quote:

debunking the myth that same-sex relationships are not built on the same level of commitment as heterosexual ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

If I may play devil's advocate for a sec-

The origin of the myth has to do with a reasonable hypothesis (and illustrates a flaw in the study or the conclusions the article draws.) which is to whit-level of commitment in a relationship is tied to the number of partners one has prior to the relationship.  I suspect that the evidence is highly anecdotal- that promiscuous people are less likely to succeed in a long term relationship than non-promiscuous folks.  I have no idea if this is correct, but I'd guess that there are a lot of people that don't question this assumption.

When AIDs was taking off in the '80s, the disease quickly migrated due to the promiscuous nature of some homosexual men, who reported having hundreds of partners in a year, thus spreading the virus rapidly.  As a percentage of the population, it was pretty clear (again an assumption) that # of promiscuous individuals/overall population was higher amongst homosexual men than heterosexual.  These assumptions would suggest that gay men are less likely to form long term relationships than heterosexual men.  This may be true- but what the study does point out is that once the population of highly promiscuous individuals have been excluded, homosexual and heterosexual relationships have largely the same chances- a non-trivial finding, especially because there's still a resevoir of distrust over the idea of a gay couple rearing children.  This study should also prove to be useful ammunition in the school board wars, since I think the idea that teachers have to be heterosexual is wildly discriminatory and continues to conflate pedophile with homosexuality- another unfounded link.

Sam

quote:


You don`t think that there were straight guys,having sex with hundreds of women,at that time?Remember Wilt,and his claim of thousands?

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:


You don`t think that there were straight guys,having sex with hundreds of women,at that time?Remember Wilt,and his claim of thousands?

Anyone who believes that on average young male heterosexuals have as many sex partners as do young male homosexuals is bending over to accommodate the facts.

Figures relating the long term stability  of mature, in years, homosexual and heterosexual couples, I dont know.
There must be quite a lot of homosexual couples because in the UK we had a change to the inheritance Laws specifically designed to favour homosexuals. So much for the supposed neutrality of legal systems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

If I may play devil's advocate for a sec-

The origin of the myth has to do with a reasonable hypothesis (and illustrates a flaw in the study or the conclusions the article draws.) which is to whit-level of commitment in a relationship is tied to the number of partners one has prior to the relationship.  I suspect that the evidence is highly anecdotal- that promiscuous people are less likely to succeed in a long term relationship than non-promiscuous folks.  I have no idea if this is correct, but I'd guess that there are a lot of people that don't question this assumption.

When AIDs was taking off in the '80s, the disease quickly migrated due to the promiscuous nature of some homosexual men, who reported having hundreds of partners in a year, thus spreading the virus rapidly.  As a percentage of the population, it was pretty clear (again an assumption) that # of promiscuous individuals/overall population was higher amongst homosexual men than heterosexual.  These assumptions would suggest that gay men are less likely to form long term relationships than heterosexual men.  This may be true- but what the study does point out is that once the population of highly promiscuous individuals have been excluded, homosexual and heterosexual relationships have largely the same chances- a non-trivial finding, especially because there's still a resevoir of distrust over the idea of a gay couple rearing children.  This study should also prove to be useful ammunition in the school board wars, since I think the idea that teachers have to be heterosexual is wildly discriminatory and continues to conflate pedophile with homosexuality- another unfounded link.

Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: beargonewild

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

If I may play devil's advocate for a sec-

The origin of the myth has to do with a reasonable hypothesis (and illustrates a flaw in the study or the conclusions the article draws.) which is to whit-level of commitment in a relationship is tied to the number of partners one has prior to the relationship.  I suspect that the evidence is highly anecdotal- that promiscuous people are less likely to succeed in a long term relationship than non-promiscuous folks.  I have no idea if this is correct, but I'd guess that there are a lot of people that don't question this assumption.

When AIDs was taking off in the '80s, the disease quickly migrated due to the promiscuous nature of some homosexual men, who reported having hundreds of partners in a year, thus spreading the virus rapidly.  As a percentage of the population, it was pretty clear (again an assumption) that # of promiscuous individuals/overall population was higher amongst homosexual men than heterosexual.  These assumptions would suggest that gay men are less likely to form long term relationships than heterosexual men.  This may be true- but what the study does point out is that once the population of highly promiscuous individuals have been excluded, homosexual and heterosexual relationships have largely the same chances- a non-trivial finding, especially because there's still a resevoir of distrust over the idea of a gay couple rearing children.  This study should also prove to be useful ammunition in the school board wars, since I think the idea that teachers have to be heterosexual is wildly discriminatory and continues to conflate pedophile with homosexuality- another unfounded link.

Sam

Don't forget that in the 80's, nobody knew that much about the HIV virus. At that time, the entire medical community had no idea on where the virus originated, how the virus spread, had no idea on the exact nature of this deadly virus. Basically they knew sweet fuck all other then it was viralant(sp)  and they had no way to arrest the spread of this disease or how to effectively help the victims.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Bear

Yup- I do remember the first time I heard the description of AIDs over the airwaves and thought "who are they kidding?"  But the public health community screwed up badly with that disease- they should have treated the same as any other STD and they didn't.  This would entail registration lists of who'd been exposed, following up partners, and quarantines if necessary.  Instead, the gay community was very politically savvy (and probably assisted by politicians not wanting to be outed) which kept identification of individuals secret from the public health community- thus allowing the disease to gain much more of a foothold than it should have.  The idea espoused by Jerry Falwell that AIDS was divine retribution caught on (more idiocy) and was very akin to the Supreme Court's decision back in the 1920s that public health moneys were not to be spent on syphilis since "honest folks" didn't have to worry about STDs.  Again showing that perhaps the most deficient part of our educational system is history....


Owner- a couple of points.  IIRC, there are different strains in Africa which are more readily transmitted through heterosexual sex than the US strains which prefer genital/anal routes of transmission.  While oral sex has reduced rates of transmission, this is a virus that mutates rapidly and so counting on something like "oral sex is safe" is probably not a brilliant idea.

Also- agree with Seeks- my anecdotal evidence is that gay men can have more partners than straight guys based on talking to my friends (both straight and gay) but this is a very small data pool and is certainly biased.  However, I do recall an article from Science back in the 80s- (90s?) which showed that heterosexual women- if they decide to be promiscuous- have more partners than promiscuous heterosexual men- again with some personal data to back this up.  Heck, I think Kinsey's work backs this up as well- there are fewer promiscuous women than promiscuous men- which means that the women have to have more partners.  Look at the response rates on this board- how many men complain that they get deluged with emails versus how many women?  Hence, I think a lot of male promiscuity is largely braggadocio...

Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

There must be quite a lot of homosexual couples because in the UK we had a change to the inheritance Laws specifically designed to favour homosexuals. So much for the supposed neutrality of legal systems.