--- kelley <kelley at interpactinc.com> wrote:
> the only person who passed on the story was doug. feel free to show me
> where doug expressed glee? additionally, feel free to provide some
> evidence of _anyone_ expressing glee.
I'm not sure I expressed it, but I felt glee. I enjoy feeling glee, and expect all civil libertarians to stick up for my chosen form of pleasure. In general, glee is almost certainly a less dangerous pastime than unprotected anal sex, and a darn sight easier to get hold of.
I have no idea why Nathan et al feel compelled to treat the prurient investigation into people's private lives as a civil liberties issue. It seems to be driven by a hypertrophied sense of fairness; akin to somebody insisting on fighting by the Queensbury Rules against an opponent playing WWF Hardcore.
Sullivan is embarrassed; that's all. He ought to be embarrassed; he's a fuckhead. The fact that he's embarrassed because of the inconsistency, rather than because his journalism is weaselly crap is unfortunate, but half a loaf is better than no bread. And he is the author of his own misfortune; gay promiscuity is only a shameful thing because Sullivan, among other"Christian Tories", has invested a decent amount of time and effort in making it so. Fair enough, it's not entirely his fault; he may even not be lying in his claim to have had a more nuanced position himself. But I operate a system of joint and several liability when it comes to being a wanker; Sullivan chose to be part of the conservative project, now he can wear the consequences.
Nathan wrote:
> Sure it was an attempt to talk about Sullivan's private life. You could
> have done posts at any time about sex panic politics, but you "gratuitously"
> used discussion of Sullivan to make your points. That's exactly the element
> of sexual McCarthyism- using the attack on one person's personal life to
> score political points.
Three points: first, to point out that someone likes unprotected anal sex is not an "attack" in and of itself. It's only an attack in context, and the context here is one which Sullivan created.
Second, it is entirely salutory to use an attack on someone's personal life to make political points. The main advantage of a civilised perspective on gay rights as opposed to a fascistic one is that the first is compatible with whatever lifestyle you choose to lead, while the second isn't. If we were to pretend that political views don't have personal consequences, then we'd be giving up essentially the whole argument.
Third, personal attacks of this kind are a good idea because they remind everyone in public life that saying stupid and nasty things can come back to bite one. I'm sure I would absolutely hate to have my sex life exposed to the Sullivan treatment, which is why I take precautions a) not to make that kind of enemy and b) not to give them any more ammunition than necessary.
and in any case, who would have given a flying fuck about a "debate" over sexual politics if it weren't in the context of a nice messy buggery'n'hypocrisy story? (vote one: not me). I must say I have more sympathy every day for the editorial line of The Sun on this one ("The public interest is that in which the public are interested.")
in praise of prurience.
dd
===== ... in countries which do not enjoy Mediterranean sunshine idleness is more difficult, and a great public propaganda will be required to inaugurate it. -- Bertrand Russell
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie