chill out and read my posts. then provide me with evidence for wanting to police behavior. judge behavior, yes. i judge people who have unprotected casual sex --man, woman, bi, het, whatever. am i condemning sullivan for having casual unprotected sex? in fact, no. i'm condemning him for not recognizing that barebacking has been glorified and that it is a masculinist glorification that assumes that there is such a thing as "natural" sex and that a condom sullies it. he can enjoy unprotected sex all he wants. i sure do! but don't tell me that it is somehow more "real" than condom sex. that kind of attitude is not the same as the one het buoys have. it is, however, related because socialization into sexuality is _organized_ because it is part of a system of sexist oppression. as such, it is open to criticism. gay men do not escape the system of heterosexist socialization. nor do lesbians. no one does. their sexual practices are not immune from critique or from being shaped by heterosexism because they are the sexual practices of glbt's.
furthermore, nothing in what i said would suggest that i think there is something wrong with enjoyment of something because it is transgressive. duh! in fact, i was pointing out that it is enjoyable precisely because it is transgressive. a lot of our sexual practices ARE enjoyable because they ARE transgressive. duh!
i was simply pointing out to nathan he is ignoring the fact that it is _only_ and issue--and the focus of a fetish because it _can_ be--HIV and safer sex campaigns. it is not wrong b/c it's transgressive.
>Just when one thought we had seen the heights of moralizing hyperbole on
>this topic, we find new excess beyond all expectation. Each post rachets up
>the level of wilder and wilder accusations of sexual immorality, all based
>on rampant speculation about private, consensual sexual activity undertaken
>with full and reasonable expectations of privacy. Nothing will do but that
>Andrew Sullivan fucks in the way that Kelley decides is the right way to
>fuck, and should he deviate from the norm, pervert that he is, this becomes
>a sexist attack on women, notwithstanding the fact that it is between two
>gay men. Better yet, if he doesn't fuck in the politically correct manner,
>he is part of a cult glorifying the wrong way to fuck. Talk about sexual
>McCarthyism.
>
>Heavens forbid that someone might take pleasure from the transgressive with
>respect to sex, that someone might step out of the socially or Kelley
>defined norms, that someone might want to have sex without a condom, in
>contexts where it puts no HIV- individual at risk. There are no exceptions
>to the rule on the right way to fuck.
>
>News Flash, Kelley: gay sex, lesbian sex and straight sex are not the same
>things. They do not involve the same power relations, and acts within them
>do not carry the same symbolic dimensions. Even flirtation is quite a
>different phenomenon in those different contexts. To suggest that the fact
>that two HIV+ gay men who want to have sex without condoms without doing
>any harm to HIV- men seek each other out is somehow akin to a heterosexual
>man refusing to wear a condom at the request of his female sex partner is
>just plain ignorant. It is a heterosexual -- no, heterosexist -- projection
>onto gay life and culture. Get out of the sex cop car, and spend some time
>talking to -- not down at -- the people on the street.
>
>Kelley:
> >but no, sullivan's participation and encouragement of a cult that
> >glorifies unprotected sex as some sort of "natural" and "real" sex is
> >supposed to be justified. ahh. i see. right. we expend energy getting
> >people to see that penetration sex isn't necessarily the only "real" sex,
> >but gay men get to glorify penetration sex as the only "real" sex.
>
>
>
>
>
>.