MSM

[Laurence Horn]

At 10:43 AM -0800 12/19/04, Arnold M. Zwicky wrote:
>>
>
>the semantics of "MSM" is also of interest.  to start with, MSMs are
>not, literally, men who have sex with men, since that would include
>most of what i called, in my earlier posting, "frankly gay men".  in
>fact "MSM" gets its meaning from its *opposition* to "gay men" (much as
>the ordinary use of "animal" gets its meaning from its opposition to
>"human being").  MSMs reject labels like "gay" and "homosexual" for
>themselves.  (think Roy Cohn as depicted in Angels in America.  to his
>doctor: "Roy Cohn is not a homosexual.  Roy Cohn is a heterosexual man,
>Henry, who fucks around with guys.")

a queery on this...

I wonder about this analysis--couldn't it be argued that the
opposition is accounted for on pragmatic rather than semantic
grounds?  In fact, I'd argue the same for "animal", although there
I'd want to say that "animal" is an autohyponym, with both an
inclusive sense ("humans and other animals") and exclusive one.  But
in the case of MSM, do we really have evidence for a specific sense
of the term that formally excludes men who are out and proud or
however self-defined as long as they do in fact have sex with men?
Granted, there's no suggestion that MSM are either self-identified or
other-identified as gay or even bisexual--but is there anything MORE
than a suggestion that they're not gay?  Aren't the statistics about,
say, what percentage of MSM are seropositive or engage in high-risk
sex or use condoms or whatever based precisely on the practices of
those men (regardless of orientation) who have sex with men?  Yes,
gay men might not in general be called MSM, but is that any different
from not calling squares rectangles or thumbs fingers?  If I'm right
on this, the actual lexical entry (physical or mental) for MSM
wouldn't mention "...but not (frankly) gay".

>
>"MSM" also differs from "gay men" in that what makes you an MSM is what
>you do -- behavior -- while what makes you a gay man is what's in your
>head -- what arouses you, what incites desire.  boys and men can be
>clear that they are gay long before they actually have sex with another
>male, or during long periods when they aren't sexually active, but you
>aren't an MSM unless you're actually doing it, at least occasionally,
>so that if you stop doing it, you're not an MSM any more.
>

Indeed--consider all those Catholic priests who are gay but not MSM,
until they start forgetting their vows, which I understand does tend
to happen every now and then.  Of course then they're often
technically MSB rather than MSM..

>>Note the derivative phrase "MSM of color".
>
>interesting.  this is certainly broader than than "men on the down
>low", since it takes in at least hispanics/latinos as well as african
>americans.

I'm pretty sure "X is on the down low" really does entail ~(X is
out), and if so, there's a clear contrast with "MSM" here regardless
of ethnicity.

larry