>I've got no argument against condom use, but its for people to decide
>for themselves, isn't it?
Yes, but, first of all, condoms should be made available, either very cheaply or free of charge, & well advertised in an enticing fashion. We make choices, but not in a social vacuum. Make condoms fashionable, in other words. "Don't leave home without one!"
Marx says: "mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation." Surely, the material conditions for STD-free promiscuity either already exist or are in the process of formation today in many parts of the world. For the rest of the world, it probably takes revolutionary socialism to make condoms available & safe sex possible for all.
>(Maybe condoms are advisable, but passions
>isn't always susceptible to rational foresight.)
Ah, passions! It's a little out of character for you -- a firm believer in the virtues of the Enlightenment -- to speak in favor of passions making reason impotent, no?
>And more than that, its
>for them to decide on the basis of real information rather than scare
>stories.
>
>I can't speak about the US but here it was most certainly the case that
>health care professionals and sex educationalists tried to whip up
>absurd fears of an Aids epidemic amongst straights that only served to
>heighten anti-gay hysteria. What's more, the risks were negligible. 252
>cases in a cumulative total of 20 000 that fell outside of the high-risk
>groups.
I have argued against scare stories of various kinds, but whether 252 out of 20,000 are "negligible risks" should be left for individuals to determine. Besides, AIDS isn't the only STD against which you want to protect yourself. You don't want to contract herpes, hepatitis, etc., do you?
> >The encouragement of
> >condom use can lead men to take responsibility for their sexuality.
>
>Forgive me for saying so, but this does sound a little prudish to me. Is
>sexual promiscuity 'irresponsible'. I thought it was all part of growing
>up. Isn't that the great thing about sexuality - that you don't have to
>take responsibility for it?
I'd advocate responsible promiscuity: frequent but safe sexual acts with many & varied partners.
> >Besides, the promotion of safer sex does not have to be prudish at
>>all. Safer sex education can be conducted with emphasis on enjoyment
>>& mutual respect.
>
>I don't know, it all sounds a bit worthy to have much to do with
>fucking. 'Mutual respect'? That's marriage, isn't it? I thought
>sexuality was more like crashing through boundaries that erecting them.
>Sexuality surely thrives on a certain amount of cavalier danger -
>debasement even - rather than mutual respect.
I'd rather see sex practiced with sportsmanship. Sort of like a tennis match -- not totally free from dangers, but with skills & pleasant manners. Matching wits is what makes encounters sexy. Idiots are boring & unattractive.
Debasement is only fun when it is not real but staged. S/M is theater. That is why S/M people use "safewords" as a way for the submissive to signal unambiguously to the dominant that s/he needs to end the scene.
> >Pornography, if created with a view toward such
>>emphasis, can be very useful & educational.
>
>I can't think of porn being useful and educational, and still cutting it
>as porn.
Why not?
> >Risks should be discussed in relation to specific acts, not in
>>relation to categories of individuals (e.g., homosexuals, IV drug
>>users, & Africans). Acts & identities are not the same, which you
>>should already know, having read Michel Foucault, etc. (e.g., sodomy
>>named acts; homosexuality refers to a category of individuals).
>
>Where does the imperative 'should' come from here? Is it wrong to point
>out that gay men are more at risk from Aids? I don't think so. Yes, one
>imagines that the risks are associated with certain behaviours that are
>more prevalent amongst gay men, but that is a long way around the
>houses.
It makes sense to specify acts, since many people -- including some young men & women who are just experiencing the sexual coming of age -- still think that being gay is the _cause_ of everything bad -- including AIDS.
>(Moreover, I think the rapid rate of transmission of Aids amongst gay
>men is not reducible to anal sex, but also relates to distinctive
>patterns of sexual pairing amongst gay communities.)
Now, now, you are sounding like Gabriel Rotello or Larry Kramer....
Yoshie