My series “Conversation with a bigot” documents not-quite-imaginary conversations, each highlighting a disprovable assumption held by those who have come to the false conclusion that “queer = bad.” Queer people endure the effects of this conclusion in all areas of their lives. I want it to stop.
Published: Part I, Abnormal and Unnatural / Part II, Pedophile
Upcoming conversations: Part IV, Marriage: One man, one woman. Period.; Part V, There are men. There are women. Period.; Part VI, There’s no need to think. I feel instinctively this is wrong.
Before I begin, please understand that in order to address issues as broad as those in this series, I find it necessary at times to commit the sin of gross generalization. Let this statement serve as a comprehensive caveat, so you don’t have to keep seeing warnings about it.
Also, let’s assume the bigot in question is male; statistically, more men than women are uncomfortable (or worse) with the concept of “queer.” If you’d like to dive into some of the reasons for that, there’s an interesting study in the National Library of Medicine.
The bigot’s statements are in italics.
Gay men are promiscuous.
Me: Well, my response here is the same as when you said all gay men were pedophiles: All of them? That’s a pretty sweeping statement. Aren’t straight men promiscuous, too?
Straight men want women. Women don’t like men who are promiscuous.
Women don’t like promiscuous men, you say. And does that stop the men?
[Crickets]
Let’s look at a scenario. We have a heterosexual married couple who have promised monogamy. Or maybe they just assumed it, since that’s more common. This couple are having an argument. One of them says, “But honey, it meant nothing to me.” The other says, “Nothing? Does it mean nothing when you have sex with me?” What do you think is going on in this scenario?
Well…. most likely the husband has had a bit of a fling. But that doesn’t mean he’s promiscuous!
I’m glad you said that. Meantime, why do you think it was probably the husband?
He had a one-night stand. But that doesn’t mean he’s promiscuous!
Settle down. Yes, most likely it was the husband. We don’t know it was a one-night stand, by the way, but still it might have meant nothing to him—at least, compared to what his relationship with is wife means to him. But there’s another reason to suspect the man. It’s because of what he said.
Oh, really? And why is that?
(Remember, we’re speaking in gross generalizations.) The average man is more likely to be comfortable than the average woman with the concept of “just sex.” Now, while sex hardly means “nothing,” the relationship between our husband and his paramour could easily mean nothing to him.
If we give this husband the benefit of the doubt and agree that he knows he’s done something he shouldn’t, that he loves his wife and wants to make her feel better, what he said makes perfect sense to him. But to her? Not so much. You can tell by her response.
Now, if a man in a monogamous marriage were married to another man, and he strayed and said it meant nothing, his husband is more likely to say, “Convince me.” It doesn’t mean there won’t be gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair and silent treatments, but the wronged husband understands that “just sex” is just that and nothing more. So he could, possibly, be convinced.
What’s this got to do with promiscuity?
If a straight man wants “just sex,” either he must rape a woman, pay her, or woo her at least a little. Even a woman in a bar who’s looking for sex will expect at least a couple of minutes of conversation. She might not really care if you lie about your name or your job, but she wants a sense of connection, even if a small one. And if she’s not there for “just sex,” the man will have to put in enough effort/conversation/emotional connection to make her want him.
After all, she must trust this person who’s almost certainly bigger and stronger than she is to use that discolored, hard, elongated thing (which she might have some influence over, but which she by no means controls) and stab into a very private, very sensitive part of her. Over. And over. And over. And over.
In contrast, if two men see each other in a bar, and each is ready for “just sex,” they might or might not even exchange names before they negotiate what they’ll do sexually. Sometimes words aren’t even necessary.
Doesn’t that prove my point?
Well, no. Just because a man who wants “just sex” with a woman needs to give her a sense of connection, that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t forgo it if he could. If all he wants is sex, he probably doesn’t feel the need to have a conversation; he just doesn’t usually have a choice.
I think this might be a good time to define the term “promiscuous.” It doesn’t just mean someone who has sex more than you.
Psychology Today defines promiscuity as including not only frequent but "indiscriminate" sexual behavior.
Furthermore, it says that men are more likely than women to be promiscuous.
[Hands on hips] You still haven’t proved your point.
I have, implicitly. Because if you put all that together, what you see is that men (gay and straight) are more likely than women to be promiscuous, which (as defined above) would mean that they’re comfortable with “just sex.”
So if a gay man indulges in frequent and even indiscriminate sex, it isn’t because he’s gay. It’s because he’s a man, and his partners are men, and together they not only get “just sex,” but also they can indulge in it more easily (or at least with less fuss) than straight men can. So the necessity of straight men to rape, or pay, or woo does not exonerate him from promiscuity. For a man who wants “just sex,” being gay might be a facilitator. But it doesn’t indicate an inherent trait. Which means that if promiscuity is inherent in anyone, it’s inherent in men. Period.
[Crickets]
I hope you’ll be better prepared for our next conversation, when we’ll discuss marriage.
You mean gay marriage?
I mean marriage. There’s really no such thing as “gay marriage.” It just “marriage.” See? Already you’ve got some thinking to do.
Disclaimer: It seems to me that the queer community is always in need of allies who, like me, can’t claim a place under that colorful umbrella, being boring old het-cis. Please count me as one of those allies.
You can subscribe for free to Robin Reardon Writes, though I hope you’ll consider becoming a paid subscriber. It’s not expensive, really! You’ll have access to everything I write on Substack. You’ll also have my undying gratitude.
Not ready for a paid subscription, but you really liked this post?
I’m an inveterate observer of human nature, writing novels about all kinds of people, some of whom happen to be gay or transgender or bisexual or intersex—people whose destinies are not determined solely by their sexual orientation or gender identity. Check out my work on my website.