# All homosexuals are preoccupied with sex?



## Daddyo

This week we heard from Ken Lucas, making some mumbling apologies about some previous rather dopey remarks vaguely linking homosexuals with sexual abuse in the case of Foley (link to google news search, in case you don't know about the perv). Fine. He misspoke. Sure.
But just an hour ago I heard on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" the learned comments from one Paul Weyrich (click if you're interested at all what on earth he's all about), where he said that the fact that Foley's a "hoe-moe-seck-shull" (he pronounced it thus) should have sent a warning to anyone, since _all homosexuals are preoccupied with sex._
When the show host warned Weyrich that people might take exception to his statement, Paulie said they could take exception to whatever they liked, since _this is a fact known by all psychiatrists and psychologists that have to deal with them.

_I'm interested in finding out if this is a common opinion. I was taken aback, because I thought that the facts showed that _all *men* are preoccupied with sex._ I really didn't know only homosexuals were. That must mean I'm homosexual and didn't know it.
Regardless of my proclivities, I wonder if this is a pseudo-concept that has much acceptance outside the circle of a particular brand of American (the conservative-flavored kind, I mean).
Please write your opinion on this, and pretty please, with sugar on top, don't go down the road to thread perdition that has happened in other threads, where as soon as someone even mentions the word "gay" people start insulting each other. Please. And thank you.


----------



## .   1

I think that Freud et al have been debunked by now.
I do not know anybody who believes that anybody is preoccupied with sex.
These type of provocative statements are just used to hide the fact that the speaker has nothing to offer in the way of genuine thought about a subject.
It is significant that this type of generalisation is not made when a heterosexual person commits a sexual crime.

.,,


----------



## ElaineG

> _all *men* are preoccupied with sex._


 
I always thought _most people_ (but not _all_ of anything) were _preoccupied by sex, _if by preoccupied we mean "think about it, want it, enjoy it, place it high on a list of life's priorities". (Men in general are more receptive to _sex in a vacuum_ than women in general are, but most of my similarly-middle-aged male and female friends in LTRs agree that women have just as much interest in sex, and often more energy for it, then their male companions: BUT THIS IS ANOTHER TOPIC.).


One real ugliness in the Foley story -- and the one I've been anticipating hearing from precisely that slice of conservative America, and that I believe your quote emphasizes, is the easy equivalence some people make between homosexuality and pedophilia. There is a stubborn and pernicious belief in a certain segment of our society that gay people, having thrown out the traditional rules in one regard, have thrown out the entire playbook. Now that they're having sex with people of the same sex, why wouldn't they have sex with children, animals, vegetables?  That ugly belief comes up again and again in the marriage debate.

Now, like many stereotypes, Mr. Weyrich's remark has a grain of truth. Some strands of gay male culture (particularly pre-AIDS, but alive and well in Chelsea and on the Internet today) are very into emphasizing their obssession with, freedom with, and indulgence in plenty of sex. 

However, most straight men I know, to return to your original point, have always assured me that the sex club/bath house/back room/instant anonymous hook-up scene would be just as popular among straight men as it as among gays, _if only women would go along with it_. (Here we return to my point about sex in a vacuum -- most women? Not so much.).

If you believe that there is something different about male sexuality, then I think it is easy to see why, in some cases at least, male sexuality freed from the constraints imposed by female sexuality, is more _something, _although _obsessed_ isn't the word I would use.

But Foley's problem -- as I said before -- is that he approached _minors who worked for him_ -- the gender of those minors should be, but sadly will not be, irrelevant.


----------



## waspsmakejam

If I was forced by society to live a lie, and pretend my sexuality was other than it is, I'd be obssessed with it too.  

But probably not as morbidly obsessed as Mr Weyrich and his ilk.


----------



## Brioche

I don't know about obsessed, but there is plenty of evidence that homosexual _men_ tend to have transient relationships and anonymous sex and many more sexual partners than heterosexual men.

Whereas homosexual women tend to have long-lasting committed relationships.

There is nothing in hetero culture to compare with gay bathhouse culture, orgy rooms or glory holes.


----------



## cuchuflete

These assertions may be true, or they may be repeated propaganda from the likes of G.W. Bush and his ilk.  I have never seen the "plenty of evidence" that any particular group of men tends "to have more transient relationships and anonymous sex and many more sexual partners...." unless you are talking about heterosexual men under the age of thirty, compared with older men.

I confess ignorance of gay bathhouse culture, orgy rooms and glory holes.  What are these?  How do they compare with houses of prostitution, fraternity parties, and other venues where heterosexual males seek transient, anonymous partners?  






			
				Brioche said:
			
		

> I don't know about obsessed, but there is plenty of evidence that homosexual _men_ tend to have transient relationships and anonymous sex and many more sexual partners than heterosexual men.
> 
> Whereas homosexual women tend to have long-lasting committed relationships.
> 
> There is nothing in hetero culture to compare with gay bathhouse culture, orgy rooms or glory holes.


----------



## Everness

Daddyo said:


> I was taken aback, because I thought that the facts showed that _all *men* are preoccupied with sex._



I disagree. Men aren't preoccupied with sex. They are obsessed. I would say that the same applies to gay men. Why? Because they are men. Are women preoccupied or obsessed with sex? Yes. They just pretend they aren't and call us "unfaithful, lying, dirty-minded pigs" as a cover-up and to deceive us. Same applies to lesbians.


----------



## Brioche

cuchuflete said:


> These assertions may be true,
> ....
> I have never seen the "plenty of evidence" that any particular group of men tends "to have more transient relationships and anonymous sex and many more sexual partners...."
> 
> I confess ignorance of gay bathhouse culture, orgy rooms and glory holes. What are these? How do they compare with houses of prostitution, fraternity parties, and other venues where heterosexual males seek transient, anonymous partners?


 
If you haven't see any evidence, it may be because you haven't looked.

You say yourself that you are ignorant of bathhouse culture, orgy rooms or glory holes. A good place to start is "Gay Bathhouse" at Wikipedia. 
Not quite the same as a frat house party.

According to The Journal of Sex Research referring to the situation in the 1970s: _The director of the New York City Department of Health describes the situation as follows:_
_By their own reports, many men had large numbers of sexual partners annually, often numbering in the hundreds and even in the thousands._ 

One anti-gay site NARTH quotes a 1994 study by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael & Michaels which reported that gay/bisexual men average 42.8 sexual partners during their lives, compared to 16.5 for heterosexual males.


----------



## cuchuflete

Brioche said:
			
		

> If you haven't see any evidence, it may be because you haven't looked.  That is absolutely correct.  I cannot imagine why anyone would want to keep track of other peoples' sexual practices.
> 
> You say yourself that you are ignorant of bathhouse culture, orgy rooms or glory holes. A good place to start is "Gay Bathhouse" at Wikipedia.
> Not quite the same as a frat house party.  I don't know which
> of these you may have frequented, but I've been to a few frat house parties, and random, transient, anonymous sex is not at all unusual.
> 
> According to The Journal of Sex Research referring to the situation in the 1970s: _The director of the New York City Department of Health describes the situation as follows:_
> _By their own reports, many men had large numbers of sexual partners annually, often numbering in the hundreds and even in the thousands._
> Do you have some reason to believe that the practices of the 1970s, when most gay men were still living in a secret or private sub-culture, are common today, when fewer people are fired from their jobs or otherwise persecuted for being homosexual?  Many professional basketball players brag about the number of 'sexual conquests' they have had.   Should we conclude that playing basketball is an indicator of sexual activity?
> One anti-gay site NARTH quotes a 1994 study by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael & Michaels which reported that gay/bisexual men average 42.8 sexual partners during their lives, compared to 16.5 for heterosexual males.



There is an implication in your earlier post that attendence at bathhouses, glory holes, and orgy rooms is typical for all or most male homosexuals.  Do you believe that it is?  

The article you cite at NARTH includes the following, which doesn't match up very well with the 1994 study:



> [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]  A recent study published in the July, 2003, issue of the _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_ ... found support for a universal theme: men tend to seek sexual variety, while women tend to seek long-term sexual relationships (Schmitt, 2003).
> The study found that 25.4% of heterosexual men and 29.1% of homosexual men endorsed this desire [...[/FONT]wanting more than one sexual partner in the next month][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif].   This suggests that the real social challenge is how to civilize male sexuality as a whole, rather than homosexual practice per se.
> [/FONT]


----------



## lsp

Daddyo said:


> I'm interested in finding out if this is a common opinion.


Your findings will depend on where you look. If you have about 6 minutes and a place where you can laugh out loud without disturbing anyone, watch this clip. The "doctor" (espec. from about 1 to about 2.5 minutes in) espouses the opinion in the thread title ... an opinion's validity confirmed by the endorsement of a fool.


----------



## Victoria32

Daddyo said:


> I'm interested in finding out if this is a common opinion. I was taken aback, because I thought that the facts showed that _all *men* are preoccupied with sex._ I really didn't know only homosexuals were. That must mean I'm homosexual and didn't know it.
> Regardless of my proclivities, I wonder if this is a pseudo-concept that has much acceptance outside the circle of a particular brand of American (the conservative-flavored kind, I mean).
> Please write your opinion on this, and pretty please, with sugar on top, don't go down the road to thread perdition that has happened in other threads, where as soon as someone even mentions the word "gay" people start insulting each other. Please. And thank you.


It has been my observation that yes, they are preoccupied with it, both men and those of the homosexual persuasion.

That being said, that is purely my observation and I know many in both categories, who are the exception proving the general rule (in the sense of testing the rule.)


----------



## Tsoman

I'm only preoccupied with sex when I'm horny. Any other time, there would be a thousand things I could be thinking about.


----------



## Brioche

> You say yourself that you are ignorant of bathhouse culture, orgy rooms or glory holes. A good place to start is "Gay Bathhouse" at Wikipedia.
> Not quite the same as a frat house party. I don't know which
> of these you may have frequented, but I've been to a few frat house parties, and random, transient, anonymous sex is not at all unusual.




I can't say I've ever heard of many frat house parties where the young ladies pay to get in, promptly strip off and hop straight into bed without even a liquid refreshment.


----------



## Everness

. said:


> I do not know anybody who believes that anybody is preoccupied with sex.
> .,,



Well, you don't know me so your claim is reasonably accurate. If we met, would you change your mind? The only people I know who aren't preoccupied with sex are individuals suffering from major depression.


----------



## Everness

Brioche said:


> I don't know about obsessed, but there is plenty of evidence that homosexual _men_ tend to have transient relationships and anonymous sex and many more sexual partners than heterosexual men.
> 
> Whereas homosexual women tend to have long-lasting committed relationships.
> 
> There is nothing in hetero culture to compare with gay bathhouse culture, orgy rooms or glory holes.



Talk about stereotypes! Three in a row!


----------



## Everness

Tsoman said:


> I'm only preoccupied with sex when I'm horny. Any other time, there would be a thousand things I could be thinking about.



Like... sex, right?  Thank you for your candor. I'm not sure about your sexual orientation but I'm sure that you're not attempting to answer the main question posed by this thread. 

The question "All homosexuals are preoccupied with sex?" can't be taken seriously. It's homophobic in nature and also attempts to cement prejudices about gays and lesbians. I'm not gay but I have many gay and lesbian friends. I'll ask them tomorrow this question. I already know what one of my friends will say: "Oh yeah baby!" 

Gay and lesbians are just like straight people. A bed isn't the only piece of furniture they own or use.


----------



## Tsoman

Everness said:


> Like... sex, right?  Thank you for your candor. I'm not sure about your sexual orientation but I'm sure that you're not attempting to answer the main question posed by this thread.
> 
> The question "All homosexuals are preoccupied with sex?" can't be taken seriously. It's homophobic in nature and also attempts to cement prejudices about gays and lesbians. I'm not gay but I have many gay and lesbian friends. I'll ask them tomorrow this question. I already know what one of my friends will say: "Oh yeah baby!"
> 
> Gay and lesbians are just like straight people. A bed isn't the only piece of furniture they own or use.



No, I'm not gay but neither am I overly masculine.

Are gays obsessed with sex? I can't really answer that question.

But the one gay guy I have been close friends with definitely was obsessed with sex, more than any strait man I've met. he talked about it all the time and urged me to go out and have sex with multiple people  

he was a lot of fun


----------



## ElaineG

> recent study published in the July, 2003, issue of the _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_ ... found support for a universal theme: men tend to seek sexual variety, while women tend to seek long-term sexual relationships (Schmitt, 2003).


 
Exactly my point.  Is it being gay or is it being male that's the issue? 

Most of the gay men I know have at one point or another in their lives enjoyed the panoply of sexual opportunities that a city like New York affords gay men.  Several are in committed, loving long-term relationships where sexual fidelity _is not_ a baseline for the relationship -- emotional fidelity and loyalty is.  Such an arrangement is almost untenable in most heterosexual circles, but is not that unsusual in urban gay life. Most of the unattached gay men I know are looking for love, but independently look for sex, and don't see a need to forgo the latter until they find the former. (Heterosexual dating relationships _tend_ to at least pretend that love is the ultimate goal).

Most of the straight men I know well enough to discuss such matters  with have expressed envy at the ease with which gay culture allows those gay men who want it to negotiate no strings-attached sex.  

I firmly believe that if large numbers of women frequented bathhouses, club backrooms and places like the Meat Rack on Fire Island, and if their female love interests did not regard such activities as the ultimate betrayal, straight men would avail themselves of these opportunities to the same extent that gay men do -- in other words, many but not all would.  

The fact of the matter is, though, that women don't, and despite all the articles in Cosmo and the like to the effect that women are the new men, I doubt that they will anytime soon.

Whether it's hardwiring, or ingrained cultural teaching, male and female sexuality has different impulses.  Thus a male-squared interaction may easily seem more "sexually preoccupied" than one that has a woman and man in it, or two women in it, but I will have to see more than anti-gay websites to convince me that it is the gayness, and not the maleness, that makes it that way.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Well, you don't know me so your claim is reasonably accurate. If we met, would you change your mind? The only people I know who aren't preoccupied with sex are individuals suffering from major depression.


If we met, thank God for the tyranny of distance, I would only be able to judge you on what you claimed was true and I have utterly no method to verify the veracity of whatever you say.
This is the case with all matters pertaining to personal preference.  Surveys and studies rely on the participants being truthful and I suspect that not all people are truthful about matters of sexuality.  This is even more the case when dealing with matters of sexuality where the sexuality being discussed is the subject of phobic reaction.

.,,


----------



## Daddyo

I cannot claim to "know" for sure about the differences between hetero- and homosexual approaches to sex as a participatory sport. I don't even know that many homosexual people, nor can I claim that "my closests and bestests" friends are homosexual, so I have no personal reference here. But I do have some friends living in the same social situation I'm at (married, with children) and I know for a fact that I am often preocuppied with sex, and so are my fellow mortgage-slaves. We obsess over what we did get, what we could have gotten, and all we'll never get (which, sadly, in my case, seems to be listed here in increasing order: from smallest amount to greatest amount).

In Mexico we did have a bit of a fundamentalist point of view. There were no "slightly bad" or "not quite good" things: it was good or evil. No middle ground. So, if anyone was perceived to be stepping out of the true and narrow, then we would assume they were likely to do anything, anything at all! Crime! Depravities! Cruelty to animals! Voting for Independent! World without end, his wonders to perform!
Or so it seemed to me, when I was a small child.

[Back from La-la Land]

I just find it preposterous that anyone could make such a broad assertion like that: all gay men are preoccupied with sex and that's why Foley is such a perverted dickwad, because he's gay. It's a fact, they said.
Yeah. Right.


----------



## Brioche

Everness said:


> Talk about stereotypes! Three in a row!


 
I did not say _all, every, necessarily_.  I said _tend_.
Don't you understand the meaning of the word "tend"?


----------



## Outsider

Studying human homosexuality is notoriously difficult* because many homosexuals, understandably, do not wish to be studied. How do you expect to get around that hurdle, Brioche?

*Actually, studying human sexuality, period, is notoriously difficult.


----------



## Brioche

Outsider said:


> Studying human homosexuality is notoriously difficult* because many homosexuals, understandably, do not wish to be studied. How do you expect to get around that hurdle, Brioche?
> 
> *Actually, studying human sexuality, period, is notoriously difficult.


 
The same way I get around any topic. I read the published work of researchers.


----------



## Outsider

I am saying that the data they're working with is inevitably limited and suspect. (I won't even get into the political motivations that many of those researchers have.)


----------



## cirrus

What I notice is that long term gay relationships become invisible.  Most big cities have gay bars where it is easy enough to pick up, let alone the internet.  What happens is that once gay (and I mean men here) get together they often get bored of the gay scene because it doesn't cater for them. 

As a result people seem to labour under the impression that gay men love a chaotic sex life because that is a fantasy they like to have. To me it's a left over from old disapproving ways of looking down on gay people. It's possible that as gay marriage / civil partnerships become more usual this may change the apparent conception that men aren't capable of maintaining a long term relationship with each other.


----------



## Everness

> Quote:
> A recent study published in the July, 2003, issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ... found support for a universal theme: men tend to seek sexual variety, while women tend to seek long-term sexual relationships (Schmitt, 2003).
> The study found that 25.4% of heterosexual men and 29.1% of homosexual men endorsed this desire [...wanting more than one sexual partner in the next month]. This suggests that the real social challenge is how to civilize male sexuality as a whole, rather than homosexual practice per se.




The 64 million question: If it's true that men tend to seek sexual variety, what's the gender of the individuals men sleep around with?

Answer: You need 2 to tango. There are just as many (a) deceiving and unfaithful women (if they happen to be happily married) or (b) single women who don't care about the sanctity of matrimony (if they are fooling around with a married guy) or (c) liberated women who don't care if they are called sluts (a label with strong patriarchal roots) out there as there are men. Apparently the author of this "study" forgot to highlight this.


----------



## broud

So, according to this guy, a 80 years old gay man is preoccupied or even obsessed with sex. It can be true as it is for straight elderly man - probably because they can't have sex anymore. 

But I think my point is clear, it seems that all the gays in the world are alike - no matter what their age, social status, personal circumstances etc are.

That's weird.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> Answer: You need 2 to tango. There are *just as many* (a) deceiving and unfaithful women (if they happen to be happily married) or (b) single women who don't care about the sanctity of matrimony (if they are fooling around with a married guy) or (c) liberated women who don't care if they are called sluts (a label with strong patriarchal roots) out there as there are men. Apparently the author of this "study" forgot to highlight this.



Illogical conclusions!

Take a day at the race track…
8 different races = 8 different winning horses every time,
*but *
8 different races =< 8 different jockeys.


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:


> Illogical conclusions!
> 
> Take a day at the race track…
> 8 different races = 8 different winning horses every time,
> *but *
> 8 different races =< 8 different jockeys.



What if the same female jockey ran and won the 8 races?


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> What if the same female jockey ran and won the 8 races?



I'd expect a stewards' inquiry!  
Male or female, I've yet to see a jockey who could outpace a horse


----------



## Everness

Brioche said:


> I did not say _all, every, necessarily_.  I said _tend_.
> Don't you understand the meaning of the word "tend"?



Now I do. In other words, heterosexual men tend to have less transient relationships and anonymous sex and many less sexual partners than homosexual men. But not all of them. Right? 

I have another question. You state,



Brioche said:


> I don't know about obsessed, but there is plenty of evidence that homosexual _men_ tend to have transient relationships and anonymous sex and many more sexual partners than heterosexual men.



You say that there's *plenty of evidence* to support your thesis on homosexual vs. heterosexual sexual behavior. Please define "plenty." Is 2 (two) plenty according to Australian standards? Because that's the number of sources you quoted to back up your assertion.


----------



## Daddyo

lsp said:


> Your findings will depend on where you look. If you have about 6 minutes and a place where you can laugh out loud without disturbing anyone, watch this clip. The "doctor" (espec. from about 1 to about 2.5 minutes in) espouses the opinion in the thread title ... an opinion's validity confirmed by the endorsement of a fool.


 
Thank you, lsp, for the link. Very, um, gripping investigative reporting. If only we could get Weirich and Lucas to watch it, maybe they'd appreciate their own folly.
Alas, it shall never be.


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's just suppose for a moment, without anything other than a 1994 study and a comment from a NY City burrocrat (They are known for ____________?) that homosexual males are preoccupied with sex.  That requires that we trust that the 1994 study had a statistically valid sample, and that the world has stood still since then.  So let's be trusting and assume a static world.  OK so far?

How many of you have ever been or known a heterosexual male from the age of, say 14 to 25?   Would you say that such young men, in general, are preoccupied with sex?

So far so good.  This indicates the normalcy of homosexual males, who have a preoccupation in common with heterosexual males.


----------



## timpeac

I've found the above debate quite interesting. I think that making absolute statements is ridiculous for the reasons Outsider gave so well. Anything more is speculation. That blooming Elaine has as usual made most of the points I would have made so just a few observations, purely personal and may well not be indicative of averages -

Having many good gay male friends and many good heterosexual male friends - hand on heart I see no difference in their preoccupation with sex (almost total), if single their desire to do it as soon as possible and their desire, if single, to be in a loving relationship (some do, some don't depending on where they are in their lives).

It is my impression that sex is a bigger deal for a woman. It is my impression they would be less likely to have a one-night stand. For this reason, I believe, if I go out with a group of gay friends then several may well pull and go home with someone. If I go out with straight friends it is rare, but far from unheard of if they go home with someone.

I have quite a few good heterosexual girl-friends, and a few lesbian ones. I have known people from both groups have one night stands, but much less so in both cases than the boys. More than prudishness, I could suspect that this also has to do with the fact that they are usually physically weaker than men and so have to take care where they go and also the traditional demands that if a woman sleeps around she is a slag, but if a man does it he is a stud.

So, it is my impression that men generally are more keen to have anonymous sex than woman. Therefore if you have a situation where all men could have sex with another it seems likely to me that they will pair off more readily, and so gay men on average will be having more sex than their straight counterparts. Or perhaps more free sex - since there have been quite a few unbacked-up assertions bandied around, I might as well add some - I'd be willing to bet that a higher percentage of straight men use prostitutes than gay men do.

I've noticed on posters (no personal experience!) that a local gay sauna has a lesbian night - so make of that what you will.

So in relation to Daddyo's specific scenario



Daddyo said:


> This week we heard from Ken Lucas, making some mumbling apologies about some previous rather dopey remarks vaguely linking homosexuals with sexual abuse in the case of Foley (link to google news search, in case you don't know about the perv). Fine. He misspoke. Sure.
> But just an hour ago I heard on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" the learned comments from one Paul Weyrich (click if you're interested at all what on earth he's all about), where he said that the fact that Foley's a "hoe-moe-seck-shull" (he pronounced it thus) should have sent a warning to anyone, since _all homosexuals are preoccupied with sex._


 
I'd say that it's rubbish to expect more sexual "danger" from a gay man than from anyone else.


----------



## Everness

cirrus said:


> As a result people seem to labour under the impression that gay men love a chaotic sex life because that is a fantasy they like to have. To me it's a left over from old disapproving ways of looking down on gay people.



Sabias palabras, hermano mio!


----------



## Brioche

Everness said:


> You say that there's *plenty of evidence* to support your thesis on homosexual vs. heterosexual sexual behavior. Please define "plenty." Is 2 (two) plenty according to Australian standards? Because that's the number of sources you quoted to back up your assertion.


 
Can't imagine that you'd say "African American" standards, or "Muslim" standards - why play the race card?

How many sources would _you _call plenty?
And, more important, are you open to persuasion?


----------



## Lugubert

A former fiancée of mine had several gay friends. They were included in our social life and vice versa sa good friends and interesting people of many talents.

I got the impressions that those who were sexually more active, were so because they had access to settings where sex was freely available and accepted. In periods between committed relations, I suppose quite a few heteros, especially younger people, would gladly have gone for similar possibilities. A few of our gay friends seemed to be towards a promiscuous life, but most of them appeared to live in or look for love relationships intended to last.


----------



## Everness

Brioche said:


> Can't imagine that you'd say "African American" standards, or "Muslim" standards - why play the race card?
> 
> How many sources would _you _call plenty?
> And, more important, are you open to persuasion?



First, despite the fact that the category of race has no scientific or biological value --just political and psychological--, I don't think there's an Australian race.

Second, when it comes to studies to back up our assertions, both quantity and quality matter. 

Third, you and I are entitled to our opinions regardless of their solid or flimsy roots in reality. But as soon as you qualify your opinion the way you did ("there's plenty of evidence") you should be ready to produce such evidence. So far you haven't. We should differentiate between opinions that are drawn from ingrained beliefs and those that are drawn from empirical study. 

So far the only one who has persuaded me has been my friend cirrus:


cirrus said:


> As a result people seem to labour under the impression that gay men love a chaotic sex life because that is a fantasy they like to have. To me it's a left over from old disapproving ways of looking down on gay people.



Some people have a fantasied perception of gays and lesbians that reduces them to individuals who crave sex 24/7, thus posing a danger to society. If we were asked to explain where these ingrained beliefs come from, we would have a hard time coming up with a rational rationale. As cirrus said, we have inherited a particular way of looking at gays and lesbians. It's clear that certain sexual prejudices die hard. I've also found that these fantasies are so strong that no evidence will be able to abate them.


----------



## geve

I will not comment on the question of the title because first of all I hate sweeping statements such as this, and also it has already been adressed very well by previous posters. But - not going off-topic - I wonder about the cause of this kind of urban legends 


Everness said:


> Some people have a fantasied perception of gays and lesbians that reduces them to individuals who crave sex 24/7, thus posing a danger to society. If we were asked to explain where these ingrained beliefs come from, we would have a hard time coming up with a rational rationale.


Could it have something to do with the way that "gay culture" is mediatized? 
There's a current advertising campaign in France for a cultural magazine, that uses readers' letters to illustrate the point that readers can be harsher than the journalists themselves. One of these letters says about Pink TV - a "gay TV channel" that was launched last year in France: "I had no idea I had been watching heterosexual TV until now." 
What distinguishes homosexuals from heterosexuals is, well, their sexual preferences (duh!) They can watch any kind of TV shows, read all sorts of press just as much as heterosexuals do. So chances are that the medias that specifically target homosexuals (and it seems that these medias are becoming more numerous lately, or more largely seen maybe) will adress topics that are not adressed by the rest of the medias - hence can seem "overly sexual" to some. The "gay" shows that you can see on TV try to be "very gay", the magazines covers that you can see in the kiosques want to look "very gay", meaning they will adress sexuality in a very open way. While there are many many "heterosexual medias" (as opposed to those specifically targetting homosexuals) that only revolve around sex, there are also many that don't. Which might cause people to think that homosexuals are more preoccupied by sex than heterosexuals. 
I'm not sure I'm expressing my point very well here...  If someone wishes to rephrase they are most welcome.

Last year a French TV series was abundently commented by the press because it was the first time that two men kissed on a show produced by and broadcasted on a public TV channel. "Gay culture" was not the plot of the series, it was just something that happened in it. And - and the two guys had feelings for each other too!! The heterosexual world is not prepared for such a shocking revelation.


----------



## Daddyo

geve said:


> Could it have something to do with the way that "gay culture" is *mediatized*?



Thank you for your comment. I do get what you're saying, and I think you are close to the mark.
And I have to comment that I understood what you tried to say immediately when you used the verb "mediatize" (as in, has been exposed by the media to the public), although I had only heard it used like this before.


----------



## geve

Daddyo said:


> Thank you for your comment. I do get what you're saying, and I think you are close to the mark.
> And I have to comment that I understood what you tried to say immediately when you used the verb "mediatize" (as in, has been exposed by the media to the public), although I had only heard it used like this before.


Phew!  I was indeed a bit concerned that "médiatiser" might not work very well in English - but couldn't find a better way to express it...


----------



## whattheflock

the answer to the question of being or not preoccupied with sex as in like the most important thing in their thoughts is yes: all guys girls gays and straights and birds and bees and cats and dogs and cows and you get the point right?
it is after all the second most important imperative of all species right after the survival one.


----------



## Encolpius

I think the problem is many think *homosexual means only male homosexual*...I do not like that word at all, first of all, because there is the word -sex-, than days are changing, so it's time to use new official more precise expressions (gay? lesbian?)


----------



## mirifica

The best answer to the question in my sense is the film "L'inconnu du lac" which I recommend. It is still on in Paris.


----------

