>if sullivan were a het guy and ran around saying, "unprotected sex is best.
>fuck them rubbers. it feels good and i ain't gonna slip no raincoat on. i
>don't like to have to do it because it's not natural and it's not
>spontaneous and i really hate having to go through all this rigamarole
>about birth control yadda yadda, we would not find that his "personal"
>preference. we'd recognize it for the sexist bullshit that it is.
>and yet, sullivan (and other proponents of barebacking as "real" sex) uses
>these arguments explicitly or implicitly.
If he was a het guy, you'd be right. But he's not. You are demanding that a gay HIV+ guy in his private life symbolically enact solidarity on birth control by using a condom. Here is the irony- Sullivan is not a "proponent" of barebacking; in fact, he is protesting that his use of such sites was made public.
But having had his enemies drag this fact out publicly, he is now a symbolic criminal for thereby endorsing sexism against women.
This illustrates exactly the problem with attacking someone's politics based on private acts they never intended to be public. You are attaching intentional symbolism to an act Sullivan never intended to be public or have symbolic value.
-- Nathan