Alex Bruzzone's Initial Post

• Shame, Sex, and Anthropology Thread by Vick Kelly, 10/29/97
  
  

Alex Bruzzone posted to Tomkins-Talk the following on 17 October 1997:

Following up on my Oct 2nd presentation. I posted in the moderated newsgroup sci.med.aids in response to the Issue of 'natural promiscuity.'

What follows is (1) My post, (2) A follow-up by Jim Hayes and, (3) some comments from a psychiatrist who read the draft of my presentation. You can read the full draft at:

http://www.carleton.ca/~bruzzone/shame/draft1.html

------------------ Posting on sci.med.aids newsgroup ---------------

From: Alex Bruzzone Newsgroups: sci.med.aids Subject: 'Natural promiscuity' of men Date: 14 Oct 1997 00:52:12 -0500

I think, Mark Milano wrote:

In addition, the *natural promiscuity* of men has been modified in many different cultures throughout history. It may be more difficult in a male-male culture, but not impossible, especially if its members want it.

P. Kurth/ J. Hannah responded:

Normally when the *natural promiscuity* of men is modified, it leads to war. In fact it's never modified -- it is only repressed, with obvious consequences.

NATURAL PROMISCUITY

Rather than saying that 'promiscuity is natural' in men, I would say that the need for 'male promiscuity' is common.

I just gave a presentation (Oct 2nd) for HIV Educators on the topic of "Shame and Impersonal Sex Between Men." One of the important concepts that emerged during this presentation is that "impersonal sex" is in fact the expression of "private sexuality" in men. This need for "private sexuality" is in response to the male characteristics of Exposed Erotic Arousal (erection) and Exposed Sexuality (semen).

Therefore, one of the recommendations made during the presentation is to treat the need for impersonal sex (promiscuity) between men not as an abnormal/incomplete form of sexual expression, but rather as a natural need for men to express their private sexuality.

By explaining impersonal sex as 'needs' rather than as an inability to develop 'real' sexual relationships, shame is minimized. This allows men to take more control during the impersonal sex encounters, which can translate into better personal HIV and STD prevention strategies.

Alex Bruzzone http://www.carleton.ca/~bruzzone/

--------------A follow-up to my posting ---------------------------

From: Jim Hayes Newsgroups: sci.med.aids Subject: Re: 'Natural promiscuity' of men Date: 17 Oct 1997 00:56:40 -0500

Alex Bruzzone wrote:

>I just gave a presentation (Oct 2nd) for HIV Educators on the topic of >"Shame and Impersonal Sex Between Men"

Your full draft paper is interesting. You seem to propose acknowledgment of impersonal sex as a valid need/desire/activity of men that is parallel to (and not inferior in quality or value) to sexual relationships (the most common form of which might be two men who define themselves as a couple, monogamous or not as their personal choice may be). If that acknowledgment is given as step number one, which would lead to a minimization of "shame", how does it lead to men taking more control during impersonal sexual encounters? For example, what would men do differently and why? Would this behavioral change tend to flow automatically as a result of the changed (shame-minimized) culture; or should/could it be taught in workshops? Do you have detailed suggestions about how to teach "taking more control during impersonal sex" that would preserve the desired rewards of the experience while at the same time altering the level of transmission risk?

Also, in your draft, you referred to "semen fetish" -- "Consequently, it becomes very difficult for men to relate to their own semen in a positive way. These less than positive feelings about their own semen often generate in men a common obsession, which I will term semen fetish (the implications of which I will discuss later in relation to HIV)." But, as I read further I did not see the discussion of implications, so I wonder if you could elaborate on this point?

Thanks!

James Michael Hayes Boston, Massachusetts, USA

---------------------A personal note---------------------------------

A psychiatrist, after reading the draft, sent me a short note:

Thanks very much for sending me the draft copy of your presentation on ISBM. It was interesting to read and I'm sure I'll read it many times as I ponder on the 'meat' of it. I'll be keen to keep up with your thinking on this very important subject, as you are exploring 'uncharted waters'.

By the way, I felt 'ashamed' of Dr. Clement's response and would have hoped for something at least a little more humane if not professional from him. Thank goodness you had only 15 (traumatic) minutes with him!

P.S. I must 'confess' that I experienced some tumescence reading your paper. I was alone, so it didn't matter.

No Replies