I have been physically attacked not because someone mistook me for being gay, but because I was walking, hand in hand, with a male lover. All long before anyone knew the name Andrew Sullivan. The notion that there is any connection between a gay man's conservative opinions, no matter how prominent and influential he may be, and gay bashers' actions is just plain absurd. For Christ's sakes, Sullivan is as likely to be the target of gay bashing as the most politically correct of left gay men or lesbians. If your life is at risk, as someone mistaken for being a lesbian, it sure as hell has nothing to do with him, or his views on monogamy. [I continue to find it interesting that all the attacks on his 'sexual politics' continue to be by attributions of the most generalizing sort, so that it is possible to characterize them in the broadest possible fashion without any particular references or quotations.]
I don't get this notion of a 'defense' of barebacking, since I haven't seen anything that could be described as that. But your 'opposition' to it, as if it was intrinsically something, makes no sense either. Anal or vaginal intercourse without condoms is not intrinsically safe or unsafe; in a monogamous relationship where both partners are HIV-, there is nothing unsafe about it. It is also far from certain to me that there is a considerable risk in two HIV+ positive individuals having intercourse without condoms. At the very least, it is a risk two informed, consenting adults can make reasonable decisions about whether or not to take. Since it does not involve passing an infection on to uninfected individuals, it is not a question of public health.
And I have an extraordinarily difficult time making any sense of your hypothetical of a HIV- person who lies that he is HIV+ positive so he can put himself at risk by having sex with a HIV+ person who thinks he is really HIV-. Those convolutions do not seem to be either (a) very real, or (b) something against which there is any protection, if someone sets out in that direction. If someone is that self-destructive, then he is going to find a way to act on that impulse, on way or another. It is hardly the fault of the sexual partner who acts in good faith.
It is also a bizarre misrepresentation that Sullivan advertised on a site where people go to seek sex that will expose them to HIV. The site was one where people go to seek sex without condoms.
Leo Casey
Kelley: Andrew sullivan's public moralizing about gay sex and the need to be 'normal' encourages exactly the kinds of attitudes that prompt people to be offended simply by the mere appearance of someone who "looks" gay or "flaunts" it.
in other words, people get really offended if, for example, someone flirts with another woman in public. i and another woman were almost beat up once for this. we merely flirted while playing pool. i resent jerks like andrew sullivan because they put my fucking life at risk, as well as the lives of people i love. in that same bar, a friend who wasn't gay at all almost got beat up because he "looked" gay.
i have a friend, a prof at a uni. her partner went to the library to get a library card. she asked, "which route should i take? i'm the partner of a woman who works at the uni, but i'm also a daughter of an alum. which card privileges are better?" the guy at the library desk flipped out and said that she was flaunting her homosexuality in his face.
andrew sullivan's public moralizing about how gays behave and flaunt their sexuality contributes to this kind of nonsense. it encourages wild ass speculations about gay male sexuality so that people think that the mere presence of a gay man or someone who "looks" gay is threatening, so much so that they must be aggressively driven away, mocked, ridiculed, etc.
also, while i don't agree with what people did to him (i think it petty), i also say, "whathefuckever. the guy put his sexuality out there and he condemned others for not living like him. i agree with my bud joe - a LOT. i hate both signorelli and sullivan. they're assholes.
i don't actively support this kind of attack, but i'm sure not going to get on nathan's high horse and get all offended about it. no one really knows how anyone found out about it all.
additionally, and this is strictly my position here and has nothing to do with sullivan or his hypocrisy, i don't understand the defense of barebacking at all. maybe i'm wrong, but i thought barebacking was ALL about seeking out HIV+ so that one can expose themselves to AIDS. i happen to think that it isn't a good idea to encourage sexual practices that exist only because HIV exists! barebacking is only an issue because of HIV. it didn't matter before!
but more importantly, this is pretty consistent with my attitudes toward public health --and health is a public fucking issue, not a personal one--it's not clear to me that we should encourage or support people who engage in sex or any practice just so that they can get a communicable disease or, indeed, any disease.
i wouldn't encourage people to do anything else that might mean they'd get a disease, communicable or not! if the guy taking the risk with andrew isn't honest with andrew about his HIV- status, do you really think he's going to be honest with anyone else?
barebacking between HIV+s is fine, but i got the impression that Sullivan advertised at a site specifically FOR men who have a fetish--a desire to expose themselves to HIV. as i said, he could have advertised in many other places specifically targeted TO people who are HIV+. sure, that wouldn't eliminate the problem altogether, but....
and, at any rate, i'm not charging him with hypocrisy since i thought sullivan was the one going around tell everyone to ditch their condoms anyway?
kelley
.