,000 people in the Canadian study).
Referring to the Laumann study, the gay rights coalition stated that in the United States 2.8% of males age 18 or older, and 1.4% of females age 18 or older are homosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual. We have applied their figures to the 2003 U.S. population (284,800,000 total population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau). 0.9% of women identify themselves as lesbians (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.32% of total U.S. population being lesbians. 2 percent of men identify themselves as gay (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.7% of total U.S. population being gay men. Source: National study published in Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994), cited in Amicus Curiae in support of petitioners. Lawrence and Garner v. State of Texas, No. 02-102 (U.S. March 26, 2003), pg. 16. This friend of the court brief was filed by a coalition of leading pro-GLBT activist groups, including: Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD), Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Pride At Work AFL-CIO, People For the American Way Foundation, Anti-Defamation League, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Soulforce, Stonewall Law Association of Greater Houston, and others. See also: Peter Sprigg, 28 January 2004, “Homosexual Groups Back Off From ’10 Percent’ Myth”, InFocus (Family Research Council), Issue No. 260; URL: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04A01. From Sprigg:
EBONY magazine can not be held accountable for not representing people that may or may not exist. Is Wanda not gay enough for you? You need a more butchy dyke on the cover? I guess those homophobic bastards at the Census Bureau are out to get you too. We didn’t need to count black men on the cover of OUT magazine remember? If we had then three of those women in group shots would have to be cut out from the tally. We just needed to count how many times a black person was represented, and that’s what I did with gays on EBONY magazine. Someone take this man’s shovel!
Mike:
“For example, your last paragraph seems to imply that you would be justified in calling a black man a racist if he wasn’t feeling attracted to other black men. This would be an interesting, and nobly consistent, addition to your flawed argument. Please do clarify.”
A new assertion? Not really.
Another Jeremy
“Black men who say they are not attracted to other black men have a deeply rooted self-loathing whether they are aware of it or not.”
Mike:
“But herein lies the problem. All sane LGBT people already criticize Westboro Baptist Church on a regular basis. It’s really easy to do. I mean seriously, they intentionally try to be the Asshole Express so someone will over-react and they can sue to make money. Every mainstream news anchor can make a 100% justified disgusted-looking scowl-face every time the WBC fools do anything. Of course we should continue to call them out.”
You are exactly right! The Westboro Baptist Church is criticized by everyone, and this has led many white gay people to come to the conclusion that all other white people are not desirable.
Mike:
“Isn’t cutting out some of the butt sex (the unprotected kind) part of the safe sex message? I’m sorry, but I think white gay leaders are in fact telling us to be responsible for protecting ourselves, and they’re using all kinds of crazy facts to inform their messaging.
And yeah, monogamy sounds great, and people are free to choose that if they want. But monogamy doesn’t stop the spread of HIV — condoms do. Pretending that everyone’s monogamous when they’re not is even worse.”
Too right again! If someone has sex up the butt with a condom they are less likely to contract HIV than if they do not have sex up the butt at all. And monogamy is rather irrelevant now that you mention it. Just because someone has unprotected sex with one person they actually know very well, this does not make it any less likely that they will contract HIV than if they were to have protected sex with multiple strangers.
Mike:
“But, when I bring up the violent rhetoric of people like Eddie Long and Marion Barry’s, you start seeing Randy the Racist instead of someone who is legitimately concerned for his own safety, the safety of other LGBT people, and who is aware of the double impact this crap can have on black LGBT people. Especially when I’m encountering their supporters in the course of going about my day, and they’re telling me, to my face, that homosexuality needs to be exterminated.”
Listen man you are the one who has called on all of us to speak out against minority leaders who ignore the real cause of their disenfranchisement. Blacks have a huge problem with welfare and an HIV epidemic. Our leaders rely solely on the white man for support. And gay leaders do the same thing. It’s not just up to straight people to solve their problems. Dan Savage promotes the right for gays to get married and then preaches that monogamy is stupid. Perhaps gay people cannot get married because their own leaders market the idea that sex is king and they ignore the existence of gays who live more conventional lifestyles. Gays were banned from the military because they have this self-deprecating attitude about everyone being out to get them. This leads to a lowered company morale, because if one person in the group is unconsciously giving off an I-hate-heteros vibe it’s not gonna get them treated with respect. This is as good a venue as any to call on all LGBT people to speak out against this, the silent cause of gay injustice. It is imperative that we not hold our tongues just because these leaders happen to gay. When straight people/leaders call on gays to stay away from their children until they stop leading their dangerous lives, it’s partly because they are aware of the impact this lifestyle can have on the minds of homosexuals. And no one should ignore the dangerous rhetoric that Dan Savage is promoting by saying that gay men should continue to have anal sex with as many men as they want because monogamy is impossible. They’re killing themselves off and we should all take notice. You start seeing ignorant rednecks when some of these people are just legitimately concerned for their safety and your own. They share your zeal to fight the real causes of discrimination and always have the best interest of the gays at heart.
You’re not even correctly applying your gay/black switch-a-roo comparison methodology to my arguments. If you really want to pull that number on my concerns about prominent black leaders calling for civil war and death against the gays, then you’d need to give me examples of prominent gay leaders in the U.S. making violent calls for gays to line up on the battlefield against the blacks and take away their rights. If there are any, I haven’t heard of them. If there were, they already have my condemnation.
Of course there are violent, lunatic fringe individuals all across the demographic spectrum, but I’m talking about influential people. Marion Barry was the mayor of D.C. and still holds considerable influence on the City Council. Eddie Long was arguably one of the most influential black pastors in the country, and had a relationship with President Bush that earned his congregation truckloads of “faith-based initiative” dollars.
> Another Jeremy: “Blacks have a huge problem with welfare and an HIV epidemic.
> Our leaders rely solely on the white man for support. And gay leaders
> do the same thing. It’s not just up to straight people to solve their
> problems.”
I disagree. I don’t think that black community leaders are solely dependent on white people for support. I think that might come as an insult to many. The problem is that there are influential, virulently homophobic black leaders who try to delude people into thinking that they don’t need to worry about HIV because it’s a white gay disease.
I also disagree that gay leaders are relying solely on the straights for help. For some reason, you don’t have the same perception that current main messaging on HIV towards gay men sounds like: ‘Know your status. Get tested. Protect yourself. Join the fight against HIV.’ You’ve never heard these words before? Because they sound like a call to action — for us to be adults and to take charge of our own destiny.
Thanks for clarifying that when you said “the most recent census data,” you were actually referring to a study that had nothing to do with the census from 1994. The survey question was: “Do you think of yourself as… 1) heterosexual 2) homosexual 3) bisexual 4) or something else? (specify) 5) normal / straight 6) don’t know”
Does anyone see a potential flaw with associating the word “normal” with “straight”? Perhaps it reflects some outdated thinking from two decades ago that wouldn’t appear in a legitimate study today. If gay groups endorsed it at the time, they either didn’t read the study, or they were simply wrong by today’s standards. Personally, I think of myself as “gay” in terms of an identity, not a “homosexual,” which is more appropriately a description of sexual behavior. There is also no question to allow people to indicate gender identity, so they’re excluded from your figure. But, let’s just let people decide for themselves which numbers sound the most accurate. And if the Census Bureau is your neutral arbiter of choice, I think you’re going to have to go with their endorsement of 4.1% LGB (2005).
Not a single gay man on the cover of Ebony in all these years? I don’t know about you, but that looks like invisibility to me.
Mike:
“Not a single gay man on the cover of Ebony in all these years? I don’t know about you, but that looks like invisibility to me.”
Ok bear with me dude. I’m just trying to keep up with you. When we’re counting black people on a gay magazine, their sexuality and gender is irrelevant because we need only focus on the visibility of any member of the race. That’s why you were not concerned that The Rock, Jennifer Hudson, Jessle L Martin and Oraine Barrett are not gay men. But when we’re accounting for LGTB visibility on the cover of a black magazine, we need to have both a black gay man and a black gay woman present to be fair and balanced. When we’re talking about GQ and OUT magazine we need only focus on a glimpse at the magazine covers over a five year period to get a good understanding of the racial dynamics of those it depicts, but when we look at EBONY we need to account for “all these years.” This is also why when I looked at a website that included over a hundred covers of OUT magazine from various years we only need focus on the fact that it’s a crappy third party website I found over “teh google.” That’s also why you referred to the old data that states that 12.9% of the population was black instead of the 2009 stats that put the number at 13.6%, but then expected me to use an endorsement by the Census Bureau from 2005. Gays need the most updated data and the most comprehensive consideration of their visibility, but blacks just need a few rough estimates and if a handful of them (almost all straight) are present in group shots on a gay magazine that should be good enough to satisfy the ungrateful and whiny Negros who want to quibble over what is and is not “black enough.”
More recently, data has been collected in America, during the ten-year national census, on married and unmarried-partner households. They did not ask the actual sexual orientation of the respondents, so there is no measure of single gay people, nor is there a measure of those gay people in committed relationships but not living together. Whilst the census cannot give us a figure for the number of people who are gay in America, it can inform us on how many same-sex partnership households identified themselves in the survey. The 2000 census tells us that
• there are 105.5 million households in the USA;
• 5.5 million of these consist of unmarried partnerships;
• of these, 595,000 consist of same sex partners.5
This can be interpreted as there being nearly 1.2 million gay people living with a same sex partner in America. This is a huge increase from the 1990 census, which identified only 145,000 same sex unmarried households. As with the NATSAL survey in the UK, there is undoubtedly a large amount of under reporting in these sorts of surveys. Possible explanations of this include continued prejudice and discrimination against gay people.
Good job telling us all about how the Census never accounts for sexuality. 1.2 million out of 105.5 million is less than 1%/ If you assume that same sex households make up one third of all self identified gays in the US (which is extremely generous given their proclivity toward promiscuity) that would bring the total to 3.6 million. The 2000 Census said that there were 281,000,000 in the US. 3.6 million out of 281,000,000 is 1.2%.
But since you generously included your scientific analysis of people who are “sorta gay,” I would also include cross dresser Tyler Perry and notorious swinger Jada Pinkett Smith who has made public comments about the hotness of lesbian kissing, both of whom have been on EBONY in the past 5 years. Three out of 60 magazines is 5%. According to you, EBONY is like a veritable LGBT safehaven! An extra percentage point for good measure!
Mike:
“I also disagree that gay leaders are relying solely on the straights for help. For some reason, you don’t have the same perception that current main messaging on HIV towards gay men sounds like: ‘Know your status. Get tested. Protect yourself. Join the fight against HIV.’ You’ve never heard these words before? Because they sound like a call to action — for us to be adults and to take charge of our own destiny.”
Touche! Unlike blacks, gays help themselves. That’s why there was no Civil Rights Movement. Now there are no black social critics like John McWhorter and Thomas Sowell who preach self reliance among young black kids.
Mike:
“Of course there are violent, lunatic fringe individuals all across the demographic spectrum, but I’m talking about influential people. Marion Barry was the mayor of D.C. and still holds considerable influence on the City Council. Eddie Long was arguably one of the most influential black pastors in the country, and had a relationship with President Bush that earned his congregation truckloads of ‘faith-based initiative’ dollars.”
You’re not even correctly applying your gay/black switch-a-roo comparison methodology to my arguments. If you really want to pull that number on my concerns about prominent black leaders calling for civil war and death against the gays, then you’d need to give me examples of prominent gay leaders in the U.S. making violent calls for gays to line up on the battlefield against the blacks and take away their rights. If there are any, I haven’t heard of them. If there were, they already have my condemnation.”
Exactly! Marion Berry almost certainly had more influence than the white President to whom he was pandering. Anita Bryant, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh and John McCain are quacks without any real power to affect change. Your careful sociological analysis of black culture could also explain the exclusion of Asians. Since black leaders are black, everything they say must be motivated by racial politics as opposed to the exact same extreme religious views that some white leaders have and that’s why when they make homophobic comments they are creating a divide between white gays and black gays. But when white leaders make homophobic comments they are merely creating a wedge between all straight people and all gay people. Most importantly, when we come across people who have stupid views, the thing to remember is the race of the person who has them. The real enemy is not homophobia, but the homophobia of particular races. That’s why the powerful gay white men who render gay whites invisible coupled with your aversion to the bigotry of the powerful white gays has manifested itself in your avoidance of other Caucasian men.
A.J.: “Since black leaders are black, everything they say must be motivated by racial politics as opposed to the exact same extreme religious views that some white leaders have and that’s why when they make homophobic comments they are creating a divide between white gays and black gays. ”
No, when they create artificial divides between “blacks” and “gays” that don’t exist, using violent comments like “civil war between the black community and the gay community” that’s the issue at hand.
A.J.: “Marion Berry almost certainly had more influence than the white President to whom he was pandering. Anita Bryant, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh and John McCain are quacks without any real power to affect change.”
The point I’m making is that no one will call me a racist for calling out those white folks. We all roundly condemn them all. Awesome. But, when I criticize Marion Barry’s violent anti-gay exhortations, I instantly morph into a racist white guy. And, Barry made these comments a couple months ago, when the President was black. And he was pandering to his constituents, who he himself says are “98% black.”
As far as the magazine covers and this discussion, we’re talking about the relationship between black gay male attractiveness and their visibility in pop culture. I find it fascinating that gay black men are in fact featured on a mainstream gay magazine, but never appear on a mainstream black magazine.
A.J.: “Touche! Unlike blacks, gays help themselves. That’s why there was no Civil Rights Movement.”
A couple days ago, you said that black leaders solely rely on white men for support. I criticized you for being insulting in making that generalization. I merely added that gay leaders are telling gay men (including the black ones) to help themselves in addition to seeking support from the broader society. I did so to contradict your false claim that gay leaders are relying solely on straights for support.
And wow, props on your astounding performance of mathematical acrobatics there, but I’m not sure whether any of the acrobats survived the end of the show.
And I think Wanda Sykes is awesome. Here’s a stand-up sketch where she talks about being gay and black:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_wWJ-_4uSY
Mike
“No, when they create artificial divides between “blacks” and “gays” that don’t exist, using violent comments like “civil war between the black community and the gay community” that’s the issue at hand.”
Amen! Here is more evidence of your claim that the racial divide between blacks gays and white gays is caused primarily by black leaders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQP29q8hCm4
Mike
“The point I’m making is that no one will call me a racist for calling out those white folks. We all roundly condemn them all. Awesome. But, when I criticize Marion Barry’s violent anti-gay exhortations, I instantly morph into a racist white guy. And, Barry made these comments a couple months ago, when the President was black. And he was pandering to his constituents, who he himself says are “98% black.”
Exactly! Obviously the point I was trying to make was that the in President office when Marion Berry was at large was white, instead of the fact that the President in question could extend his own homophobic influence much further. When John McCain filibustered funding for the US military to make sure gays would stay out, he was obviously pandering to only the white people in Arizona who make up 86% of his constituency. But when white leaders ignore white gays and insinuate violence they are not creating artificial divides between whites and gays, but just gay people and straight people. Therefore, they are more tolerant in their intolerance. Thus all black people call all white people who condemn any black leaders racists. Everyone knows that when black people talk they are only talking to black people and when white people talk they are only talking to white people. More importantly, all black people take on all the views of all black leaders and all white people take on all the views of all white leaders.
Mike
“As far as the magazine covers and this discussion, we’re talking about the relationship between black gay male attractiveness and their visibility in pop culture. I find it fascinating that gay black men are in fact featured on a mainstream gay magazine, but never appear on a mainstream black magazine.”
Slowly but surely the fog is beginning to clear. By men you obviously meant one man who in this case was the dancer Bill T. Jones who was featured in a group shot with four other people. That’s why if a young gay black boy is flipping through the editions of OUT magazine from 2004-2009 his self-image will be higher than if he looks at the editions of EBONY magazine from 2004-2009 with it’s litany of attractive black men and one gay black woman because there are no attractive black men who are gay. Because we all know the presence of a 58-year-old black gay man on the cover of a gay magazine will pump up a black guy’s self-image much more than Will Smith and Terence Howard because those men, beautiful though they may be, just aren’t gay. That’s why you didn’t find the white men on magazines that focus on heterosexuals attractive until you found out whether or not they were gay. You didn’t realize you thought white boys were beautiful until you caught that first glimpse of OUT magazine.
I’m also glad you are continuing on with your theme of not comparing oppressions by posting a video of a black lesbian doing a stand-up routine concerning her sexual orientation and her skin color. It was obviously material to the discussion. It is too bad that this same black lesbian was not acceptable enough to account for sufficient LGBT “visibility” on the cover of a black magazine even though her presence more than accounted for the number of homos projected to be in the US population.
Mike:
“A couple days ago, you said that black leaders solely rely on white men for support. I criticized you for being insulting in making that generalization. I merely added that gay leaders are telling gay men (including the black ones) to help themselves in addition to seeking support from the broader society. I did so to contradict your false claim that gay leaders are relying solely on straights for support.”
I was merely pointing out that straight people are not the only ones responsible for gay obstacles. There are gay men who must take on their share of the responsibility too, instead of heaping all of the blame for they’re not being able to get married or be openly gay in the military on the intolerance of straight people. Just like you aptly pointed out that when white people exclude blacks it is likely due to a myriad of reasons besides racism. Like most things in life, there is a wide gamut of issues we must take in to consideration and it is a mistake to prematurely arrive at bigotry as the primary cause of these phenomena.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050703055.html
Since Marion Barry and Eddie Long must shamelessly pander to black homophobs to win their elections, this also explains why 95% of apparently mindless black voters voted for Obama in 2008 despite his campaign promises to end DADT and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
*You can scratch Eddie from that last post since he’s a preacher.
Mike: “I find it fascinating that gay black men are in fact featured on a mainstream gay magazine, but never appear on a mainstream black magazine.”
A.J.: “Slowly but surely the fog is beginning to clear. By men you obviously meant one man who in this case was the dancer Bill T. Jones who was featured in a group shot with four other people.”
Another day, another distortion from Another Jeremy. My question was, has an openly gay man *ever* once been featured on the cover of Ebony? The answer is no. The only LGBT person ever featured on any cover of Ebony magazine in over 65 years was Wanda Sykes in November 2009.
Some other gay black men who have been featured on OUT magazine’s covers since its inception in Fall 1992…
May 1993: “Gay Men and Lesbians March on Washington” featuring a black man and woman alongside whites/Asians.
Jan 1994: Ru Paul holding a black infant. He was born a man and now uses both male/female pronouns, typically depending on whether or not he’s in drag.
Nov 1996: Recently-out, award-winning figure skater Rudy Galindo is profiled.
In other words, it took about six months for the cover of OUT to “go black” and it took Ebony sixty-four years to “go gay”
I really do find it interesting that, as a gay black man, you think that Ebony is a more welcoming space than OUT. I honestly wouldn’t have guessed that.
And I’d also genuinely like to know.. who are the other openly gay black men in the public eye that aren’t getting their due on OUT magazine? I don’t mean this in a negative way, but rather because I’d truly like to know. I mean sure, there’s Antoine Dodson. And there’s deceased trailblazers like Bayard Rustin (who organized the landmark 1963 March on Washington) and author James Baldwin.
You’ve got Darryl Stephens from “Sex and the City” and he’s already made the cover of Instinct, another gay mag.
Then, there’s Johnny Mathis (who sang “Chances Are..”) who once confirmed a young love affair with a man, but then later claimed that comment was supposed to be off the record.
I’m certain that I’ve left some out. But, I guess what I’m saying is, don’t we need more high-profile people of color to come “out” if we want them to be “OUT” ? And if so, what’s more likely to be keeping them in the closet: racism, or homophobia?
This gets back to my point that it appears to be relatively more difficult for a black person to embrace a gay identity than a white person. A queer person of color might avoid mainstream gay spaces — not so much because all the white guys there are racists — but because the family and community back home are dominated by powerful homophobes who are using fear to prevent them from exploring that space in the first place. I think that this dynamic might distort the demographic makeup of the people you see “out” at the club or on a magazine cover, making it whiter than it would otherwise be.
Perhaps the “over-representation” of white people in gay pop culture might not be quite so much a deliberate erasure of black gayness, but rather a somewhat accurate — though clearly imperfect — representation of what the visible segment of our community actually looks like? And likewise, with the under-representation of LGBT’s in black pop culture.
PS: I agree that Bill O’Reilly is a d-bag who clearly had ulterior motives in that segment on Prop 8 protests. But how would you answer his question: “Why weren’t they protesting in front of African-American churches?” I’d be interested to hear your response. If anything, doesn’t that show restraint on the part of the gay leadership? I think that we didn’t protest at black churches precisely to avoid false charges that we’re anti-black. However, I’d say that in all fairness, those churches deserve just as much criticism as the white ones that I criticize in public. Where should this criticism be coming from? Ideally.. the people who are already a part of these communities.
Ok, the fact you are trying to imply that I am the one who is distorting these magazine numbers to my own end in light of your ever-changing standards of the flawed methodology you enacted is so stupid that I almost discounted this entire discussion. I am genuinely fascinated by the fact that you using rationales that can and have been used in defense of heterosexual exclusivity. I feel like I don’t really have any other new points to make, but I do have some things I’d like to say. Honestly, I can’t tell if you don’t realize that you aren’t actually making any points, or if you are just too stubborn to acknowledge the obvious parallels between these arguments and your own in defense of gays.
I started to outline the specific number of times you have altered the standards for this “count,” but it would proven too exhaustive at this point. Do you realize that you said that when black people are excluded from a magazine it was my right as a consumer to pick up another magazine, but you then turn around and say that when black people exclude gay people on magazines it contributes to their invisibility in gay culture? Likewise, white people are merely “over-represented” (which of course implies some other group must be present in short supply), but then black people are not “over-representing” straight people, but “under-representing” gay people.
Mike:
“Another day, another distortion from Another Jeremy. My question was, has an openly gay man *ever* once been featured on the cover of Ebony? The answer is no. The only LGBT person ever featured on any cover of Ebony magazine in over 65 years was Wanda Sykes in November 2009.”
Actually there was no question. You said you found it fascinating. This was the quote.
“I find it fascinating that gay black men are in fact featured on a mainstream gay magazine, but never appear on a mainstream black magazine.”
Remember?
And then you excerpted this quote:
A.J.: “Slowly but surely the fog is beginning to clear. By men you obviously meant one man who in this case was the dancer Bill T. Jones who was featured in a group shot with four other people.”
The obvious implication being that I was saying Bill T Jones was the only black gay man on the ever cover of the magazine. Even though I expressly went on to clarify that I was talking about the period from 2004-2009, which was the period you switched to from your original 2000-2005 for GQ magazine.
“That’s why if a young gay black boy is flipping through the editions of OUT magazine from 2004-2009 his self-image will be higher than if he looks at the editions of EBONY magazine from 2004-2009 with it’s litany of attractive black men and one gay black woman because there are no attractive black men who are gay. Because we all know the presence of a 58-year-old black gay man on the cover of a gay magazine will pump up a black guy’s self-image much more than Will Smith and Terence Howard because those men, beautiful though they may be, just aren’t gay. That’s why you didn’t find the white men on magazines that focus on heterosexuals attractive until you found out whether or not they were gay. You didn’t realize you thought white boys were beautiful until you caught that first glimpse of OUT magazine.”
Why did you leave out the rest of the paragraph?
Thus, like you did with the original GQ references, you tried to turn that into a “booyeah” moment over something that was never asserted.
Mike:
“In other words, it took about six months for the cover of OUT to “go black” and it took Ebony sixty-four years to “go gay.”
Oh ok. So first it was a comparison of what percentage of the time people of color or LGBT were represented, but now we’re supposed to count each individual (a fact you argued vehemently was wholly irrelevant) and the fact that OUT has had 4 gay black men on the cover in 20 years is supposed to trump the fact that EBONY has only had one black woman in 65?
Remember this?
Mike:
“I have acknowledged and agree that white owned pop culture probably does over-represent white people. And, not trying to do the equivalency thing here, but black owned pop culture does over-represent straight black people. I only bring this up to say that I don’t think these trends are bad in and of themselves. I think a “diverse” world does not require everything everywhere to be 13% black. This sort of a proportionality logic is part of the reason why many state-funded historically black colleges and universities are being required to offer scholarships to recruit white kids.”
The lunacy in that statement (why you curiously chose to reference the fact that some of the 105 historically black colleges use proportionality logic as opposed to the other 4,000 colleges in the US, your balloon-headed conflation of the existence of black culture with white culture, the assumption that black and white are the only races in the US, etc.) notwithstanding, are you not arguing that the numbers don’t matter?
You don’t think your new comparison is like comparing apples to oranges? You’re paralleling a straight black magazine that started during the tumultuous racial climate (and practically nonexistent sexual identity climate) in 1945 to a gay magazine that came out in 1992. Wouldn’t the obvious comparison in this case have been between EBONY and GQ magazine (founded in ’57) which has included exactly 0 out gay persons on their covers?
And Eddie Long was on the cover of Gospel Today after the alleged sex scandal. A mainstream black magazine. Ideal? No. But did they immediately shun him when allegations of homosexual contact came about? No. And the magazine is not 65 years old.
That is not to say that black people should only include gays at the same rate as white people, but rather that I don’t ascribe to this notion that black gay male exclusion is the result of black gay exclusion instead of the exclusion of both blacks and gays that has been predominantly organized by white people.
Mike:
“And I’d also genuinely like to know.. who are the other openly gay black men in the public eye that aren’t getting their due on OUT magazine? I don’t mean this in a negative way, but rather because I’d truly like to know. I mean sure, there’s Antoine Dodson. And there’s deceased trailblazers like Bayard Rustin (who organized the landmark 1963 March on Washington) and author James Baldwin.
You’ve got Darryl Stephens from “Sex and the City” and he’s already made the cover of Instinct, another gay mag.
Then, there’s Johnny Mathis (who sang “Chances Are..”) who once confirmed a young love affair with a man, but then later claimed that comment was supposed to be off the record.
I’m certain that I’ve left some out. But, I guess what I’m saying is, don’t we need more high-profile people of color to come “out” if we want them to be “OUT” ?” And if so, what’s more likely to be keeping them in the closet: racism, or homophobia?
Who were the numerous out gay white men who weren’t getting their due on every straight magazine in 1992 when OUT magazine was released? Are you saying that it wasn’t a predilection toward straight people that led to their exclusion, it was the fact that there just weren’t many gays? And that it was gay peoples’s fault? And I think the question is why many gay white men are not attracted to black people and whether or not this distaste for black gays is a “black gay thing” more than it’s a “homophobia in society at large” thing.
Mike:
“This gets back to my point that it appears to be relatively more difficult for a black person to embrace a gay identity than a white person. A queer person of color might avoid mainstream gay spaces — not so much because all the white guys there are racists — but because the family and community back home are dominated by powerful homophobes who are using fear to prevent them from exploring that space in the first place. I think that this dynamic might distort the demographic makeup of the people you see “out” at the club or on a magazine cover, making it whiter than it would otherwise be.”
First of all your main point(s) has changed a few times.
Mike:
My point here, as everywhere else, has been to highlight the complexity of these issues, because I believe your main error has been to reduce someone’s overwhelmingly involuntary sexual responses to racism.
Mike:
(see above for my main point about learning how to talk to each other).
Your “main point(s)” have sounded an awful lot like attempts to explain that black people are the reason white gays exclude black gays, and yet you don’t seem as receptive to the idea that white gay people are the reason white straight people exclude white gays.
I was going to come up with a very elaborate metaphor for why gay people are not seen as often as they should be, in clubs and otherwise, but I felt like it would have been self-indulgent at his point. You do understand that there are white leaders who preach homophobia much more adamantly than these black leaders do right? So then why do you keep attaching the homophobia of black leaders to their blackness, but you do not attach the homophobia of white leaders to their whiteness?
Mike:
“PS: I agree that Bill O’Reilly is a d-bag who clearly had ulterior motives in that segment on Prop 8 protests. But how would you answer his question: “Why weren’t they protesting in front of African-American churches?” I’d be interested to hear your response. If anything, doesn’t that show restraint on the part of the gay leadership? I think that we didn’t protest at black churches precisely to avoid false charges that we’re anti-black. However, I’d say that in all fairness, those churches deserve just as much criticism as the white ones that I criticize in public. Where should this criticism be coming from? Ideally.. the people who are already a part of these communities.”
No surprise, like Bill O’Reilly you missed what was most offensive about that entire segment. I know exactly what I would have I said. How about that “Black” is not a religion? So if someone is protesting outside of an Evangelical Church, they’re protesting the religion and the views of the congregation and not the race of those who attend. Since there are black evangelicals, black people were not especially shielded from the insult.
Furthermore, why do you keep citing your questionable take on sociological issues as they apply to blacks and homosexual inclusion, but then say biology is the main reason you don’t find them attractive? Which is it? Are you biologically inclined to find white guys attractive or have black people rendered themselves invisible due to this elaborate black/gay dynamic that seems an awful lot like the white/gay dynamic?
Frankly, I disagree with what EOJ said about us both having valid points. I don’t think your arguments are intelligent at all. I think they’re hypocritical and that they defy common sense. You went from saying this behavior (excluding someone as a potential partner because they’re black under the guise of been unattracted to black men) wasn’t racist at all to calling on everyone to just agree that black people do it to themselves and that in and of itself that is not a bad thing.
I will gladly point out for you the obvious errors in my satirical attack on gay culture that parallels your serious ones on blacks. There was an obfuscation of cause and effect. Gay people are not excluded from the military because they have high instances of mental disorders and STDs, they have high instances of mental disorders and STDs because they are discriminated against which would include things like being excluded from the military. Um duh? So it goes it with black people. People do not discriminate against them because they have lower self esteem and are on welfare at disproportionate rates, they have lower self esteem and are on welfare at disproportionate rates because of the legacy of racism. Historically black colleges do not exist to exclude white people, they exist because white people excluded black people from most colleges for quite some time. People don’t avoid blacks because they have their own magazines, they have their own magazines because they were excluded from every other magazine. Isn’t that why OUT magazine exists? You used the effects of racism to justify racist treatment and then blamed the effects on the victims of this disparity. It is circular reasoning.
I don’t stay away from gays because they’re gay. I stay away from them because they are more likely to get HIV than straight people are. Therefore, it is no way prejudiced.
I don’t avoid blacks because they’re black. I avoid them because they tend not to see themselves as valuable like white people do. Therefore, this is in no way racist.
Are you kidding me?
Now that we have established that some white people and some black people say and believe stupid things about gay people, maybe you should ask why there is no aversion of white men among white homos. You have come to no conclusions at all regarding the race of the many white politicians who simultaneously condemn gays for promiscuity and make it a reality by systematically regimenting obstacles to homosexual monogamy. Perhaps the next time you think about popping off some one liners about Negros, remember that it’s just as easy to throw out Republican Zingers about gays as it blacks.
Honestly, given the indignant tone of the rhetoric you have employed (which has softened considerably as this debate has gone on) I don’t think you give two shits about the issues that plague the black community, unless of course something about it comes up on a gay blog so you can talk about how the fact that you and other white guys tend to avoid blacks is really a result of black cultural problems, instead of cultural problems in society as a whole. You, Sqt and Nom have sounded like a bunch of typical, shallow hipsters who just want to validate this flavor of the month mentality about what is and is not beautiful, because if you wanted to do more than that I think you would have thought about Barack Obama’s impact before you mentioned Marion Berry’s.
I think white gay men have an interesting identity. They enjoy Alpha Male status in society at large with respect to everything except the simple fact that they like to suck cock, which can be hidden. So yes, they are in a small group, but they live in a very different world then we homos of color live in. This blog has proven very educational indeed.
The guys you’ve been with and dated in the past that it didn’t work out with, were they black or white? And after interactions with them ended, what conclusions did you come to about the attractiveness of the entire race?
And again, what are the astounding reasons that Asian gay men are not typically desired?
Yes , we’re just talking about dating/sexual attractions. The point is that prejudice will only end when people begin to ask themselves questions about the moral implications of their own behavior. Perhaps instead of thinking about the fact that the law doesn’t require you not to espouse bigoted views in your personal life, dare I say you should rely on your conscience?
*Dennis Rodman was on GQ magazine in 1997 months before he announced in his biography that he is bisexual.
Gay men are so ridiculous, I mean really. Cry and whine about how people should treat them, and being treated equal. Many will talk that same liberal rubbish about being “open minded”, “tolerant”, “understanding”, and “intelligent”, when they are none of those things. Especially when they trash or attack their fellow gays on their age, their mannerisms, race, sexuality (if someone is bi), what they do in bed (some gays don’t like anal sex), even politics! (all gays must adhere to liberal ideology)… This is why I don’t consider myself apart of the gay community. I’ve got absolutely no problem with being a homosexual male,(my friends and family fully accept me) and I do not go around thinking god hates, me therefore I must disrespect and trash anything that has to do with faith… I actually took the time to learn it, and discovered some pretty interesting things.
Beauty has absolutely nothing to do with race, its all about bone structure. I’m attracted to men period. All men all colors, except if they have a crappy personality. The next thing that goes with attraction is the scent of a guy.. Not every guy.
I grew up being taught that race means nothing, we all come from the same place, we’re all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Because of that, I always looked at racism (even in its most subtle ways), as silly and weak! I also know there is trash in all groups of people, I don’t categorize them by race, they are trash all the same and when they do nothing to better their lives, and continue to do things that ruin the lives of others and their own… I see them as the bible calls them “good for nothing men”… By the way I didn’t grow up in a liberal household… My family is quite traditional, and have conservative views.. SHOCK! No, my parents were just intelligent, and very wise. Intelligence and wisdom are two different things. Anyone can become intelligent, not everyone is wise.
The only type of gay men who are more prone to being HIV positive.. Are men who screw everything that walks without protection… Hell even if you are using protection you still run the risk of getting something, gay or straight.. This is why the bible speaks against such behaviors… Everyday there’s a new virus or bacteria that causes something, and you think running around hopping in the bed with any guy is safe, or smart? Aside from it being dumb and dangerous it cheapens sex, which makes people more likely to be unfaithful.
The problem with many gay men, is that so many of them want what they see in the porno vids, or on those silly gay TV shows. They go by these silly rules of the gay world… All of this causes more problems than some ignorant asshole holding up some stupid sign that says “gays burn in hell”. Because you know any intelligent, and wise person who understands god, the bible and what Christ preached knows that what that man holding the sign believes, is everything against the god, and the son. Why do I say it causes more problems? Think about it… For the gays who have to struggle with the ignorance of others, then get within the gay community and have to deal with the ignorance and hate of many within it… How do you think that person is going to feel?
And yet again, gays continue to shout how people should treat gays better, when gays don’t treat themselves with any respect or dignity to help crush the ignorant stereotypes.
P.S LOL Denis Rodman is just plain ugly, his race has nothing to do with it, he’s just ugly… Too much parting and drugging will do that to you
@ Seth
I am not religious at all, but I agree with almost everything you said. Your analysis of gay culture is very astute and I hope to meet more homosexual men like you who have more insight than a prepubescent teenager.
Someone comes up to you and begins to whisper into your ear. He says things to you that get your mind to racing; about what he wants to do to you and conversely what he hopes you’ll want to do to him. If you’re a romantic, he details whisking you away on a ship, or to a private dinner he’s cooked himself. You can feel him pressing up against your back. He slides a hand around your waist, a hand you feel wrap you, hold you tight to him, or if you’re the more dominant type, a hand that’s waiting for you to turn and take the lead. Whatever it is you want to hear, he says almost exactly that word for word. He grabs you by the shoulder and turns you around… STOP.
What color did you want him to be? Did it matter before you saw him? Does it matter now that you have? If it does; if it did, you’re being “colorist”(since the term racist seems to bring up all these issues for everyone). True, nothing is as cut and dry as this. Maybe you’re not into hooking up, don’t like surprises, or have already had 2 guys in the bathroom and you’re not looking for a third. Maybe he’s dated your friends, or looks like a stalker, or worse a troll. Who cares. Whether you’re white and wanted him to be black, or you’re purple and wanted him to be neon pink, if his color alone could halt the progress of your relationship, I think you should examine that. Are there reasons to be “colorist”? You bet your ass. What would your friends, your colleagues, your homeboys, your parents say? If any of them could stop you from experiencing something real in this world, then you’ve already lost.
If someone started whispering in my ear and grabbing me from behind, I would instantly turn around to figure out if they’re someone I know, and, if they’re not, tell them to fuck off for being a creep.
Like most honest human beings, attractiveness is a combination of looks and personality. If they’re not revving up my engine, it’s just not gonna work out.
Or you could just lie and pretend that you find every type of person equally attractive and then keep on discriminating when it comes to the bedroom like I know you do.
@ Marcus
The only mistake you made was in forgetting that many of the children who are commenting on this blog cannot distinguish between getting their jollies and having a relationship of substance with another human being.
yeah because we all know that having a good sex life has nothing to do with supporting a healthy relationship. in fact, study after study shows that couples who don’t find each other the least bit sexually attractive have the happiest relationships of all
You have to remember to cut me some slack. I lack your staggering insights into the words of others. When Marcus said “if his color alone could halt the progress of your relationship, I think you should examine that” and then ”If any of them [people] could stop you experiencing something real in this world, then you’ve already lost” he was clearly talking about who he wants to bed.
Besides shrewdly pointing out that we must be on the lookout for creeps in our own romantic fantasies, you have yet again illuminated the real injustice inherent in this entire discourse. Black people want white people to find “every type of person equally attractive.” That includes murderers, pedophiles, racists, lesbians and leprechauns. He was basically saying that in order to be politically correct you must run down to the nearest prison to find the scariest nigger to whom you feel the least attraction and let him fuck you up the ass for the sake of being sensitive to racial issues.
But differentiating between wanting to have sex with a man upon seeing him and his indelible qualities that could make a long-term relationship a reality is what’s really ridiculous.
Anyone curious about the internal problems of the “Gay Movement” need look no further than this blog. The arrogance of these swashbuckling “gay activists” who believe they are beholden to the real truth about the racial climate while expressly excluding anything that isn’t white is embarrassing. They want to blame black people for proliferating intolerance toward gays (passing of proposition 8 and the failure of the gay marriage bill in Maryland), but refuse to acknowledge the role of racism in their own exclusion of blacks, Asians, etc. in what should be a more tolerant environment than the one in society at large. I agree with Christopher 1.0. I have experienced far more discrimination and condescension at the hands of these “open-minded” gay men than I ever have from straight people and even a lot of conservatives. At least Republicans consistently apply their thinly veiled, bigoted ideas. They don’t make an exception for one minority and then leave the others to fend for themselves or characterize their plight as “whining.” I would cast a vote for a racist and homophobic Tea-Party candidate before I voted for a “gay rights activist” who is only interested in making sure white gays get whats owed them while simultaneously justifying race-based segregation among the gay populace.
Until this idiotic and hypocritical mindset is less prevalent, here is one “attitude queen” who will not be beating the streets for gay rights.
Another Jeremy — you come across as just another angry black person who wants to blame everything on the white man. Seriously it’s tired. No other racial group in America pulls this stunt, because they realize that nobody likes a crybaby and nobody feels sorry for those who feel sorry for themselves.
Give it a rest. If there were any white dudes on here who were attracted to black guys, they’ve probably lost any interest because of the paranoid, bitter and angry diatribe you’ve vomited onto us over the past few months.
I have no problem with white people calling black people whiny. I just think that’s inaccurate. I have a problem with enlightened and open-minded white gay men who want the right to marry and blame their plight on the intolerance of straight people, while saying that black people are blaming everything on the white man. Pick one.
Also, the person who wrote this blog was white. So is he just another angry white liberal who wants to pander to the Negro? And Nom and Mike argued on this same blog for months too. Feel free to repudiate their tired arguments at any time.
Richard VII
You come across as another pampered, hypocritical, white gay who wants all the equality he can get as a gay man whilst you tacitly endorse racism within this same group. A guy on this blog called all black men Tyrone. Another guy said HIV among black people is their fault and among white people there is a specific empirical reason for this disparity.
You could have just as easily said any white men on this blog were angry white men, but you
singled out Another Jeremy. So spare us your
false irritation over how long this debate has
gone on when it’s obvious that the only reason
you piped up is that you’re a white gay men who tolerates this type of subtle racism.
To Nom:
“Both you and Christopher feel justified in making the claim that white gay guys as a group have a superiority complex because they don’t hook up with enough black guys.”
“But several of us have simply made the rather un-extraordinary observation that when we get turned on, the person is a white male.”
Hmmmmm . . . .
So you can make the “un-extraordinary” observation that when someone turns you on they tend to be white without being racist, but when Christopher and Another Jeremy make the “un-extraordinary” observation that when they have encountered racism at the hands of those in the gay community the guy tends to be white they are racist?
You can categorically say all gay black men are unattractive, but when someone says all gay white men are racist you must speak against this travesty of justice?
You sound like a moron. And your incoherent, and patently false rant about Dred Scott and the history of race relations in the US (as if after the Dred Scott case white people apologized for their bad behavior and placated the childlike blacks instead of engaging in a Civil War, a century of race-based terrorism and a racial caste system before begrudgingly giving them equal citizenship following one of the most violent social uprisings in the history of the planet) coupled with your purposefully lopsided/condescending depiction of the black community’s leaders amount to some of the most overt examples of white supremacy I have ever heard of. I certainly hope the gay community has better to offer than you, because if I had seen you on TV talking for the gay community, I would voted for Proposition 8 too.
Agreed with NSA. Nom also tried to mask his contempt for black people as concern for the HIV epidemic in the gay black community.
But he failed to note that new HIV infections in the black population in 2008 were roughly 52% from homosexual men and 48% from heterosexuals. In the white population about 85% are from homosexual men and 15% from heterosexuals. By his logic, it seems that white people are failing to recognize the HIV epidemic in the white gay community and the deafening silence from the white leaders must be the cause. He tried to extrapolate the rate of HIV infections black gay men have relative to the percent of the total US population they make up and imply that white gays are more responsible than black gays. Just goes to show that you can slice numbers in a lot of ways to insinuate things that aren’t true.
@ Mike
“Your contention was that the powerful gay white men who produce gay pop culture are ignoring black people and rendering them invisible.”
That was not his (Another Jeremy’s) contention at all. His remark concerning a magazine was related to one person’s commonplace aesthetic, which was a tall, muscular blond. And he did not pose any question in terms of visibility at all. You did. And then you tried to say that he was wrong in making an accusation you created yourself.
It also seems like you purposely switched the time frame for the “count” from 2000-2005 to 2004-2009 because there were more black people in this period. In the time frame you stated originally there were 5 (maybe 6) black people on 60 magazines. Less than 10%.
“As another commenter noted, racism requires you to be actively treating one ethnic group differently because you believe them to be inferior. While it is certainly possible that individual people may think they are better than black people, and therefore cannot be attracted to them, this is not true for all people who do not experience arousal from black people. I have argued that the reasons behind this lack of attraction for some gay white men towards black men are most likely multifaceted, complex, and unique to the individual.”
There are multifaceted reasons for not being attracted to a person, but not an entire race. If not then any judgments about an entire group could be justified by someone just saying that they don’t regard the other group as inferior. The KKK and the Nazis could have said the same thing. I don’t see [insert group] as inferior, there are a multitude of reasons why I am in [insert hate group]. If you have not met all of [insert group] then how can you make a collective judgment of [insert group] without being prejudiced? You can’t.
White guys are hot, end of story. Good night.
If anyone wants to know if this racial “preference” is the result of racism, they should just read some of these hilarious and idiotic posts.
Nom doesn’t think black people are inferior at all. Just that white people have been treating blacks like babies/solving all of their problems since 1857 and that the HIV epidemic in the black community is caused by stupid black men who deny the existence of homosexuality.
Sqt isn’t racist. Oh but all black guys are ugly and on welfare. Sorry to break it to you genius, but your hormones are not aware or races. Your brain is.
But we need more social interaction. Oh you guys have multi-racial social interaction? Well have a cookie. And what’s on a magazine only matters if it proves my fleeting point.
Funny how when you cut through the pretense the truth comes out. Outrageous generalizations, racial supremacy and resentment.
You guys sound like you’re about 15.
This whole argument has been eye-opening. Not sure what either side wants. Do the white guys want the black guys to go away? Do the black guys want the white guys to patronize them with false attention? What do both sides want? What is the solution?
I treat everyone I know with respect and kindness regardless of their race. Everyone gets a fair shot. In the bedroom it’s different though. I only sleep with other white guys. I don’t know why this is. Even when it comes to porn, I only get aroused by images of white men. This is not a conscious thing with me. I can’t help what turns me on. But that doesn’t make me a bad person, does it? I have no control of what goes on “down there” so please don’t blame me for it.
Just like women don’t turn me on, non-white guys don’t turn me on. It’s not a choice for me.
Repost of a brilliant comment from No fats or Fems
Nice strawman. Maybe someone born yesterday will buy it. No one asked anyone to have sex with/give attention to anyone they aren’t attracted to. Forest/Trees
The real and larger issue is the normalization of superficiality derived from the very pernicious effects of a culture of objectification. Are all feminine guys alike? Do all chubby or African American men look alike? Despite the voices of those toeing the gay party line on any issue of sexuality, there is nothing “natural” about being attracted to / repelled by isolated features rather than a whole person. We are moving into a society of fetishism. Is that ideal? A few evidently believe this topic to be a piece in political correctness. But in reality, it’s the gay ideology that as long as the criteria of “consenting adults” is satisfied, there is nothing that need to be challenged in regards to human sexuality. And I know that many are deathly afraid of having their ideology questioned.
Wade from 11th and M:
I find it astounding that the same arguments keep popping up, all these months later. I really don’t understand why we have to keep repeating ourselves. Since this discussion began, not once has any black man, myself included, suggested that anyone should have sex with someone they are not attracted to.
Throughout the entirety of this argument, that plainly false and ridiculous allegation has been leveled against both Another Jeremy and myself by Nom, Mike, and sqt.
I dare any of them to find where, in any of my posts, that I suggest white men are racist because they don’t hook up with enough black guys, or that a white man who doesn’t find a black man attractive is racist.
Here, in fact, is what I actually said: “It has been my experience that the gay white men here [in Austin] are extremely prejudiced and averse to ANY kind of interaction with black men…And this seems to be heightened online — black men are frequently explicitly excluded when looking for sex, dates, and even friendship.”
Read, the end conclusion that the majority of white gay men in Austin are racist is not because of their unwillingness to hook up with or date black men; it’s because of the regnant social dismissal, exclusion, and disenfranchisement of black men that they largely perpetuate.
Here, I even side with white men, offering an explanation for their behavior: “I’m not suggesting these biases are entirely their fault — it’s quite difficult to grow up in the US and not have an automatic “preference” for white people — it seems to be that which is exalted above all else in terms of sexual desirability.”
So save the patently false judgment — lets not forget what we’re actually discussing here.
Because it appears most of you have serious reading comprehension issues, I’ll reiterate the point us black men have been making since the beginning of this discussion:
Unrelated to not finding an individual black man attractive (for whatever reason), what we’ve bemoaned is the propensity (among white men) to categorically dismiss all black men as “unattractive”, “undesirable”, and a host of other negative traits. While for other groups (the exception being Asians), such judgments are left to the individual — not seen as staples of that said group. I mean, when was the last time you saw a profile explicitly rule out Jews or Eastern Europeans?
I have to say, what really bothers me about this whole discourse, is white men’s tendency to marginalize and dismiss the genuine experiences of non-white men. How arrogant of you, to think that because it doesn’t happen to you, or that you don’t see it, that it’s not happening to someone else. Not once, throughout the course of this debate, have any of the most vocal white dissenters said something to the effect of, “you know, maybe there is some ounce of truth to what you’re saying. And because I’m not black, maybe I should reserve my (misguided) opinion that it’s not really happening.”
No, instead it was straw man argument after straw man argument, laughably confutable statistics, and arrogant attempts at one-upmanship, that ultimately revealed the real reason behind this rather common aversion — racism.
One last thing…before you label me a whiny, bitter black guy who’s just mad because white guys won’t give him “disingenuous attention”… I went to several South by Southwest parties earlier this month and was complimented on my appearance by a lot of people, among them several white men.
There’s no doubt, had my “quota” of that over-sought, delicious, and unobtainable white cock not been fulfilled, I could have easily taken any one of them home, consummating in yet another meaningless hookup. But that, really is not what this discussion is about. This is about black men feeling (for good reason) excluded in predominately white gay spaces, and as a result, being summarily dismissed for no other reason than the fact that they are black.
If you’re having difficulty understanding what we’re really talking about here, read my post again before you formulate a rebuttal.
Thank you Christopher. I completely agree with you.
And you’re right, Wade from 11th and M. This discussion has been eye-opening. It has validated my suspicion that the gay community as a whole really is quite racist. Sure, there are always exceptions, but the reason I have never felt completely accepted within established gay circles (which happen to be predominately white) is not for the superficial reasons they’d lead you to believe.
It’s not because I’m poor, unattractive, don’t drive a nice car, don’t wear the right clothes, don’t have a nice apartment, or can’t put a sentence together. Add my ability to actually keep a job and an unwillingness to snort large portions of my paycheck up my nose, association with me should be honored. No, the reason I have never felt welcomed among established gay circles is because I’m black.
And like Another Jeremy, I will not stand behind the civil rights efforts of such a self-serving, hypocritical, vapid, and quite frankly, repulsive organization. Would you support a “community” that excludes you, only to laugh in your face when you address these concerns? Frankly, I’m embarrassed to be a gay man in America, and until things change, I will continue to distance myself from all such causes.
So you’re basically calling me a racist? That’s harsh.
To turn the argument on its head: if a white guy is poor, drives a shitty car, wears a t-shirt and ragged jeans, but he happens to look like Marco Dapper, James Marsden or Jessie Pavelka, then all the other gay guys will automatically flock to him?
That’s where I’m confused. Are gay guys just lusting after the physical aspects of the white male form? Or are they attracted to the perceived privileges (money, property, fashion) of the white male?
I want to know what everyone here thinks.
I’m a bisexual white male, and I have partners both female and male at about a 40/60 ratio. So go figure my scenario out:
I tend to date non-white women. Indian, Latina, Black, Korean, Filipina and some white – they are all fine and sexy and stimulating, and I’ve enjoyed my friendships and sex with all of them equally. Sex with women is very tender and passionate.
But only white dudes turn me on. I’m very open minded (obviously), but I only get turned on by white men. Rugged, athletic, hairy, white jocks open up another avenue of my sexuality. It’s another side of me that I hid for many years until moving to the DC area, when I decided to explore this side of my nature. Man-sex to me is violent, dirty and fetishic. Purely carnal. I kind of go on auto-pilot.
So how can this be? I’m obviously not racist, since I find all women of all races equally attractive. I find all these arguments fascinating to read, but everyone here is focusing on strictly homosexual terms.
Think I’ll repeat my post in the other discussion.
You know, it’s become quite clear that this discourse has gone no where. Eight months and nearly 300 posts later, we’ve accomplished absolutely nothing.
I can only speak for myself, but I hope no one reading this actually thinks I’m losing sleep over this. Frankly, if you’re a white man and prefer to fuck/date/befriend only other white men, more power to you. I’m not wasting anymore valuable time debating, analyzing, or thinking about this. Trust me, I have much more important things to do.
In my experience at least, this is the usual fate of discourses like this.
This discussion is utterly fascinating. I find myself a bit out of the mainstream represented here. Just to give you some basic facts:
I find the most physically desirable men those who are most decidedly
NOT the white a&f ideal. I am only really attracted to men with
darker skin then myself, men with more masculine facial features–
fuller lips, bigger noses. And I am very attracted to men with muscles.
In my experiences living in NYC for 18 years this has meant that I have never kissed or had sex with any man with blonde hair or blue or green eyes. The only White guys I’ve dated or had sex with were Italian amercans. The rest (99.5%) have been black, or Latino or some combination.
I only seek that which i offer. I am 5:10 and weigh about 190 pounds with About 6% bodyfat. I find a lot of black men with this kind of body weight
proportion. It is hypermasculine in a way and that’s what turns me on.
Now for sex this has been an easy criteria to find. There’s plenty of Reggie bushes and Mario Lopezs to get down with. Lving in NYC helps.
The white guys as wonderful as some of them are as friends Im just not sexually attracted too. Someone mentioned chris Evans, he does nothing
for me. The typical NFL cornerback or wide receiver does. So not all
Non-black men find white guys physically attractive. Or some sort of ideal.
The most hilarious and perhaps ironic aspect of this entire discussion is that the author of this piece, Mr. Gloff, is not even attractive himself. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure Mr. Gloff has his admirers but the characteristics of conventional attractiveness, he does not possess.
But it is not his unattractiveness that makes Mr. Gloff and many white men like him, truly revolting. It’s the fact that they can come onto a public website, frequented by the very men they categorically repudiate, to express their lack of attraction. That is what makes Mr. Gloff, and the white men like him, truly horrible people.
@Paedon: What should we do? You can call the author ugly and deride white guys all you want, but staying silent and pretending like this issue doesn’t exist seems like a surefire strategy to keep things the way they are.
I don’t think it’s all that horrible for us to be honest about how we experience something as complex as attraction, while encouraging people to treat each other with respect. For example, I’ve suggested that it would be more respectful for people in a social/online setting to talk about what they’re looking *for* (whether that’s tall guys, nerdy guys, white guys, nice guys, bad guys, trans guys, whatever..) instead of what they’re *not*.
For the purposes of this forum (given the title), however, I think we’re trying to figure out what the “not” part is about. And if you’ve read the comments, this “not” is different for different people. Non-white guys have also been exploring their experiences of (non)attraction, so do you think they’re horrible too?
@ who I am assuming is the stupid Mike
On January 11 you made these statements.
“As far as our private sex lives are concerned, I think we can only really hold people to the general principle of mutual consent between adults. After that you just start sounding like the prudes we’re up against.”
“In the meantime, I’m not going to criticize you over the ethnicites, genders, eye colors, ages, toe lengths, pain thresholds, or any other characteristics of your private sex life, because I think that’s kinda crude. And unless you’re someone I’m trying to hook up with, those are questions I probably won’t even ask.”
“And where I live, the “big mainstream” gay clubs have a very mixed crowd that generally represents the area. There are some smaller bars that are a lot whiter, and others that have a clientele almost entirely made up of queer men of color. Most bars have a roughly proportional mix. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with any of that. I think that’s part of the freedom to associate that we all share.”
Later you said this.
“But if OUT magazine is the best you can come up with (and five anonymous skeez-bags at the Craigslist glory hole is all that Christopher’s got), then I’d say things really are nowhere near as bad as you think they are.”
So when black people try to come up with explanations that don’t jive with what you think these mysterious and extremely complex reasons for not being attracted to people of certain races, they’re being prudes. But when a guy expresses concern over this article existing because it is offensive to black people and saying that white people like him are horrible people, he is just maintaining the status quo–which you first argued was not only not racist, but a nonissue. When white people are put under scrutiny we must also look at those of other races who have this “preference” for white men in order to be fair and balanced. But when Christopher and I spoke up on the issue, we were slamming the door in the face of any “change.” Things aren’t that bad, unless someone criticizes the white man who wrote this article and then he’s just keeping things as they are, which don’t necessarily need to be adjusted. So there’s no real problem, but we need to change this non-problem and it is being prolonged by black people who acknowledge it? Give. Me. A. Break.
I do not think the author is a horrible person. I think he is very brave and very honest. He is calling on the people of his own racial background (who dominate the gay scene)to acknowledge the role of racism in how they select partners.
You, SQT, Nom and the rest of the idiots have all flatly refused to acknowledge the role of racism in this dynamic at all, and have only had interest in defending white men and their choices (no matter how reprehensible) to the death. I think you would get on my nerves a lot less if you just admitted that you have a lot of hostility toward black men; particularly those who dare criticize the gay culture you seem so fond of that is dominated by white men.
@ Mike:
What can you do? You can stop patronizing black men and stop brushing off their experiences.
@Paedon: Yeah it was very patronizing of me to suggest that you don’t need to say that someone you disagree with is ugly in order to make your point. Real oppressive of me…
Another Jeremy disagrees with you that the author is horrible, but rather attempting to be honest about how he feels. I think it’s better that we’re trying to have a discussion about this issue, rather than simply ignoring it. I also don’t think it helps anyone to engage in intellectual laziness by resorting to kneejerk stereotypes about how white gays are a bunch of racists, and paternalistic notions of how blacks are incapable of ever truly making an error… even when they’re doing the exact same thing!
Seriously… is a black man a racist if he’s not attracted to other black men? You’ll probably say he’s a victim of a society that idealizes athletic white guys, and he’s just internalized this ideal that he’s been presented with since birth. OK.. then I guess white guys have internalized this ideal as well, seeing as we also weren’t producing the commercials we watched as babies. I also think attraction is the result of more than just pop culture — and that other sources of culture have an impact on your perceptions of others. For example, you may have grown up in, or chosen to be a part of, a subculture that presents sexual ideals which differ from mainstream pop culture.
Either we’re all passive victims of this dynamic or we’re actively responsible for maintaining it. I feel that, since feelings of attraction are largely beyond one’s control, then it’s not horrible or racist for someone to be honest about how they physiologically react to different types of people. On the other hand, I do think that feelings of attraction may be at least a little bit changeable, but most likely not overnight. So that’s why I’m making the absurd suggestion that you’re not going to change a thing if you pre-judge us all as evil racists.
I have also said that my personal goal will be to treat everyone I meet with respect if they’re willing to do the same. Do we agree on that basic point or not?
Furthermore, I have agreed with you that it’s insensitive to go around online or in person saying “No X’s Y’s or Z’s!” in lieu of saying something more affirmative (“I really like ___”). If you find that suggestion to be patronizing, then that means you’re also being patronizing. Or maybe we truly have some common ground on this point, and we can accept that and move on?
The only way we’re even able to talk about constructive ways forward is to have difficult discussions like these. We clearly don’t all agree with each other, but at least we’re getting some ideas out there on the table for people to think about and make up their own minds.
@ Mike
The author of this article is white. His position lines up very well with many of the black men who have commented. You have simply tried to put every black person with this article in their place, whether or not you completely ignore their actual wording and the context of the statements.
Like you did with my offhand reference to GQ, which you turned into a pissing contest over the racial makeup of magazine covers.
Like you did when Marcus said that if skin color gives you pause in pursuing a relationship, then one should observe that.
Like you did when Tonetare said he has in fact dated white men (after some dumbass said angry black men were foaming at the mouth because they can’t get a white boy) who thought he was beneath them and that he used them in turn.
And like you did just now with Paedon who said he found it ironic that someone who is not conventionally attractive (not ugly, as there is a difference) regards all black men as unattractive on a public forum that is visited by black gay men. You implied that he just called him ugly because he didn’t agree. And went on to say that he was implying that only your last statement was patronizing, ignoring the litany of presumptuous statements you’ve made about “black leaders,” my take on the “blackness” of Barack Obama and the collective low self-esteem of gay black men that apparently exists in a bubble that is separate from white racism.
Mike
“I also don’t think it helps anyone to engage in intellectual laziness by resorting to kneejerk stereotypes about how white gays are a bunch of racists, and paternalistic notions of how blacks are incapable of ever truly making an error… even when they’re doing the exact same thing! “
Too bad he never said black people are incapable of truly making an error. That’s just what you and Nom seem to hear when anyone black levels criticisms at white people. He also didn’t make any stereotypes about white gays. He specifically said white men “like him.”
Do you think we all have amnesia? Up whose ass are you trying to blow the smoke? You have no real interest in finding a path to racial equality or talking to people respectfully. Your every comment belies your real motive which is your naked self-interest; specifically your need to prove that you are not a racist and that black people are not seeing the big picture when they observe a social dynamic that is most certainly the result of bigotry.
Let me make one thing very clear. I do not think all white men are racist. I think YOU are racist. If you put half the effort into actually listening to what homosexual minorities think as you put into concocting these incoherent posts maybe I would take you seriously.
If you decide to respond, will you actually read what I just wrote and comprehend it before launching into a tirade about statistics that reek of ecological fallacies or your astonishing insights into the psyches of gay black men?
lol ok, so I guess you don’t agree with the whole ‘treating people with respect’ idea. tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
and my earlier comments about some specific influential black leaders were based on their actual homophobic quotes.. some of which are quite violent and highly racialized. In other words, they’re not just anti-gay, they’re anti-white-gay. They are the only people I know of who try to turn our specific identity (white+gay) into a convenient scapegoat for all kinds of issues, which only fans the flames of violence that we have to deal with every day. I don’t deny the fact that there are white people who also violently denigrate gays .. it’s just that it doesn’t make much of a difference to them whether we’re black or white, because they hate us all. and besides, we already criticize the crazy white haters every day — it’s the crazy black leaders whom I’m not allowed to challenge, which you have so clearly demonstrated. so let’s get one thing real clear: if someone’s trying to whip up some violence towards people of my identity, don’t act like I’m the oppressor when I call them out for it.
Um the presumptuous statements you made about black leaders were that all black people will automatically call you a racist for calling someone out just because they are black. It is also presumptuous to assume that because someone has black skin, that they speak for all black people. As you have this entire time, you see someone as black first and everything else second.
So white gay men are “over-represented” in mainstream gay culture not at all because of racism, but rather that black men are just more intolerant toward homosexuality. (Never mind that black and white are not the only races.) Therefore it’s okay for all the mainstream gay magazines and spaces to be disproportionately littered with white men, but when a black person puts forth the idea that gays are white he is creating a wedge between blacks and gays. So I guess now is the time when you’re going to speak up to the powerful white men you ignore the existence of homosexual minorities and how this perpetuates the idea that homosexuality is a gay white thing?
The plot thickens . . . .
But you’ve implied on more than one occasion that you have no little to no interaction with black people at all, save for one anti-gay black man holding a sign. So who are these numerous blacks who make sure you are “not allowed” to speak up against Harry Jackson like you’ve bravely chosen to do right now?
Harry Jackson’s ridiculous ideas about a Civil War between gay and blacks are simply not mainstream. And you seem to ignore the following painfully obvious point; the President is black. So since black people listen obediently to anyone with a certain amount of melanin in their flesh, why then do you not assume they will heed the example set by the Obama Administration’s repeal of DADT and his refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act? The black President has seen more done for gay rights in his two years in office than any President in quite some time. Why are you only interested in pointing out the bad examples set by public figures who happen to be black while ignoring the one set by the most powerful and influential person in the United States?
What in blue blazes does Harry Jackson have to do with you not being attracted to black men? The Westboro Baptist Church certainly hasn’t prevented you from going after other white boys.
You are not fooling anyone. This isn’t about an HIV epidemic, Harry Jackson, or OUT magazine. This is all about you. You think you get to do and say whatever the hell you want without anyone being able to call you a jackass for it. You do not get to say that racially segregated magazines and social settings are acceptable and then turn around and say that this very separation is a problem when someone criticizes the white author of this article. Likewise, you do not get to say that all black men are undesirable and then say the reason you think so has nothing to do with racism.
Man you just don’t want to stop putting words in my mouth don’t you?
I’m not saying that black people are somehow objectively undesirable… I’m saying that, for whatever reasons, for me, I’m not feeling attracted to black men. I would be lying to you if I said something otherwise.
Can the anti-white-gay people like Marion Barry and Harry Jackson have an effect on how I feel about black people? Yes. Their aggressive rhetoric leaves me with the distinct impression that I am not welcome in the black community around where I live. It hits home for me when I encounter bigoted echoes of their bile – directed at me specifically – in the course of going about my daily life. You and a few others on this board have been trying to advance the notion that white gays are somehow solely responsible for this false gay / black divide — and I’m giving you ample evidence that some of your own community leaders have actually taken the lead in perpetuating this false division. To put it another way — I don’t hear prominent gay leaders vilifying and demonizing gay blacks but there are prominent black leaders who are vilifying and demonizing gay whites. And it does have an effect on me whether you want to admit it or not.
By the way… this whole “I bet you don’t even know any black people” charge is hilarious so keep repeating it and maybe that’ll make it true.
Great reply Mike. My non-attraction to black men has nothing to do with my lack of exposure to black people. My apartment is in DC between Logan and Shaw, so it’s not like I live far out in lily-white Great Falls or Potomac. The perceived divide between blacks and whites is definitely perpetuated by racist black leaders attacking the gay community. I get called faggot on a daily basis by groups of black kids loitering on 14th and R St.
It’s obvious that many of the black commentators here have a chip on their shoulder due to a perceived slight they experienced in their lives. I do recognize that. Whether this was because of hostile racism (which I doubt) or because their advances were turned down by someone (more likely), is a huge gap on determining the root of the issue here.
Non attraction is NOT racism, as it is something that cannot be changed. I do not hold the belief that any one race is superior to another race in terms of intellect or culture or abilities.
When it comes to sex and beauty, humans of ALL cultures have historically looked to fairer skin as being more attractive. From Africa to Asia, from India to Ireland, this has been documented for centuries through artwork and literature. So blaming this on a recent phenomenon such as the choice of cover models or photospreads in gay media is not a new issue. How do we change this? I don’t have an easy answer, but it’s not going to happen in our lifetimes.
To change the subject to a more positive note, I met the finest looking man yesterday at Whole Foods on P St. Italian father and Swedish mother with sky blue eyes, curly dark blond hair like the statue of David, 6’4″ with an ass that went on for days in his tight Adidas sweats. Classicly beautiful, yet with an exotic twist that I have never in my life seen before. The man just oozed sex out of every pore of his body made even sexier by his slight stammering Italian accent. Rather bashful and humble too. If anyone meets Concetto (pronounced Kahn-Chet’-Toe), hands off. He just moved here, and he’s mine.
@ SQT
I know this may come as a major shock to you, humanity originated in Africa. Yet the human race did not die out because everyone was repulsed by their own skin. At one point every human being on this planet had black skin, and you descended from Africans whose skin took about 10,000 years to lighten when they moved away from the equator.
What’s obvious is that when a black person speaks about racism to gay white men he is most assuredly dismissed as bitter and paranoid; while this same indignation from white gay men at perceived homophobia is welcomed and lauded.
Remember this?
“So Another Jeremy and Christopher. What do you want from me and my white gay brethren? Do you want us to have affirmative action dating where white guys are required to date black guys just to fill a quota? Perhaps this is all a desperate plea to trick us into giving you our phone numbers/email addresses to prove we’re not such bad guys after all? Or maybe you want us to flat out say black men are ugly and we white dudes aren’t ever going to change our minds?”
Perhaps the root of the issue is not so much about black men having a chip on their shoulders as it is that you are a perversely vain person.
@ Mike
I’m glad that you don’t think black people are undesirable . . . . just that you are not attracted to any of them.
“To put it another way — I don’t hear prominent gay leaders vilifying and demonizing gay blacks but there are prominent black leaders who are vilifying and demonizing gay whites.”
Hmmmmm . . . .
So there are white leaders who demonize blacks. And there are white leaders who demonize gays (the most influential ones actually.) There are black leaders who demonize whites. And there are black leaders who demonize gays. But when a black person demonizes white gays in particular, this makes you feel unwelcome in the black community. They are ignoring the existence of black gay people in identifying homosexuality as a primarily white issue. But you said the reason gay people are often represented in pop culture as “fit white men” is mostly because white people make up more of the population. Most of the people in the US are white, so therefore most gay people in the US are white right? So why then can these black religious fanatics not come to the conclusion that homosexuality is mostly a gay white thing? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
When white people demonize all gays, this means they just hate us all and has no bearing on how welcome you feel in the white community. It just means you are not welcomed by white people who acquire their moral imperatives from Leviticus, but when black people do the same you feel unwelcome by the entire black community. Thus your judgment of white people goes from person to person and with blacks you lump them all together; which is the point of this entire 230-some-odd-post article.
“It hits home for me when I encounter bigoted echoes of their bile – directed at me specifically – in the course of going about my daily life. You and a few others on this board have been trying to advance the notion that white gays are somehow solely responsible for this false gay / black divide — and I’m giving you ample evidence that some of your own community leaders have actually taken the lead in perpetuating this false division.”
Harry Jackson and Marion Barry are not leaders from “my community.” I am an atheist homo who happens to be black. The fact that they are black does not mean that they speak for me. Black leaders have indeed taken the lead in perpetuating this false division. . . . . except the black, pro-gay leader of the free world.
“By the way… this whole “I bet you don’t even know any black people” charge is hilarious so keep repeating it and maybe that’ll make it true.”
The “charge” was that you’re making a ridiculous argument about how are you are not allowed to criticize black leaders because hypothetical black people will condemn you for it. The original “charge” was leveled at Nom after he said I could “have a cookie” after telling him I have a white family and gay white roommates.
The number of outright lies you have told about the words of other people on this blog is astonishing. What’s been made very clear is that when black people speak up about racism to gay white men they can expect to be openly derided and characterized as “hating whitey” even if they were literally raised by people who are white.
I know this is hard to understand, so I’ll say it again: I’m talking about people who are specifically singling out my identity (gay/white) in the area where I live. I have made profoundly clear that I know that there are people across the spectrum who are anti-gay, and so that’s probably part of the reason why, for example, I live in an area where there’s lots of other gay people — it provides some semblance of protection from a generally hostile society. I don’t deny that. But look, no one on this message board is going to bat an eye if I rail on the Westboro Baptist Church all afternoon. But as soon as I bring up direct quotes from Marion Barry — former Mayor of DC, now duly elected councilman for Ward 8, who gets most of his political backing from influential local black churches — all of a sudden I become a racist. I don’t think that Marion Barry “speaks for all blacks” any more than Dan Savage “speaks for all gays” but the problem is when someone takes on the mantle of leadership, their words do have an effect, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Dan Savage now has all these crazy people making all these crazy YouTube videos about stopping bullying. (And before you try to pin some random Savage quote on me again, allow me to retort… no one will call me a name for criticizing him!) While Marion Barry and his ilk have a bunch of crazy people running around singling out white gays, calling us fags, telling me to my face that homosexuality is a cancer, and that we’re somehow forcing them to have a gay/black “civil war”
However, if I understood you correctly, you agree that “black leaders have indeed taken the lead in perpetuating this false division”
So there shouldn’t be any problem for me bringing this up? And yes, I am aware of the fact that there are black leaders who are roughly neutral (Obama) or very supportive (Bond) of LGBTs — but that doesn’t change the fact that there are other black leaders, who you seem to agree, are the ones leading the charge in driving this wedge.
In reality, all I want to do is go to school, work my two part time jobs, and pay the rent at the end of the month without having to look over my shoulder all the time. I promise, I’m really not trying to destroy black people’s marriages and I’m also not trying to kick poor black folk out of their unkempt houses and make them fabulous again, because I don’t have the money for that… like most gay guys in the real world. I wish I could get this message across, but I can’t, because people like me have been so unfairly caricatured that many people’s eyes (including within the LGBT community) can *only* perceive a racist little white f—-t instead of someone who’s actually concerned about what’s really going on around him.
SQT:
If white skin is inherently beautiful, then why aren’t Asian men paraded as the epitome of beauty beside white men? Why does their fair skin relegate their sexual capital to the same levels as those undesirable black men?
It is astounding to me how shortsighted and dead set you are in your thought processes, unwilling to even consider differing hypotheses behind the reasons for our attractions. And has it ever occurred to you that it may be your dismissive, condescending, and arrogant tone that’s bringing out these “chips” on the shoulders of black men?