Jim Burroway of Looking for Sam crunches some numbers and discovers that Arizona antigay activists are marketing several statistical lies as “facts.”
Among the misrepresentations:
- The myth that homosexual men have on average eight partners per year
- The myth that gay relationships last, on average, 1 1/2 years
As with propagandist Paul Cameron’s “research,” these numbers appear to have been cooked up by studying HIV/AIDS patients — not average gay men — and by purposely excluding suburban, rural, monogamous, middle-aged, and elderly gay men and lesbians from the survey samples.
Homophobes are lying to serve their agenda?
I’m acting astonished!
Nice work Jim! You mentioned this was coming, and I’m glad it’s here :-)(And on the misquoters reckoning, we’re running about 111 partners short of the average and are 12 years overdue for a change in relationship. Boy, have I got my work cut out for me for the next few years. Inadequate doesn’t even begin to describe how we feel…)A cursory look at the abstract — or the Amsterdam Cohort Study — tells you that the research cannot be applied elsewhere. The work has a narrow purpose, and is highly respected within that framework but it says nothing about, well, people like us.The Netherlands had identifed young, “bar scene” men who have a lot of partners/uncommited relationships as a vector for HIV infection (ditto a few other select groups, such as IDU and immigrants from North Africa) from the 1990’s and established this research to anticipate where the epidemic was heading. (And who’d have thunk: young men — gay or straight — who hang around bars and have lots of partners are at higher risk for HIV infection. Stunning.)Apart from anything else, if the US had the same (lower) infection rate as the Netherlands there would be 320,000 infected instead of 950,000.Because the Netherlands does recognise the marriages of gay couples, one often finds Xiridou’s work alongside Stanley Kurtz’ nonsense. [here] and [here] as example.Of course they hope to conflate the two in people’s minds, however, the fact that the Netherlands has a rate one-third that of the United States… is never mentioned.Xiridou’s work does not aim to “know” about gay couples in marriages, or even gay men as a whole. As is typical of the honest approach to sexuality in the Netherlands, nobody there is making the same false claims about the study as does a particular quarter in the United States.(If I recall correctly, the study has suggested only a tweak to the NL’s HIV strategy; namely, to inform newly-formed gay couples not to drop the use of condoms at an early stage in the relationship. We have similarly added this approach in Australia under a better understanding of what “negotiated safe sex” means for long-term couples).
P.S. Jim — I started this in October 2003 about the study.Lucky nobody has been holding their breath waiting on me… but it lists the sub-groups involved in the study/ies. The important information sought by the Amsterdam work was the graph.
I’ll merely point out what I have concluded over the years
Regarding the first bullet regarding the number of “partners” (I assume you mean different men for sex), that is probably represents envy. The misrepresenters (mostly straight males) would like to be promiscuous, but apparently straight women won’t let them be. Actually, if I had not been promiscuous in the 1970s, I would never have met my partner. I haven’t been promiscuous since I met him.
Regarding the second bullet, so what? What is a relationship? Some people–gay and straight–have what used to be referred to as “flings.” They would last for a few weeks or a few months, but they were never expected to last forever.
well alright! It is about time we caught on to the Dutch study lie. It has been used in many religious right studies. James Kennedy even used it to say that gay married couples only stay together for 1.5 years.
well alright! It is about time we caught on to the Dutch study lie. It has been used in many religious right studies. James Kennedy even used it to say that gay married couples only stay together for 1.5 years.
Which is even more ironic because the Netherlands actually recognizes gay marriages, although I don’t know if they did during this study. Seeing as that is the case, it would be more appropriate to say that the study shows an average length of dating to be 1.5 years – which is pretty long, IMHO.
I did some clicking around, and it appears that the “study” regarded men who were HIV positive. I would not have reflected the behavior of those of us who are negative. So the two bullets are totally bogus.
BTW, when I was single, I went out 2-3 times a week to the local (WashDC) gay clubs, and if I didn’t get laid, I’d be disappointed. But I was in my 20s then, and that was pre-HIV/AIDS. I’m in my 50s now, and I have a partner, and I can’t be bothered. Peoples’ priorities change with age and circumstance.
BTW, the Dutch study may not have been a lie. But the Arizona anti-gay activists may have extrapolated it far beyond its intended scope. One has to be very careful in that assessment.
Excellent work Jim. Is there any chance the author of this study could comment on how her work is being used? ISTM that I have seen other researchers come out and condemn the uses their data have been put to. Just wondering.
Hey everyone, thanks for your comments
CPT_Doom:
The Netherlands did not recognize gay marriage until April 2001. The study ended in 1999.
Raj:
The study did contain some men who were HIV-negative. In fact, it’s enrollment was closed to HIV+ for a short period of time. But yes, the numbers of HIV+ were inflated, and as you point out, do not reflect the population that has a higher proportion of negatives.
And no, I didn’t intend to claim the Dutch Study was a lie. I believe their study was done in good faith, and was designed to model how HIV/AIDS is spread in the Netherlands. If I wasn’t clear, then I need to go back and clarify it.
Dalea:
Excellent point on getting her comment. I’ll try to do that. I haven’t seen anything in Google in which she was asked to respond. I’ll go back to the study and see if there is an E-mail contact.
And no, I didn’t intend to claim the Dutch Study was a lie.
Jim, I totally understand your point, and I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Researchers select their samples (a) however they can and (b) for what they want to learn from the study. In the social sciences, particularly in regards homosexuality (but also economics) it is difficult to get others to misuse the reported data.
raj:
“…it is difficult to get others to misuse the reported data”
I think you meant to say “… it is difficult to get others NOT to misuse the reported data.”
Jim — I did try to contact Maria Xiridou or anyone at the ACS.You will have more luck if you can read Dutch. I couldn’t make head or tail of what was the study contact email (and even Babelfish came out all kooky). I didn’t make much of an effort, though :-)And no, the study itself is not a lie or a nonsense convenience sample — it does exactly what it was designed for. It’s the misuse that is the problem (oh, THAT issue again…)
There is an E-mail contact listed in the published report. I’ll try that.
Don’t know if she speaks the English or not. 😉
let me rephrase. when i said dutch study lie, i was talking about the religious right misuse of the Dutch study.
I apologize for how i construed my words. i should have said dutch study misuse
If she’s Dutch, and under 60 years old, she undoubtably will. The email on the report didn’t work (or, at least, it bounced for me).And I’m fine with what you said — I’ve just realised the last comment for raj went straight under one for you. So, my fault.
Timothy at August 4, 2005 01:45 PM
Point taken. Agree.
I’ve done scientific papers. This study should not be dismissed out of hand. What was the point of the research, from the researcher’s standpoint? Maybe there was some interesting science going on there. I haven’t reviewed the research, so I don’t know, and this isn’t my field of study.
What the wackos are obviously trying to do is to shut down any research relating to homosexual persons. That should be obvious. Unless the research is anti-homo.
Raj:
Re: “This study should not be dismissed out of hand. What whas the point of the research, from the rsearcher’s standpoint?”
That is exactly the pertinent question to ask, which of course the far right doesn’t bother asking. The study was an attempt to devise a mathematical model to predict the avenues in which HIV/AIDS is spread in Amsterdam. As far as the researchers’ point of view is concerned, it appears to have been a very well constructed study (to my eyes at least).
But it was by no means an attempt to assess the behaviors of gay men in general. It was an attempt to assess the behaviors of HIV+ men and their “serious” and casual partners. Nothing more. And I leave the word “serious” in quotes because the Amsterdam Cohort Study (ACS) pointedly did not try to define what consitituted “serious”. Since same-sex marriage did not exist in the Netherlands at the time, there was not a universally-recongized standard of what would constitute a steady relationship.
And besides, if a gay couple was monogamous, they were excluded from the study. Makes sense to me. After all, if they were monogamous, they wouldn’t be worth studing for their contribution to the spread of HIV/AIDS, regardless of their serostatus.
Jim, reminds me of a conversation we had in Dale’s home town.Don’t know why we tolerate these intrusive questions but…. at a “nightclub” (ha!) we were asked by a couple of mid-20’s women why we weren’t worried about becoming HIV positive, together.After blinking 40 times… when we said I am not, and he is not .. so who would we get it from???? — they stood stunned. Amazing.Well DURH, morons… and then they went and picked up heterosexual strangers and took them home for the night. We went home together, alone, again.
I’ve heard about the idea that gay men have on average 7 partners in a lifetime. My best friend, who is a gay man, laughs at this idea because he has had that many partners in a weekend, if not a night. He estimates that he has been with over 1000 men since becoming sexually active at 19 (he is now 31).
What I’d like to see, just once, is these same Christian groups who attack gay promescuity also condemning like behaviors in straights. Why is it only gay sex that draws their ire while myriads of straights, many calling themselves Christian, are catting about with equal abandon? I’d like to see them focus on SIN in general – not just politically popular or motivated sins.
Dear Wendy,Men lie. Such questions are not meant to be answered honestly. Your friend is either having a lot of partners — or he’s still a virgin.And I think you’ll find these same anti-gay groups also rail against ANYTHING other than monogamous, heterosexual, married sex. They are, of course, free to think this would be the best sex life (even if they personally also have 1000 skeletons in their closet); but what they are demanding is that gay men and women never have any sex — monogamous or otherwise.
Wendy,
Analysis of the GSS studies show that the MEDIAN number of lifetime sexual partners is 7 for homosexual men. Heterosexual and homosexual men stay pretty close til the 75% or so where gay men start out scoring their heterosexual brethren.
Conclusion – 25% of men are randy bastards and the gay ones find willing partners easier.
As far as the dutch study it was also limited to young men – I wonder about what a study of how many partners and length of relationships of single heterosexual men of the same age would show in Amsterdam?
Hi BobThis would be the web work by Jeramy Townsley? Not much to go on, but it’s a start.
FYI:
Dr. Warren Throckmorton was kind enough to read my post and leave a comment to say that while he agrees with the crux of my argument, he questions whether I have the data to back up one of my claims. His note and my reply are in the comments at Looking for Sam.
Re: Jeremay Townsley’s MEDIAN statistic.
I’ve seen that website. I was wondering if anyone else has replicated that finding anywhere? I tried going to the online database, but kinda got wrapped around the axle trying to extract it. That was a long time ago and I haven’t gotten back to it.
Hi Jim,I am disappointed Warren said that. While I understand he might have questions about what you said (or the way you did etc), both that paper and the Amsterdam Cohort Study is very clear about who they are working with. A lesson in reading the PRIMARY SOURCE, rather than commenting on comments about it…Good response from you in any case.