Well, here, those conditions are met.
>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.
This seems utopian to me. Just imagine the discussion put more broadly: disease free social intercourse. It just isn't going to happen. In fact it is an impossible demand. As long as people relate to each other, there will be some infectious diseases. Making an absence of disease the condition means abolishing social contact.
>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?
As Kant (almost) said, passion without reason is blind, reason without passion is dead. I'm all for reason in policy making and scientific exploration. But sex is different.
>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.
Well, yes, and they have themselves determined, by ignoring the government's safe sex message. It's the government that is trying to force young people to listen to these ghoulish warnings about their love lives.
> 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?
Put like that... no. But I can recall many times when I was younger that such fears were outweighed by the promised opportunities.
>I'd advocate responsible promiscuity: frequent but safe sexual acts
>with many & varied partners.
I think this is an oxymoron. Sex is not safe. It involves exposing yourself to another person, who might break your heart, dog your reputation or give you a dose. Promiscuity isn't responsible, its abandon, and that's part of being human, too.
>>I can't think of porn being useful and educational, and still cutting it
>>as porn.
>
>Why not?
Because sexual acts are like art, pleasure for pleasure's sake, not 'useful'. If they are educational, that is a side-product. That said, as a teenager I plundered Masters and Johnson for erotic content (is that too much information?)
>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.
Well, I'm not sure a definitional approach works as a challenge to prejudice. If we leave bigots with a monopoly on the truth, while we stand on ceremony, we let them interpret the facts to our disadvantage.
>Now, now, you are sounding like Gabriel Rotello or Larry Kramer....
I don't know these (US?) references, I'm afraid. What I meant was that gay communities have a more intense level of sexual interaction than do heterosexual populations. Is that not true?
-- James Heartfield