Rating: 
Summary: Thought-Provoking Polemic
Review: This is the kind of assumption-shattering book that we need in these times of passively-accepted hype and media-fed half truths. The author takes a clear-eyed look at the statistics that have been floated before us in dozens of newspaper and magazine articles, in television programs, and other popular venues. Nimmons rightly protests that the statistics have for the most part been interpeted with a preconceived conclusion by popular writers. He also digs up other statistics that have definitely not been presented, because they do not jibe with the prevailing attitudes about his subject-- the subculture of gay men. He offers his own take on what these statistics and patterns mean, refusing to accept the pronouncements of other people without being convinced by the data.He presents information about several aspects of the behavior of gay men as a group. The police logs tell us that violence in gay bars, Pride parades, and other gatherings of celebrating and often intoxicated gays is far lower than in heterosexual gatherings such as pubs, sporting events, and parades. The incidence of gay domestic violence, distorted in the popular media, is in fact equivalent to the incidence amongst the straight community. In fact, conflation of lesbian and gay domestic violence rates may make gay men seem more prone to domestic violence than they actually are. Nimmons examines the rates of volunteerism amongst gay and straight men and find both monetary and time donations to be significantly higher in the former group. He hypothesizes that an ethos of caring informs not only the frequency with which gay men volunteer for both gay-related and gay-unrelated causes, but also informs the higher representation of gay men in service-connected careers like healthcare, social service, etc. The author considers what it might mean that gay men handle relationships of all kinds differently than heterosexual men. He cites mostly anecdotal information in this topic, hypothesizing that the gay modes of managing interpersonal relations-- male-male friendships, male-female friendships, and romantic relationships-- may be of benefit to our society as it evolves. He wonders how the "traditional" family concept can be held as a yardstick when only 25% of families contain a mother, a father, and children. He also presents a refutation that behavior-modification efforts targeting safer sex have been failing with gay men. Nimmons looks at the rates of safe sex amongst various groups, and finds that gay men have changed their actions most, with an approximate 2/3 rule: 66% or so of gay men have substantially altered their sexual practices toward the safer, while heterosexuals have done so at a small fraction of this rate. Shorter thought pieces are included: the place of ecstatic or spiritual practices in gay men's modes of celebrating; the sensitivity to beauty and art that gay men demonstrate; the effects of negative social influences that erode what gay men do best and how they feel about themselves. Nimmons' new ideas about gay theory are intriguing and important. When he uses concrete data, he makes strong cases. At times he ignores possible confounding factors (for example, perhaps gay men don't utilize police services as frequently as other groups because of a reluctance to face societal derision or authority indifference). At other times he relies as much on hypothesis as on hard data. Nevertheless, his assertions are at least as valid as what passes for the hard journalism most of us must rely on. Perhaps the biggest complaint with the book is in the writing. Nimmons starts off with a blithe attitude, attempting to use humor that, unfortunately, distracts from the important message he is making. He returns to the humor periodically and it continues to be jarring. Also, he is repetitious in foreshadowing his points, in making deductive conclusions, in summing up his hypotheses. A more heavily edited book would have been more cogent, making its points succinctly and with greater impact. The Soul Beneath The Skin is, however, a conceptual accomplishment for this iconoclast-- recommended highly for humanists, feminists, religious leaders, and anyone concerned with the state of our society. It stands alongside The Myth Of Male Power as a fresh way of looking at the world in which we live.
| 
