Thursday, February 23, 2006

Lions & Gays & Swingers OH MY!

You know it's a glorious day when you connect to Massresistance and she leads you to gay cruising spots! Who do you think at Article 8/Massresistance had the pleasure of surfing the internet for gay cruising spots? Do you think they made a road trip? Of course they don't link directly to the site but they do tell you exactly how to get there:
We will not post the direct link to that website, since it is disgusting and pornographic. But if you want to know where this activity is taking place in your own community, you can Google it directly ("gay cruising" + Massachusetts).
I looked through some of the places and the responses actually seemed like jokes to me. Then I wondered how many "straight" men are going to these places. You know the type, married with children, signs marriage petitions, not comfortable with being gay that they have to skip out on the wife and go to these places to have anonymous sex. My gut reaction is that the people going to these places do not identify as gay either. (Do you remember the Christian Preacher who said one thing but did another???)

Do you think they happened to Google (swingers + Massachusetts) for a list of heterosexual couples who "swing" too? You might find a couple you even go to church with too!

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Uh, no, stupid, I think they read the Boston Herald. Nice how you forgot to mention that it's a men's room in a city hall.

Anonymous said...

Who's stupid? The Herald didn't list the website's name. And how would you know there is porn on the site unless you went there? I think Boston Bud got it right, they were drooling over the website. I wonder if it brought Brian back to the days when he used to frequent gay bars with his friends?

ryan charisma said...

ok,

so gay people have naughty places, and stright people have naughty places. As a matter of fact, I belive straight people have places where the men stick money in women's vaginas and drink alcohol.

Makes me want to wash my money.

theAguy said...

I am surprised that Amy and Brain didn't jump in their car and head right over to Malden with their digital camera. We all know how they love posting pictures with insipid captions on their web site.

Amy didn't give us the name of the web site but she did tell us how to find it and several others via google. I am sure the twisted closet cases who read her blog greatly appreciated her gesture.

For the record, The Malden Government Center Mensroom only got four stars not the five that the Herald reported in the samll story that ran in Thursday's paper.

I find it interesting that the Malden City Council was alerted to the goings on by an anonymous letter that included the review of the basement facility on Gay Universe.com

I wonder if the letter writer was the same queen who wrote Atty. General Tom Reilly several years ago and demanded that the Safari Club be closed.

Tom, always the guy on the right side of the law, quickly swung into action and the Club was shut down two months later.

I was never a TEAROOM guy myself, I always found the guys who hung out in them were creepy looking, like Brain, but I always wondered how the glory holes were installed. Did some guy slip the jainitor a $20.00 and give him the proper measurements or did someone show up with a blow tourch and do it themselves.

Just wondering.

Anonymous said...

She knows who her readers are. Just look at the way she guides them:

"But if you want to know where this activity is taking place in your own community..."

Now why would a straight person want to see where "hook up" places were? I wonder if the office of Article 8 is on the list?

Anonymous said...

There are many out gay men who cruise, not just closeted ones as the writer implied. There are all kinds of folks who cruise - at the Fens, at the mall, wherever. And there is nothing wrong with it. Also, what about manhunt.net - I bet brian camenker has a profile.

Unfortunately we live in a culture (inside and outside the gay community) where anything outside of a monogomous in the bedroom sexual relationship is considered horrific.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous- gay male sexual promiscuity is what led to the rapid spread of AIDS in this country. There's just no getting around that fact. It doesn't mean gay people are irredeemably awful, but most of us would rather have our place at the table than upend the table.

ryan charisma said...

you mean the rapid spread of HIV? AIDS is a result of contracting the HIV virus. And it's not gay male promiscuity, it's unprotected sex - gay, straight or otherwise, not to mention blood transfusions & needle sharing. You can't blame the gays for HIV. It's a broad sweeping generalization that is deeply wrong. Now, whose table do 'we' want a place at? Because if it's the Christian activists', not many of them are going to be invited to this proverbial table. God hates hate.

Anonymous said...

Touche Ryan! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Anonymous said...

Ryan- AIDS vs. HIV is a semantics issue in this context. HIV has primarily been spread in the US by promiscuous sex, of which gay men have much higher levels of participation than any other demographic. Denying that fact does no one any good. If we'd had marriage to begin with, then likely that culture of promiscuity wouldn't have existed, or at least not nearly to the same degree. Condoms break, and often people forget to use them or don't want to use them. As long as you have promiscuity, diseases will be spread. Cruising is unhealthy behavior regardless of anyone's religious views. Trying to normalize behavior everyone knows is unhealthy is not going to get us our place at society's table, regardless of religious right idiots. Not to mention as long as said idiots can convince the rest of the country that acceptance of gay people means throwing all rules of sexual restraint out the window, we'll keep losing at the ballot box.

Nothing good comes from cruising for anonymous sex.

Steven Keirstead said...

Promiscuity raises more health concerns than just HIV/AIDS. There are many STDs that are more easily transmitted, even through oral sex, such as gonorrhea, Hepatitis A and B, and herpes, to name but a few. So cruising can put men who have sex with men at more risk for infection than they realize, even if they think they are trying to be safe from HIV.

My boyfriend and I have been monogamous for almost 15 years and it gives me peace of mind not to worry about STDs. I realize monogamy is not for everyone, and that even right-wing evangelical Christians have trouble keeping fidelity (higher divorce rate than average), but it is less risky. Marriage may be good for the gay community in the long run by helping gay men stay healthier and avoiding STDs.

Men being what they are biologically (wanting sex all the time), there are always going to be straight and gay guys who are promiscuous, and we should keep our criticism rational toward them, not being judgmental, but promoting safer sex and warning them that they have to worry about more than just HIV. People's behavior does play a role in disease transmission, and anything that can reduce the risks of contracting disease is good for both mens personal health and the public health of people in general.

Mark D. Snyder said...

There is nothing morally wrong with cruising for sex or promiscuity in general.

My ideas, and they are just ideas, for what would help gay men most are below....

1. comprehensive science based sexual health education everywhere

2. free condoms readily available (some countries/cities governments pay for this - rio during carnival for example.)

3. A huge sex positive movement that takes the shame out of sex that isnt monogomous, straight, missionary style, etc.

4. universal health care

5. the funding of youth leadership organizations like the boston alliance of LGBT youth which are sex positive but educate about the risks.

Also I woudl like to ad that I think it is wrong that the city of boston repeatedly burns down the foilage at the fens to curb public sex.

Anonymous said...

Aaaaahh- you're one of the ultra-lefty Queertoday peeps. Unfortunately I guess that explains a lot. This isn't a joke, Marc. A huge sex positive movement that encourages promiscuity and anonymous public sex will get people killed. And the numerous non-fatal STDs are no picnic to live with either. Condoms can help manage the problem but they won't fix the problem.

"the funding of youth leadership organizations like the boston alliance of LGBT youth which are sex positive but educate about the risks."

Hey kids- screw lots of different people in the foliage at the fens at random! It'll probably kill you but what the heck?!

ryan charisma said...

And you're just an ass. Of course I mean that in the most loving, kind, good natured way.

Marc is right. And I'm not so sure he was so much encouraging promiscuous (gay or striaght, in the fens or in a strip joint) behavior as "not judging" it.

Education 'can' be one of the biggest weapons against ALL STDs. When people know, they make better decisons. You're putting your moral judgements into this equation. And that's what leads to shame. Shame of sex, shame of disease, but most of all shame of testing. We're human beings and we should be trying to help each other. Not lift ourselves up by keeping others down. Promiscuous sex is both a moderate risk / high risk behavior. I've several friends who would be defenitely considered promiscuous. They play safe and are still negative. Lucky? Perhaps. Educated? Defenitely. So maybe the question is "can someone be a safe sex slut?" I say yes. I've witnessed it. So in turn, yes go ahead and "screw lots of different people in the foliage at the fens at random" - just bring some condoms and remember "on you, not in you".

Anonymous said...

Ryan- your post doesn't really make any sense. First of all, I never said I was against education. Condoms are a fall-back for people who are going to be promiscuous in spite of the risks. This has nothing to do with "shame." It's a very simple equation- promiscuity=spread of STDS=suffering and death.

"Promiscuous sex is both a moderate risk / high risk behavior. I've several friends who would be defenitely considered promiscuous. They play safe and are still negative. Lucky? Perhaps. Educated? Defenitely. So maybe the question is "can someone be a safe sex slut?" I say yes. I've witnessed it."

You've contradicted yourself. If promiscuity is a "moderate risk/high risk" behavior as you claim, then by definition it isn't safe. If your friends are negative by luck then no, they aren't safe sex sluts. If you don't care about your own life enough, at least don't promote promiscuity to kids, for God's sake.

ryan charisma said...

What I meant by that statement is that depending upon weather your practicing safe sex depends upon weather it's moderate or high risk. So I apologize for not making sense. But now I do. whoo hoo! And condoms are not fall back, they are the first line of defense.

Oh and one last question. If one lives according to your your statement "promiscuity=spread of STDS=suffering and death". Then if one lives a monogomous life, one won't suffer an die?

And kids don't need anyone promoting promiscurity. They do it fine on their own. At least I'm realistic and protecting them from themselves.

For Christ's sake!

Anonymous said...

Thank you Ryan!

Anonymous, the Log Cabin Republicans called, they want your number.

Anonymous said...

You can bicker all you want -- there's a much bigger enemy out there.

Article8/MassResistance oppose ANY sex education, includimg HIV/AIDS prevention?

People are dying because they don't even have access to information on what risky behavior is.

Article8 want to make sure that continues. They don't really care that AIDS ceased to be a "gay disease" over ten years ago.

Anonymous said...

There are two enemies- the taniglbe one out there and the intangible one that's internal to the community.

"Oh and one last question. If one lives according to your your statement "promiscuity=spread of STDS=suffering and death". Then if one lives a monogomous life, one won't suffer an die?"

That could be the single silliest strawman argument I've read in... well, I read a lot. Try to follow me on this, it's really not that complicated: the more promiscuity, the more STDs. The more STDs, the more suffering and early deaths. Conversely, the less promiscuity, the less spread of STDs. The less spread of STDs, the less suffering and early deaths. Comprehensive sex education includes emphasizing that abstinence/monogamy is the safest course (and abstinence emphasis is not abstinence only). Then we say to the kids, obviously some of you are going to go ahead and risk it, so here are some things you can do to be safer. On the one side, the Article 8 wackos need to be kept far away from sex ed so they don't screw kids up with their anti-gay bs and abstinence-only approach. On the other side, people like Mark and Ryan need to be kept far away from sex ed so they don't advocate anonymous sex in the bushes to kids. Abstinence/monogamy is the first line of defense, condoms are the second.

Comments like "Also I woudl like to ad that I think it is wrong that the city of boston repeatedly burns down the foilage at the fens to curb public sex." are what Article 8 uses to convince people that gays are a threat to everyone. We don't need to be giving them ammunition. I'm a lesbian, and I sure as hell wouldn't want my nieces walking through the park and seeing two people screwing in the bushes.

Mark D. Snyder said...

Anonymous, you do not seem to know much about harm/risk reduction techniques commonly used in HIV/STD Prevention work. I can assure you that your position is contrary to the science based well researched methods of reducing HIV/STDs amongst the gay community used by AIDS Action, Planned Parenthood, and every other major pro-gay health organization...

First of all your nieces will not be walking through the fens at 1-3am alone I hope. And if the city would leave the bushes there your nieces wouldn't see the guys even if they did.

Now, more promiscuity does not necessarily mean more stds. I have plenty of friends who use manhunt.net (and by the way THOUSANDS of bostonians use this site) or public sex environments and only engage in safer sex. Is their risk a little higher than mine, sure. But that is their choice and people like you should not be shaming them into conforming to what you want them to do with their sex lives.

When article 8 attacks us for being promiscuous you know what we should say? I think we should say so what, we are having a blast. Oh and by the way how is monogamy working out for you straight married folks... last time I checked the divorce rate, cheating rates, etc. are super high for y'all... and because of all your shame youre less likely to seek medical advice or tell your wife you just gave her an STD...

Shame will never work in preventing the spread of STDs, in fact it only increases it because the more shame people have about their sex lives the less likely they are to go get tested or seek out safer sex information.

I do not go around encouraging youth to go have sex in the fens. But when if I meet a young person who is already doing it, I talk to them about the importance of safer sex rather than shaming them into not doing it anymore... because THERS IS NOTHING MORALLY WRONG WITH IT.

I can tell you have plenty of shame yourself because you choose to remain anonymous when you attack me and Ryan with your nonsensical theories.

You need to stop undermining the hard work of queer activists, and those working to end the spread of HIV/STDs. If you have questions about risk and harm reduction methods you should call Fenway Community Health, Sydney Borum Health Center, BAGLY, AIDS Action, or any of the other major pro-gay organizations that work to slow the spread of HIV/STDs.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, Mark, I don't agree with some of what you said. While I believe there should be no shame is men having sex with other men, public places are no place for them to be doing it. Regardless of the time of day, unsuspecting people should not have to view or stumble into anyone (gay or straight) having sex.

I also don't see any religious group or Article 8/Massresistance, going to straight bars and discouraging them from hooking up (there are a lot more straight bars too). They seem to advocate sex only with marriage and they don't want us to get married which means they don't want us to have sex at all.

I think they're jealous because they aren't having as good a time as we are. (You can also have wonderful sex with the same partner too.)

I am monagamous but whatever arrangement couples make up between themselves is their business, no one can judge. There are plenty of straights swinging, but again, the anti-groups don't attack them cause they're not gay.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, you do not seem to know much about harm/risk reduction techniques commonly used in HIV/STD Prevention work. I can assure you that your position is contrary to the science based well researched methods of reducing HIV/STDs amongst the gay community used by AIDS Action, Planned Parenthood, and every other major pro-gay health organization..."

And according to the UN there are 40,000 new HIV infections in the US each year, exclusive of other STDs. I guess it's working well. (And yes, I know a lot of the newer infections are in other minority communities besides the gay community, but how much higher do you think their infection rates would be if straight people cruised in restrooms and public parks?)

"Now, more promiscuity does not necessarily mean more stds. I have plenty of friends who use manhunt.net (and by the way THOUSANDS of bostonians use this site) or public sex environments and only engage in safer sex. Is their risk a little higher than mine, sure. But that is their choice and people like you should not be shaming them into conforming to what you want them to do with their sex lives."

Y'all are the ones who keep bringing up shame, not me. But maybe there's a point there. Maybe people should be ashamed of willfully engaging in unhealthy behavior.

"When article 8 attacks us for being promiscuous you know what we should say? I think we should say so what, we are having a blast. Oh and by the way how is monogamy working out for you straight married folks... last time I checked the divorce rate, cheating rates, etc. are super high for y'all... and because of all your shame youre less likely to seek medical advice or tell your wife you just gave her an STD..."

Yes, if you want to guarantee continued national Republican majorities and lots more marriage bans in state constitutions, use that tactic.

"I do not go around encouraging youth to go have sex in the fens."

Technically, that's true. Ryan spoke in favor of encouraging it, you spoke against discouraging it.

"You need to stop undermining the hard work of queer activists, and those working to end the spread of HIV/STDs. If you have questions about risk and harm reduction methods you should call Fenway Community Health, Sydney Borum Health Center, BAGLY, AIDS Action, or any of the other major pro-gay organizations that work to slow the spread of HIV/STDs."

It's only the pro-cruising activists I'd like to undermine, so that fewer gay people will get sick and die.

Anonymous said...

You would be "undermining" a huge majority of the grassroots activists then.

Anonymous Lesbian, Why don't you let us gay men figure out our own sex lives!!

You know damn well that no one is going to stumble into guys having sex or jerking off deep in the reeds of the fens at 3am.

Stop trying to force your mainstream morality bullshit on us, and let us go to the fens put on a condom and fuck whoever we want whenever we want.

You need to accept that there are hundreds if not thousands of gay men who are promiscuous and/or public sex environment users - and those men are apart of the queer commmunity. Not all of us want to be viewed as "normal" and get married for validation. Embrace it. Educate people about safer sex - using condoms and lube, etc. Don't yell at them and tell them they are going to get aids and die - because you are wrong and that message does nothing to help anyone.

You said no one can judge, but you are full of judgement for gay men who do not settle down with one other person as a couple. You just cant accept the fact that there are tons of us gay men out there having lots of sex without any commitment attached to it.

Mark D. Snyder said...

Anonymous, Those organizations I told you about earlier are not pro cruising or anti-cruising. They are non-judgemental and they practice harm reduction. They go to the public sex environments and distribute condoms, etc. They offer comprehensive health services, etc. They know what they are doing, but they are underfunded thanks to our current administration both on the state and federal levels.

I'm sure you never even heard of the term public sex environment, and I am sure you have done very little research on the topic. The only thing you are doing on this blog is juding people for promiscuity and public sex and making innaccurate statements about the spread of HIV/Aids. Stop it.

Steven Keirstead said...

As a biologist, I think the Fens' Phragmites australis weeds need to be removed, because they are a harmful invasive species that is damaging the ecology of the Muddy river. See: http://www.invasiveplants.net/phragmites/Default.htm .
These reeds crowd out native plants, and are slowly spreading upstream. If nothing is done, some day the plants may move most of the way up the Emerald Necklace parks. So the city should do more to eradicate thePhragmites and Boston and the DCR are not doing a good enough job now.

Providing a "safe" environment for unsafe or pseudo-safe anonymous sex seems to me to be bad public health policy. That's one of the reasons this Democrat voted to oust City Councillor David Scondras, a defender of sex in the Fens. In the past, the Fens' reeds have also concealed several horrible gay-bashings and violent robberies.

Marc, are you sure the city burned down the reeds and not careless smokers? I'd also recommend gay and lesbian (and straight) people give up smoking. Smoking reduces your lungs capacity to clean themselves, and not only smoke, but every bit of toxic junk you might breath in, can be more easily trapped. So you smokers get more pneumonia, bronchitis, emphysema and possibly cancer, if you are unlucky.

You have the right to do dumb things, and I've done plenty of dumb things myself in the past. But encouraging promiscuity is really irresponsibly dumb, which is not to say that promoting monogamy as "the one true way" is going to work with kids. Clearly, a more complex and rational approach to sexual education is needed. I agree with most of what anonymous said.

Sorry to be such a curmudgeon, but life is risky and you have to weigh risks carefully. Don't filter facts through right-wing or left-wing ideology, but look at them for themselves. Prevention is the best medicine.

Mark D. Snyder said...

I do not judge people who are promiscuous because there is nothing wrong with being promiscuous. Life is risky and you do need to weigh the risks carefully - you are absolutely correct. THAT is why risk reduction education works. Prevention is the best medicine, you are absolutely correct. That is why access to free condoms works.

Y'all believe in telling people promiscuity is unsafe and wrong. I believe in telling them hey, if you are going to take that risk here are some ways to be safer. Scientists and sociologists have proven that my method works better - which is why Aids Action and others use risk reduction techniques to slow the spread of STDs/HIV.

I was not aware of the biology of the reeds, and as someone who cares deeply about the environment I would be willing to change my position on the burning of those reeds if that were the true intent of the burnings. I have several very good sources that that is not the reason those reeds have been burnt down.

Anonymous said...

If promiscouous gay sex speads AIDS and/or HIV, then we should encourage gay people to enter monogomous gay marriages.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe I misspelled promiscuous.

I'm a lazy, lazy bastard who didn't bother to spell-check.

Anonymous said...

Nobody wanted to do anything about AIDS until straight white people started getting sick.

Ronald Reagan saw it as a way to eliminate the "undesirables."

When Nancy Reagan (an idiotic astrology-buff, but a nice lady) put a candle in The White House Window during the AIDS Vigil, Ronald made The Secret Service remove it.

And now, Bush wants to resurrect Reagan's dream of AIDS Colonies.

During his visit to India, Bush was negotiating to send HIV-Positive people to India as "health tourists," and to create special insurance plans to facilitate that.

Report: Bush Considers Outsourcing Some HIV/AIDS Care To India
by Peter Hacker, 365Gay.com Asia Bureau Chief
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/03/030206india.htm