The Ethics of Outing.

[hntnhole]

6 minutes ago, tallslenderguy said:

Theft and extortion, black mail, those are different issues.

You "nutshelled" this discussion perfectly, and I'll go one more step:  

Actively gay men publicly maligning men in our community, while attempting to remain in the closet, is a fool's errand.  

[SomewhereonNeptune]

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

First, thanks for your well thought out responses to this interesting topic. 

Per the above quote, it's the initial act of some public figure (who is also an active gay, actively having gay sex) demeaning, attacking, denigrating others who are also actively gay, and doing so in the full light of day.  That's the difference.    

That’s self-loathing. 

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Say you saw someone beat up some other person on the street, resulting in serious injury.  And ambulance comes.  The cops come.  They go door-to-door trying to get some information on the perp, in an effort to visit Justice upon the guy that administered the beating.  Would you tell the cops that no - you have no idea who it was, when you witnessed the beating and could at least give a description of the attacker?  Would the "I don't want to get involved" attitude be excusable?  

The initial act of brutality deserves - by it's very nature - Justice, even if there were some potential, unknown-to-you "reason" the injured party "deserved" the beating.  That would be for the Courts (i.e. Justice) to determine, wouldn't it?  Describing the assaulter wouldn't be tattling on, informing on the perp, it would be allowing each those two involved in the actual beating to have their issue heard in Court (again, Justice).  

Justice? Absolutely I’d want to see that visited on the perpetrator. Telling law enforcement what you witnessed? 100% support that. If it came out during the proceedings that the perp, for the sake of argument, r@ped the victim, that perp — self-loathing or not — deserves the karma he’s due for his actions.

What I was against was simply “outing” someone who might have their own closely held reasons for wanting to keep their private affairs private. Outing someone in that manner would likely invite the wrong kind of attention and blowback on the person or groups doing the outing. I wanted to make that clear. 

[SomewhereonNeptune]

18 hours ago, Kayne said: 

and by the same token, if you're already shelling out ducats everyone else, why does payi g the dude actually involved with knocking your bits around, so insulting , abhorrent, or degrading to you? 

“I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things that money can buy.” - Steve Martin 😀

[ErosWired]

On 9/21/2023 at 11:09 AM, BootmanLA said:

I'm going to disagree here, only because I think sex, like any other personal service, ought to be up for negotiation. What's the difference between a woman who accepts $500 for agreeing to let a man fuck her, and a woman whose boyfriend gives her $500 gifts on occasion to show his appreciation?

The difference is that human sexuality isn’t supposed to be a commodity. @Kayne touches on the core of the reason when he talks about payment being in part compensation for damage for the harm caused. At a biochemical level, every time we have a sexual union with another person, our bodies engage biochemical mechanisms to create bonding. This is not something we have control over; it’s hard-wired. We’ve just learned societally to simply rip away from those feelings of bonding and ignore them.

But they still happen, every time, and they account, often, for the feeling of emptiness, unfulfillment, or sense of being discarded, devalued, or used that may follow a casual encounter even if it’s otherwise consensual, exciting, and pleasurable. Sexuality is s basic need identified in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, but unlike the other base-level survival needs also found in level 1, where it is represented as a physical need, it also has a presence in levels 3 and 4, implicated in the need to be loved and accepted, and the need for self-esteem. When made transactional, an act of sex may superficially satisfy the level 1 need, but it actively causes a deficit in levels 3 and 4.

(One might hypothesize this as a possible explanation for why individuals like some cumdumps have a maladaptive sense of pride and self-value from being serially used as sexual objects - they may be attempting to psychologically interpret the severe deficits being caused in such a way as to either minimize the loss, or actually invert the process and convert the deficit into a gain, illusory as it might be. I’m just spitballing, or looking in the mirror. One of those.)

I realize there are times when a man may feel he has to pay for sex because he cannot obtain it any other way, and he feels a desperation to meet his basic level 1 survival need. But a society that sanctions transactional sex, however illicit, essentially obliges him to sacrifice his higher-level needs to do it. He must rob Peter to fuck Paul.

It’s not a moralistic statement of “sex shouldn’t be for sale” - it’s a rational observation based on observed phenomena. That is to say, science. What becomes a value judgment is whether we value the quality of human lives enough as a society to say that this is something it is not ethical to do. I think it is not, which is why I will neither pay nor accept compensation for intimacy. I won’t judge those who do, but I am sad for them.

Edited September 23, 2023 by ErosWired

[brnbk]

Great discussion and great points raised. 

the crux of my question is, while almost almost everyone here agrees in preventing active harm i.e. closeted gay men who harm LGBTQ people by preaching or legislating against gay right, few justify absolute privacy i.e. right of gays to be gay at night and upright evangelical Christians during the day even if they indulge in anti gay activities; yet an overwhelming majority voted in the poll for right to maintain privacy and against outing —  seemingly rejecting  the question of  passive harm. 

It is truly a complex and comprehensive question, as Outing itself is deeply connected to what a particular society considers private and public - rightly or wrongly so! 

On 9/17/2023 at 7:03 PM, analluv27 said:

 But as a society we do not out people addiction problems unless they broke the law

  I am not sure if its legal to report someone as an alcoholic or addict and if a newspaper could be held liable for defamation. 

Mr. Michelangelo Signorile who made the concept popular, states in his recent article he prefers to call it "Reporting" and the term Outing was surprisingly not invented by him but by the Time Magazine.

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.signorile.com/p/matt-schlapp-and-the-closet-of-power?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fouting&utm_medium=reader2

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by brnbk

[brnbk]

On 9/17/2023 at 4:02 PM, BootmanLA said:

 

I think outing a married person who goes to bathhouses or bookstores for sex (but who otherwise is not a public figure) is like flipping that switch when there aren't five people stuck on the track to start with.

Is is really the case that there is no person on the track? Isn't the closeted gay/bi man on the track in this scenario — as he is being forced by society to stay in the closet. After all no one objects to being reported as Italian American, Indian American etc., even though they might not necessarily identify with their ethnicity/heritage and prefer, American, as a self description. 

Outing is alleged to cause substantial harm alleged to the individual's professional and family life. Which begs the question: Why it is reporting someone as gay/bi  considered — "violent", forceful imposition of values, and violating the right of personal choice, as if sexual orientation where something not as "natural" as ethnicity or the color of ones eyes, where individuals have no choice over it and there being no good or evil to blue eyes vs black eyes or green eyes vs brown eyes. 

As far as professionals life is considered, I believe there are sufficient anti discrimination laws on the book which protects LGBTQ people. Gay/bi affairs aren't the only reason why married men leave their families, and there are way more men leaving their families and wives for another women rather than a guy. If mainstream US culture does not vilify the man who chose to divorce his wife (and thus leave his family) unlike some cultures where marriages is predominantly for raising children and divorce is a huge [banned word], why should the gay/bi man who chooses to have sex outside of marriage, be such a bad guy and the reporting of it close to a crime. After all the word "marriage" does not mean the same thing around the world. In the Islamic and African world, it would include a man with multiple wives, in Europe and parts of Asia it would include a man with a wife and a mistress and in some parts of Asia such as India, it would be strictly be between one man and one woman. 

If we allow for such privacy as to frequent gay bathhouses or attend sex parties without it being reported in society, shouldn't we for sake of consistency make space for  Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military.

[TallAussieBtm]

Generally no. Only if the person is out there hypocritically proselytizing against gay people. Then all bets are off. They have it cumming! 😃

[funpozbottom]

On 9/17/2023 at 3:06 PM, brnbk said:

Is it ever moral to out a gay man?

 

Is it ever acceptable for a gay/bi person to pass as straight ?

For the first question, in general, no. I think everyone should be afforded a right to privacy and should not be outed for their sexuality. However, there are certain circumstances that might bring a person's sexuality into public view. Using the example of a politician or clergy, if that person was actively engaging in activities that they were "preaching" or legislating against,  it would be valid to point out that person's hypocrisy and show how that deception is detrimental to others. In my opinion, this isn't necessarily outing as gay, but outing as a hypocrite.   

As for the second question of whether it's ever acceptable to pass as straight, I'd say, yes. There are situations where one's safety could be of a higher priority than a social agenda.

 

On 9/23/2023 at 11:09 AM, ErosWired said:

The difference is that human sexuality isn’t supposed to be a commodity.

Can you prove that? I mean, when you consider how humans have bartered for marriage through arranged connections and dowry payoffs that may only peripherally involve the couple that is to wed, it could be argued that a transaction between a sex worker and client is actually a more intimate encounter than many marriages consummated throughout history. 

I think your interpretation of Maslow's Hierarchy is slightly off. While our current society tends to conflate love and sex, Maslow intentionally separated the two. Sex is a primary physical need. Love is a secondary mental construct. You do not need to love to have sex, and you do not have to have sex to have love.

We all have a limited number of things that we can focus on at one time. Primary needs need to be somewhat satisfied before you have the bandwidth to focus on higher needs. So the need for sex needs to be somewhat satisfied before you can turn your attention to things like love.  For a guy, once he's cum, the need for sex is somewhat satisfied so he can think about things like:  "I wonder what it would be like to do that with a person instead of my hand" ... "Yeah she's a good lay but do I actually love her" ... "I got enough from that trick to pay rent, maybe I can take some time to focus on finding some new friends..."

Fulfilling a basic physical need doesn't create a "deficit" in higher needs, but rather, once a primary need is satisfied, you can turn your attention towards fulfilling higher needs that already exist. 

 

Fun fact: Maslow created a list of 15 characteristics of self-actualized individuals.  Three that sort of relate to this thread are: 

Strong moral/ethical standards;

Concerned for the welfare of humanity;

Need for privacy.

 

 

 

[hntnhole]

20 hours ago, brnbk said:

few justify absolute privacy i.e. right of gays to be gay at night and upright evangelical Christians during the day

This is the most obvious oxymoron I've seen or heard in a long time.

There is no possible way a man could be both a practicing gay man (i.e. having regular gay sex at night) and an "upright Evangelical Christian" during the day.  The implication, is at the very least, one of a seriously disturbed "dual personality"; more likely a man of breathtaking dishonesty first with himself, and certainly with others. 

These two characteristics are like oil and water - they simply do not mix. No man (or woman) could actually be both at the same time, since the message of the Evangelical faction of Christianity demands that adherents reject any sexual contact outside of Church-sanctioned marriage; and obviously only with the opposite sex, for the purpose of procreation.  

As to the "absolute privacy" reference, there is no such thing, other than living alone on some deserted island in the middle of some ocean.  This would obviate any chance of having sex with another human being.  In our society/world-order, there are degrees of rights-of-privacy, but none are absolute.  We simply depend on the decency of our fellow human beings to honor this cultural tradition, mostly honored for fear of that tradition not being honored by others towards us.  It applies to most facets of everyday life, but it's anything but "absolute". 

Each of us gets to decide where on that scale of relativity where we want to live our lives, but frankly, there is only one "absolute"; that being the fact that each our lives will end one day.  Everything else is relative and/or situational. 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by hntnhole
punctuation

[BootmanLA]

On 9/21/2023 at 11:36 AM, ellentonboy said:

What if the buyer has no other options, he can't meet anyone either online, on an app, or in person.  What if he is handicapped or disabled in some way.  Don't you think he has the right to make the decision to pay for sex?

It's probably true that handicapped/disabled persons have far fewer options than other people for sex - given our society's appalling ableism. But one needn't be such in order to experience a severe dearth of options. Sometimes it's looks, sometimes it's personality, sometimes it's the location, sometimes it's just old-fashioned snobbery, but there are a significant number of gay men out there who go without sex for extended periods of time simply because they can't find anyone interested.

Some guys I've talked with said they hated going to the baths, because if they exercised any choice over who fucked them, they didn't get fucked at all - while more appealing (in some way - better looking, better built, better hung, whatever) guys could pick and choose all night long and always get the cream of the crop. One finally admitted he had found a sex worker in the nearest big city who was happy to give him what he wanted, at a reasonable price, and never made him feel bad about paying for it. 

[ErosWired]

5 hours ago, funpozbottom said:

Fulfilling a basic physical need doesn't create a "deficit" in higher needs, but rather, once a primary need is satisfied, you can turn your attention towards fulfilling higher needs that already exist. 

We will have to agree to disagree. Nothing in your argument begins to touch on either the very real - and deeply complex - psychological connections to sex, or the real and demonstrable biochemical effects that take place during intercourse. When you approach sex from a transactional basis to start with, it’s easy to claim that such things either don’t exist or don’t matter, but they do, and they do.

I don’t think I misunderstand Maslow; I’m simply pointing out that sex intersects a human life at levels beyond the base physical. I defy anyone to claim that sex has no impact on a person’s self-image, sel-esteem, or sense of feeling accepted or capable of being loved.

[ErosWired]

2 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Some guys I've talked with said they hated going to the baths, because if they exercised any choice over who fucked them, they didn't get fucked at all - while more appealing (in some way - better looking, better built, better hung, whatever) guys could pick and choose all night long and always get the cream of the crop. One finally admitted he had found a sex worker in the nearest big city who was happy to give him what he wanted, at a reasonable price, and never made him feel bad about paying for it. 

But I wonder if the guy, at some level, ended up feeling bad about having to buy it. Because if he stops to think about it at all  - and if he can comment that the other guy never made him feel bad about it, the thought of feeling bad about it has to have occurred to him on his own - the very fact that he’s had to shell out for it can only underscore the negative feelings that drove them to do it in the first place.

In other words, a guy might say, I hate it that I’m not attractive enough to get a hot guy at the bathhouse, but look - I can buy one! …which…I…wouldn’t have to do if I wasn’t too unattractive to get a hot guy at the bathhouse.

And how do guys who pay avoid thinking, whilst doing it, This hot guy wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for the money. He’s not interested in me or my body - he’s fucking my wallet.

I mean, I’m sure there are guys who can enjoy it at the shallowest level possible and give it no more thought than that, but for anyone with even a little introspection, there’s not a lot to build on there.

[BootmanLA]

On 9/21/2023 at 6:01 PM, Kayne said:

You know, when I was a kid, AIDS was the boogeyman and a death sentence.  I remember All those women on Donahue, The original Jerry Sprin.ger, Oprah and Sally Jesse Raphael , who were with men for 20/30/40 years who gave them kids and made homes for them only to be rewarded with HIV and or a Trans partner.

I always thought that getting an innocent person involved i. your fucked up life/ lying to your partner for decades and then dropping this bombshell was a Dick move and if I could out assholes like that, I'd do it .

You're talking about two different situations here, and some history might make this sound less awful.

The Jerry Springer Show started in 1991. Sally Jesse Raphael started even earlier, in 1983 (though only local at the time) and was widely syndicated before the end of the 80's. Oprah's show started in 1986.

In that era, men who had been married for 20 years got married in the 1960's, men married for 30 years got married in the 1950's, and men married for 40 years had been married since the 1940's. NONE of those people came of age when there was any sort of even toleration for gay men, much less welcoming support. Men who failed to marry by their mid-20's were considered suspect, and being suspect meant being closed out of pretty much everything - professionally and socially. Does that make the lying a good thing? Of course not - but it's a hell of a lot more understandable when you consider what a gay man's alternatives were back then.

Maybe instead of blaming men for having to contort their lives to accommodate the colossally shitty way society forced them to behave, it would be more productive to call out the shallowness and idiocy of society at the time. We have no problem calling out racism for what it was (well, at least outside of Florida), but we still don't want to say people - absolutely MOST people - were homophobic. Public approval of homosexuality didn't exceed 50% until the early 2000's. Barely 1/3 approved of gay people EXISTING as late as 1982.

Ditto for a person coming out as trans, except that society STILL hasn't moved nearly as far on that issue. As a youth in the 1970's I knew of exactly three transsexual persons: Christine Jorgensen, Renee Richards, and Wendy Carlos. I remember the outrage of a lot of CBS affiliates when a set of "All in the Family" episodes featured a trans person (probably correctly identified as a drag queen, but terms were rather imprecise at the time). The last several years have been brutal, legislatively, for trans people as red state after red states seeks to suppress their rights. I'm not going to fault ANYONE for failing to have come out decades ago as trans - it was positively suicidal in many cases. 

[BootmanLA]

On 9/21/2023 at 10:31 PM, meetme said:

Well that’s your prerogative. I pay my own way and I have enough self respect that I’m asked for money before someone wants to b3 with me they can hit the road.  Other people may not feel that buying a physical encounter with someone else makes them feel very undesirable.  Likewise if a partner has to be drunk or high before sex, I’ll just wait until someone actually wants to be with me.  

If you don't want to be a sex worker, don't be a sex worker.

Don't be an asshole on top of it and snidely infer that those who are lack self respect.

[BootmanLA]

On 9/22/2023 at 8:17 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

What I was against was simply “outing” someone who might have their own closely held reasons for wanting to keep their private affairs private. Outing someone in that manner would likely invite the wrong kind of attention and blowback on the person or groups doing the outing. I wanted to make that clear. 

I agree with you, IF (as I suspect) you're saying that the belief people should be "out" is never enough, by itself, to justify outing someone against his will.

But as I've rehashed earlier (and I assume this doesn't conflict with your statements), if the closeted gay person actively seeks to harm the community (a politician who fights/votes against gay civil rights, for instance; a preacher who preaches about the sin of gay sex, especially if he slurs us all as groomers and pedophiles: out that mother fucker yesterday.