MSM

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

On Dec 19, 2004, at 11:50 AM, Laurence Horn wrote:

> 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")...

> 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?

my bad, for using the word "meaning".  the pragmatic account is
sufficient here.

> ...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?

things are complicated.  the social-services people certainly use "MSM"
this way: "gay/bisexual men" and "MSM" are separate categories for
statistical purposes, and different tactics have to be used to gain
access to the two groups.  (gay/bisexual men are relatively easy to
approach, in situations of gay sociability, political action, or sexual
connection, since these tend to be organized.  MSMs see themselves as
independent agents, not associated with groups, not to mention an
identity.)

(by the way, outness isn't really the issue.  there are plenty of
closeted gay/bisexual men who are clear in their own heads about not
being straight; they just feel that they have to conceal this from most
of the world -- sometimes for very good reason, like being in the U.S.
military.  in any case, they tend to feel a kind of kinship with other
gay/bisexual men, even if they don't actively participate in gay
affiliation groups.)

as for how MSMs speak of these things, at least some of them say that
they are men who have sex with men, but that's a description. not a
label, and roughly equivalent descriptions will do: men who play
(around) with guys, men who fuck with guys, etc.  this is in line with
their tendency not to see themselves as aligned with any kind of group
having to do with sexuality.  for them, sex with men is sort of a
leisure-time activity, like bowling.  a satisfying activity, providing
buddy-like relationships with other men, quick and easy sexual release,
and freedom from the "demands" (as they often put it) of their female
partners.  in any case, an appeal to "men who have sex with men" will
at least get their attention; of course, it will also be noticed by
frankly gay/bisexual men, since this *description* fits them too.

> 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".

i think this depends on who's using in, in what context, for what
purpose.  we started out in the world of social/medical services and
sexuality education, and there i think the usage is pretty clear.

the claim has been made that, other things being equal, MSMs are in
fact more likely than frankly gay/bisexual men to engage in high-risk
practices, not use condoms, and seroconvert, so that they present a
special public-health risk (in general, and to their female partners).
whether or not this is true -- getting other things to be equal isn't
easy -- MSMs constitute a separate population from frankly gay/bisexual
men for the purpose of outreach.

larry's comments raise an issue -- an old, familiar issue -- about
words for social/cultural categories.  there are folk categories,
technical categories (for various special purposes), and "scientific"
categories, often named with the same or similar expressions.  it would
be fruitless to argue about whether MSMs, as characterized above, are
"really gay".  yes, they have more than very occasional sex, with
pleasure, with members of the same sex, so that by one "scientific"
definition they're gay.  in their own world of folk categories, they
aren't; some other people accept these categories, others do not (many
lgb people take pleasure and desire as crucial, so they just maintain
that MSMs are *really* gay).  in the world of technical categories for
the purposes of public health and social services, MSMs constitute a
separate category from frankly gay/bisexual men.

arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)