(no subject)

[LeoCasey at aol.com]

Geez, Kelley, get a grip on this stuff, you are way over your head on the 
deep end.

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

.