Commentary on pro-family issues in the media, politics and in the public square.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships
A new study of 566 gay couples in the San Francisco area reveals that HIV prevention should include gay men in so-called committed, long term relationships because most of them have agreed that it's healthy, and good for the relationship, to have sex on the side.
Now you know the real meaning behind the phrase "two loving individuals in a long term, committed relationship."
San Francisco Chronicle
Merridith May
July 16, 2010
They call them "San Francisco relationships."
"A term coined by the local gay community, it's defined as two men in a long-term open relationship, with lovers on the side.
A new study released this week by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University put statistics around what gay men already know: Many Bay Area boyfriends negotiate open relationships that allow for sex with outsiders.
After studying the sexual patterns of 566 gay male couples from the Bay Area for three years, lead researcher Colleen Hoff found that gay men negotiate ground rules and open their relationships as a way to build trust and longevity in their partnerships.
"I don't own my lover, and I don't own his body," he said. "I think it's weird to ask someone you love to give up that part of their life. I would never do it."
"So much of the HIV prevention effort is aimed at a different set - men in dance clubs or bathhouses having anonymous sex," she said. "HIV prevention might want to expand its message to address relationships; we have to look at risk in a greater context."
In her study of gay couples, 47 percent reported open relationships. Forty-five percent were monogamous, and the remaining 8 percent disagreed about what they were."
Read more...
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
U of MN official program calls for challenging white privilege, universal health care, abortion rights, living wages, and same sex marriage
The tag line at the bottom of the statement, highlights the Leftist ideological bent of the group, e.g. "We recognize the intersections of gender and sexuality with race, ethnicity, class, ability, ability, age, culture, and all social systems; we are committed to holding ourselves ad others accountable for working against all forms of oppression." Oppression?
In her email letter, Ms. Phibbs calls for her and her fellow GLBTA allies to "Be out and proud and visible -- as a progressive queer/GLBTA movement..."
She notes that she's going to attend an Anti-Proposition 8 rally "as a representative of the thousands and millions of queer and GLBTA activists who understand that our agenda is as much about challenging white privilege, ending gender and sexual violence, creating access for people with disabilities, and ensuring universal health care, access to education, reproductive rights, and living wages - as it is about same sex marriage."
That's quite an agenda for an official program of the University of Minnesota.
"Challenging white oppression." Sounds like U of M President Bruininks might be in trouble.
"Ensuring universal health care"...by the government I'm sure. That's an expensive and controversial proposal.
"Reproductive rights." I didn't realize the University of Minnesota was taking sides in the abortion debate.
"Living wage." What would that mean for the millions of lower wage earners who would lose their jobs?
And of course, last but not least is "same sex marriage." This sounds like the University of Minnesota is in the vanguard of the sexual revolution.
With the state facing the prospect of a several billion dollar budget deficit and the University of Minnesota certain to call for more state tax dollars, I think the the legislature and the governor's office should take a closer look at how the University of Minnesota is spending the money it already receives from the state before making new legislative appropriations to the University of Minnesota.
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
|