Talk:Down-low (sexual slang)/Archive 1

message: The article mentions fear that men on the down-low are not responding to the safer sex message. AFAIK, the claim on SVU was that these men don't use condoms because that would mean admitting they're gay. If we can find a reliable reference for this, it should be included Nil Einne 14:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safer sex 

message: 'Denial' is not just a river in Egypt.  Men who have sex with other men are gay.
199.79.10.117 19:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down-Low 

message: At what point did the definition of this term become so synomous with a sexual act or lifestyle that it eclipsed the previous slang meaning of "secret information"?  Can anyone verifiably source that this is the more common usage, thus worthy of the primary lead-in?--Isotope23 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: I have never even heard of the use of the term "down low" as a reference to homosexuality and was surprised by this page.  Here in Northern California it frequently means "secret" or "hidden" but not this way.  65.163.182.226 04:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition??

message: I just added the new "Bisexuality series" box to this article.  BUT I am not married to it and debated for quite a while if it should be there or if this article should be just have the plain older "LGBT" box.  Please feel free to disagree with me and change it if consensuses swings in that direction. CyntWorkStuff 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with it being there. The common knowledge of the down-low is that it occurs among closeted homosexual men. The sexual relations between the closeted gay men and women are merely a cover. This is not to say that there aren't bisexual men on the down-low, but that mostly it is gay men. If they were bisexual it wouldn't matter, because they would be attracted to women and able to maintain a monogamous relationship most of the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revolución (talk • contribs) 02:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If they were bisexual it wouldn't matter, because they would be attracted to women and able to maintain a monogamous relationship most of the time." <-- um, er, NOT.  Please do take the time to learn more about the Bisexual community, before dismissing their lives so lightly.  The capability to be attracted to persons of the oppose sex doesn't mean that an individual person will (or should) do that because it is more "convenient". For instance, say that you frequently date dark-haired people, do you think should you be expected to forgo being with the blond-headed person you were in love with because it would be more "socially acceptable"? CyntWorkStuff 03:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not 100% sure if you understand what revolucion is trying to say. If I understand him/her correctly, what he's saying is a bisexual man can be in a monogamous relationship with a woman just as well as a heterosexual man. A bisexual man can also be in a monogamous relationship with a man, just as well a homosexual man. If they choose to be polyamorous, then it's questionable if that has anything to do with their sexual 'orientation' per se. If they choose to be polyamorous while supposedly in a monogamous relationship then I don't personally see this as any different from a homosexual or heterosexual man who does the same thing. If they are bisexual but pretend to be heterosexual and therefore publicly repress the homosexuality aspect of their bisexuality, there are some similarities to homosexual men who pretend to be heterosexual but it's still not quite the same thing IMHO. I don't think this has anything to do with social acceptability. No one is saying that bisexual men should be heterosexual. What we are saying is when bisexual men repress the homosexual aspect of the bisexuality (which is stupid but I can't do anything about it) there's a difference 203.109.240.93 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bisexuality series" vs plain LGBT box 

message: This section cites some books and provides a summary of their arguments. I think that the article would be improved if these citations were formalised, either with references to scholarly reviews of the works, or direct quotes from the books. BreathingMeat 02:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clean-up tag has been added. Benjiboi 15:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Existence in various cultures

message: I don't know.  To me, men who have sex with other men is what it means to be gay.  People classify themselves so many things but the same essence is still there.  If you like to have sex with men, it constitutes being gay.  People define being in the "Down-Low" as someone who lives an alternate life who have real realtionship with women and have sex with men on the side.  Sounds like a "closeted" case to me of being gay.  Just a thought.  I just find it interesting that to make themselves "less" gay, they define the expression as someone who participates solely on having sex with men.  Isn't that the basic definition of gay?  I'm sorry, I'm totally clueless.  If I'm on the right track, I think that it's hypocritical to subcategorize a "segment" this way.  Gay is gay.  Gay people are people, too.  They deserve to be respected.  Thank you.
:Amoung people who are gay, bisexual, lesbian, etc. such terms are generally considered to be ones of self-identification; ie a person is "gay" only if they identify as such. So in that sense, the people the article describes would be straight, or whatever else they might identify as. Their practices could be described as bisexual (as they still have normal relations with women, often their wives). However, using bisexual, gay, homosexual, etc to describe activities is often regarded as an inaccurate use of the words (as it implies the orientation of those involved, when that may be completely wrong). Hope that clarifies some! Mairi 04:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't see how they could identify as anything but bi, really. this strikes me as being a homophobe terrible denial of ones' true feelings and very morally reprehensible, bigoted and hypocritical to be an active bisexual/homosexual and deny it because you don't like gays. Joeyramoney 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I should add even among researchers, not all men who have sex with men are usually considered gay. While not particular to this case, there are situional cases e.g. in prison where men have sex with men but are not consider gay by many people. Oh and gay usually mean homosexual not bisexual. Therefore a man who is bisexual is not gay even tho he may very well have sex with other men 203.109.240.93 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: gay

message: The concept of homosexuality is recent invention in many respects. It was only with the european enlightenment that scientific study was made of peoples sexual habits and definitions drawn up. Before the eigthteenth century sexual intercourse with another man was mearly an act performed, it was only with the scientific revoloution that performance of the act constituted a subject as homosexual. Sure there were many who we would regard as homosexual, but they didn't have a group identity as such, it was a sexual preference and not a sexuality. The creation of homosexuality as a gender through group identity is a recent social construction. Additionaly, this development is part of European and white american culture. African Americans have entierly different social background regarding conceptions of homosexuality. This is why there is a feeling among some african americans that gay identity is a white social construction and that for them it is not natural to have such a fixed sexuality, they concieve that the performance of homosexual acts does not make them fixed homosexuals. This theoy is drawn in part from the work of Michel Foucault, one of the first queer theorists.
For the sake of the neutral point of view policy: 
The term "down low" most likely evolved from the more familiar low-down. In the 1800s, the original low-down was an adjective meaning low and despicable. 
EXAMPLE: My ex-boyfriend Ted is a low-down rat!
In the early 20th century, it became the word for inside information that most Americans are familiar with.
EXAMPLE: So Caroline, what's the low-down on Ted? Is he dating anyone new?
In the early nineties, the words were flipped and usually appeared in the phrases on the down-low or keep it on the down-low. With the word reversal came a meaning reversal - from a secret revealed to a secret kept. According to Cassell's Dictionary of Slang, down-low originated among African Americans, though it is now used widely by many groups.
EXAMPLE: I'm planning to slash Ted's tires tonight, but please keep it on the down-low!
While this new term often referred to sex and cheating, as in R. Kelly's song Down Low (Nobody Needs to Know), that infidelity was heterosexual. The newest use of this word is different. Men on the down-low (also on the low, or on the D.L.) are those secretly engaged in homosexual activities while married to or romantically involved with women. Most deny being gay and limit their relationships with men to casual sex. The word is primarily used about African Americans, though there are undoubtedly men of every race who do this. In the 1950s, in the closet described men who kept their homosexuality a secret (whether they were married or not.) This term was used primarily about white men and is still current, though now used more in writing than conversation.
The down-low has been something of a hot topic lately, partly because many believe that these secret sexual encounters are the driving force behind the high rate of HIV infection among African American women. However, it's worth noting that while everyone is talking about it, most of the information is anecdotal and there is no solid evidence that this is a widespread practice. The Center for Disease Control acknowledges that a woman's risk of contracting HIV is increased if her partner is on the down-low, but notes that there are many factors that affect the spread of AIDS. 
As for why this phrase has not appeared in many mainstream news stories about New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey's recent confessions, on the down-low is still considered slang. It's therefore unlikely to make it onto the front page of the New York Times anytime soon, except in quotation marks (though the NYT Magazine did an article on the phenomenon last summer.) However, I found "down-low" (in quotations) used in articles about the married governor's admission of his gay affair in the Philadelphia Daily News, MSNBC.com and many other websites, so it has definitely made its way into popular culture. (A. C. Kemp, 
http://www.slangcity.com/ask_ac_archive/down_low.htm)
Critics ("DL hysteria") should be mentioned.  
http://www.livingartistgallery.com/article2.htm
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0432,coates,55837,6.html
_______
While the term "down-low" is of African-American origin, similar phenomena can be observed amongst
Middle Eastern and South Asian men and amongst lower class whites.
:See men who have sex with men... Nil Einne 14:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why gay identity is not universal 

message: Here. Benjiboi 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: possible source

message: THe term down low can does not have to mean anything to do with homosexuality. Someone who actually knows what they're talking about needs to rewrite this to take note of that fact. I'm fixing the references area myself and getting rid of anything not having to do with the homosexual facet of the term. A common non-gay usage of the word is when saying that you're dealing drugs but keeping a low profile, you might say "Yeah, I've got what you're looking for, but keep it on the down-low."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.106.96 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider that a 'flaw' of the article at all. The simple use of the slang term "downlow" as "secret" doesn't require a Wikipedia article to explain it. (This idea was discussed above.) This article is about the term for closeted homosexual sex as often referenced in the Black community, and the subsequent hype that emerged from its use. Maybe you didn't read the whole thing, but it certainly does mention the term's evolution from its simpler use as "secret", and even includes that definition from the dictionary of slang. But this article is about the "Downlow" as closeted gay sex. A simple definition of a slang word does not require an entire Wikipedia article. But this phenomenon does. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flawed article

message: Article moved to Down-low (MSM) for reasons above, and original location replaced with a disambig page with a link to this article & to the wiktionary listing for other meanings of the word. --User0529 (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done, thanks. Ashmoo (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article moved

message: "While closeted homosexuality occurs across cultures and in many societies, 'down low' is generally slang for African American men who engage this type of sex. The prevalence of closeted homosexuality in various American demographics is debated. John Fiske has claimed that it may be more common in American communities suffering from widespread poverty, in which members reportedly depend heavily on traditional family networks (and often religious institutions) for financial and emotional support,[8] such as African-American and Latino communities, where homosexual behavior is strongly stigmatized.[9]"
EyePhoenix appended "Although there remains no actual research to suggest this is so." with the comment "The uncited claim is the one this sentence refers to".
If that's the case, the dispute needs to be clearer; it's very difficult to prove such a negative.
There are two references; is the issue that that they in turn provide only undocumented speculation?  If so, the entire paragraph needs to be rewritten.
—EqualRights (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. A statement like "Although there remains no actual research to suggest this is so." should probably not be in a WP article, as negative statements are almost impossible to Verify. Ashmoo (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the line because it makes no sense as it is. Read the whole paragraph; It starts off saying "The prevelence of closeted homosexuality in various American demographics is debated." Then it cites an author who feels that it may be more common in poor communities, gives some possible reasons why, and then the paragraph concludes. But without my addition, there is no conclusion to the idea that it is "debated". As a result the paragraph is misleading. If the claim is simply that "it is debated", then the sentence I added is grammatically essential, as it counters the idea that it "may be" more common, and illustrates the other side of the dispute. And if the point is to present John Fiskes claims as fact, then that claim still remains unverified, as there is still no reliable source for this idea. I'm confused as to why you are holding a higher standard of verification for it's antithesis, because without a proper source, there simply is no evidence of it, making the sentence I added inherently verifiable. But if you really object to the statement "There remains no research..." I am completely oK with removing it, providing any reference to the "debate" also be removed (saving of course the agreed upon reference to closeted sex occurring in most cultures.) EyePhoenix (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't think adding a 'balancing' unsourced assertion is the way to fix an existing unsourced assertion. After reading what you have said and going back and re-reading the section in question, I would support removing everything from the paragraph except for the bit that directly reports what Fiskes has claimed, as it is the only statement that has any source at all. (Although I have no idea what the book mentioned in the citation actually claims). Ashmoo (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said Ashmoo, I didn't consider it "unsourced" because the statement itself says that there are no sources. My understanding is that this is a popular notion in the community and there are no statistics or research to back it up. If you're going to claim that it's so you would need better sources than John Fiske's speculation. And if you're going to say it's debated, you would need to show the other side, and, as Equal Rights said, a proper source. I don't see the rationale for keeping it if your not going to show the other side of the supposed "debate" in question. The only debate I've seen here is John Fiske thinks it's so - end. Not exactly a debate. I would prefer to remove the entire reference, it is misleading. Or perhaps we can change the focuse and say something like "John Fiske, author of... speculates that there may be...." making sure it's clear there is no actual evidence. EyePhoenix (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My plan was to reduce the section to sentences that had a source (relevant or not). This I have already done. Step two was to change the current sentence to say 'Fiske says', because it is his opinion, not a statement of fact. This, I have also done. Step three would be to debate its qualities as a WP:Notable opinion and to check whether the source actually supports the statements in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't feel too good that you went ahead and made the change before we came to a consensus. I was trying to honor this process. I mean, What is this discussion page for? I agree with the change you made in part, but the counter idea is still not stated: There is no research indicating that what Fiske says is true. Including the Fiske information in the article without making it clear that this is unresearched opinion is quite misleading. If you know of any studies that prove Fiskes theory I would love to know about them, I have yet to find any. I would prefer it not be included if we can't make a statement putting this in perspective. You also deleted "While closeted homosexuality occurs across cultures and in many societies, 'down low' is generally slang for African American men who engage this type of sex." As I recall, this one sentence was the resulting consensus of a very lengthy discussion between you and I, taking up more than half this page at one point.  When I returned here last week I noticed it had been removed from the article, assuming by someone else. So I restored it. Is there a reason why you deleted it when you revised this paragraph? EyePhoenix (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I was making the edits that we had basically agreed to as a way of going forward. Apparently not. On the topic of the Fiske opinion. We can't add a counter to Fiske unless someone has specifically countered him or his idea. We can't add statements that can't be verified and like I said negative statements are inherently unverifiable. If you want the 'balance' the Fiske quote, I think the best way to do it is to just give some background about Fiske and the cited text itself, so readers can judge the reliability of his opinion (ie. the 'perspective' you mentioned). Regarding the While closeted homosexuality occurs across cultures and in many societies sentence. If you look back to our discussion, you promised to provide sources to back up the statement. That was 6 months ago. I don't think I waited an unreasonable short time. Ashmoo (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

text: When you say 'the sources I provided' which ones are you talking about? Is it the Kinsey and pureintimacy.com? I think this whole thing can be easily sorted if you add your proposed text and the quote from the source that supports it. Either here, in talk or on the article itself, I don't mind either way. And as to your final comments, I'd just remind you that Wikipedia requires Verifiability not truth Ashmoo (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ashmoo, but I don't need to read about "verifiability" again. My point is that in the interest of writing a good article there are sometimes considerations that should extend beyond the "rules". I am satisfied that the subject is covered in "Beyond The Downlow". Please feel free to verify it if you're so inclined. Now if you and "Equal Rights" have no further objections I will proceed to make this edit. Thank you. EyePhoenix (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is we can't go 'beyond the rules' in an effort to have readers leave with our own preferred impression. We require verifiability. But since you have now included the 'Beyond the Downlow' cite, everything is fine and according the WP rules. Thanks. Ashmoo (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context and American sub-cultures 

message: The article talks at length about "use of the term in a homosexual context" and who wrote about that and who criticizes it, but it never says what it actually means in that context. Sex between African-American males? Or what? -- 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a slang term for closeted homosexuality.EyePhoenix (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better late than never I'm quickly reading through talk and answering a few points. To put it in simple language, it means men who have sex with men without admitting it to the females they have sex with. Or as I wrote more accurately from the CDC Source: In same-sex sexual contexts, Down-low is a slang term that refers to men who have sex with men (MSM), as well as with women, but who do not identify as gay or bisexual. The term has its origins in African American slang but such behavior is not exclusive to that group. CDC ref. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  But what is the actual *meaning*?