how much tee heeing and tittering went on about sullivan? questions of whether he was telling the truth or not were engendered by his own manipulative rhetoric where he clearly tried to make it appear that he'd been falsely accused until paragraphs later he revealed that this was not the case. christian attempted to examine his claims and the HIV infection risk as an answer to max about the general question of barebacking and HIV.
no one here has said that this is a tactic that they'd engage in. i really don't think forwarding an article about issue makes doug into some sort of gossipy asshole contravening his civil libertarianism. this seems to have been the bone you had to pick from the beginning: an attempt to get your digs in with doug. i can't imagine what else since no one here said anything that was horrible prior to your forward of sullivan's manipulative response.
what i find loathesome is your insistence on seeing prurient discussion of details that suggest lewd thoughts on the part of participants. as kim pointed out, feminists have successfully managed to engage in these discussions without imagining that we are lewd creeps. i don't think the dildo wars and the SM wars were about satisfying prurient interests, for example, but very real arguments over the nature of sexuality. they were quite enlightening for me to read and i'm glad they(we) had the arguments.