Sullivan on the Barebacking Story

[kelley]

At 04:09 PM 5/31/01 +0000, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>Why is it unsafe for him to have unprotected sex with the HIV positive? If 
>your point is that some people who aren't HIV+ take stupid risks because 
>of their fetishes or whatever, well, they assume the risk; it's not like 
>anyone who is HIV+ and has unsafe sex in the unstod context that this is 
>what everyone who is doing is doing is taking advantage of anyone. Sheesh. 
>You might as well say, it's bad to date in a singles group, because SOME 
>people who date are cheating on their SOs, and not really single.
>
>I take great glee in the exposure of the sexual wrongdoing of Jim Bakker 
>or Jimmy Swaggart, or Newt Gingrich or Henry Hyde, etc., but I think you 
>are off base. If Sullivan is to be attacked for his own moralizing about 
>the sex lives of others, attack him for that, not for consensual sex games 
>he plays.

he encouraged the very think he denounces.

that's enough for me to have an issue with him and to think it perfectly 
reasonable to point out that this isn't a character flaw, but a political 
problem b/c the guy's public behavior has led to and encourages stereotypes 
of gay men that, well, gee, result in the violent deaths of gay men.

i wanted to note, didn't make clear enough, that i found his explanation 
disingenuous. there are a million and one ways to find other HIV+ men to 
have sex with than to advertise at a site devoted to bareback sex!

he claims not to be encouraging barebacking, something he denounces 
publicly. but he WAS encouraging it since he could have advertised in many 
other places. i see ads for HIV+'s seeking HIV+'s all the time and their 
right in the singles section of the daily newspaper. that kind of ad 
wouldn't be encouraging a bareback sex publication, would it?

kelley


>So, to answer your question, Charles, whether the personal is political 
>depends.
>
>--jks
>
>
>>From: kelley <kelley at interpactinc.com>
>>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com, lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>>Subject: RE: Sullivan on the Barebacking Story
>>Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:48:41 -0400
>>
>>At 02:13 PM 5/31/01 +0000, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>>>I don't care about hypocrisy: it is a venial sin at worst; and I don't
>>>think he's guilty of it here anyway. Please, let's do get back to
>>>attacking his political views, and not his private life! --jks
>>
>>
>>but this particular hypocrisy is different, right?   he runs around
>>lecturing others about their behavior and making political hay out of it
>>and, worse, encouraging stereotypes against gay men, some of which have
>>pretty tragic endings for gay men, yes?  and then he turns around and
>>engages in unsafe sexual behavior of the sort that he condemned.  this
>>isn't personally bad for him, but bad for others. he _harms_ others in his
>>personal life and he harms then in his political positions on the topic of
>>sexual behavior.
>>
>>fact is, he was advertising for bareback sex and that means that there are
>>a lot of people out there who actually find it sexually exciting to have
>>bareback sex. they _want_ to expose themselves to HIV. (nathan's ignorance
>>aside: this is a fetish and it's no diff from others). given that, sullivan
>>advertised at a site that promotes bareback sex, and not so that HIV+ men
>>can have sex with one another. furthermore, altho he might have wanted to
>>only have sex with other HIV+ men, he could never know that they were for
>>sure, could he?
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com