One important difference is that in the situation that Savage describes, the guy who's not going to play stupid isn't going to see the others again, but we hope to build a "lasting relationship" with ordinary Amricans (or residents of whatever country we may be in). So maybe telling people off isn't a good . The point is to be effective. not to be in a position to say I Told You So years later, right? jks
--- Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
> >[lbo-talk] The New American Militarism: How
> Americans Are Seduced By
> >War, by Bacevich
> >Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
> >Wed Jun 8 08:15:33 PDT 2005
> <snip>
> >Speaking of whom, this is from today's Washington
> Post:
> >
> >>Some authorities on war and public opinion said
> the figures
> >>indicate that pessimism about the war in Iraq has
> reached a
> >>dangerous level. "It appears that Americans are
> coming to the
> >>realization that the war in Iraq is not being won
> and may well
> >>prove unwinnable," said retired Army Col. Andrew
> J. Bacevich, a
> >>professor at Boston University. "That conclusion
> bleeds over into
> >>a conviction that it may not have been necessary
> in the first
> >>place."
>
> This is where I part company with Carrol and Marvin.
> It may have
> been perfectly natural and rational (for some) to
> trust leaders,
> Democrats as well as Republicans, who made war and
> insisted on
> "staying the course" (in the sense that it came
> naturally to them and
> it made sense within the limits of their knowledge),
> but was it
> really *sensible*?
>
> The answer is NO!
>
> What are leftists to do when we are confronted by
> behaviors of masses
> that go against their own interests? Are we to make
> excuses for
> them, just because they are natural and rational?
> Besides, we don't
> want to come across as if we knew better than they
> did, do we? It
> might even sound as if we were officiously pointing
> out "false
> consciousness," Marx forbid.
>
> Once again, the answer is a resounding NO!
>
> What to do, then? It's time for Tough Savage Love!
>
> <blockquote>Savage Love
> by Dan Savage
> May 24th, 2005 1:00 PM
>
<http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0521,savage,64254,24.html>
>
> Q. I was cruising for sex online and made a date to
> meet up with two
> guys for anonymous play. When we arrived at one
> guy's apartment, he
> asked us if we would fuck him bareback. I said no,
> but the other guy
> said he would. The bottom asked if we were negative,
> and we both
> answered yes. Here's the problem: The other top had
> the appearance of
> someone taking HIV meds. He looked very positive. I
> asked the bottom
> if he was negative. "Definitely," he said. "I just
> got tested." I
> told him I would only fuck him with a condom; then
> he asked the other
> guy to do him bareback and come in his ass. I
> interjected: "I always
> play safe." I was hoping the bottom might give it
> some more thought,
> but he kept asking the other guy for his load. I
> told them I couldn't
> stay and got dressed. On my way out, I tossed a
> condom on the couch
> and said, "Just in case you change your mind." I
> knew I had to remove
> myself from the situation, because I don't believe
> in unsafe play,
> but I was reluctant to be assertive. They were both
> adults and could
> make their own decisions. And yet, I wondered
> whether I should have
> been more forceful. Did I do right, should I have
> done more, or
> should I have just butted out and left them alone
> without a word?
> --MY BROTHER'S KEEPER?
>
> A. You could have done more, MBK, much, much more --
> and we'll get to
> exactly what in a moment. But first I'd like to
> address some of the
> other issues raised by your letter:
>
> First, that bottom boy -- that stupid, stupid faggot
> -- can't
> "definitely" know that he's negative. He could have
> been infected too
> recently for his last HIV test to come back
> positive. And judging
> from his behavior-inviting multiple strangers over
> to fuck him and
> then begging them to come in his ass-odds are good
> that he's carrying
> around a number of other STDs even if he isn't
> HIV-positive.
>
> Second, you say the other top "looked very
> positive." I don't want to
> give my readers the impression that HIV-positive
> guys all look a
> certain way. There are already too many gay guys out
> there eyeballing
> guys, deciding they look "clean," and then engaging
> in unprotected
> sex. Listen up, you stupid, stupid faggots: Not all
> positive guys
> "look" positive. If that were the case, only
> batshit-crazy
> "bugchasers" would ever get infected. However: Some
> poz guys on meds
> suffer from physical side effects that are instantly
> recognizable --
> primarily "facial wasting," or lipoatrophy, i.e.,
> deep grooves where
> their cheekbones used to be.
>
> Third, hooking up with strangers for anonymous sex
> qualifies as
> "unsafe play," condoms or no condoms. For some guys
> the thrills of
> anonymous sex are worth the occasional STD or the
> small chance of
> being a victim of violent crime. But let's not be
> naive. Anonymous
> sex is risky sex.
>
> Okay, MBK, your specific question: Could you have
> done more? Let's
> look at what you did do: You used a lot of "I"
> statements -- "I told
> him I would only fuck him with a condom . . . 'I
> always play safe' .
> . . I told them I couldn't stay" -- then you tossed
> a condom on the
> couch and left.
>
> Ah, "I" statements. Therapists and counselors love
> 'em because they
> come in awfully handy in couples counseling, for
> instance, or family
> therapy. "I" statements are useful whenever people
> are discussing
> explosive subjects with people they hope to maintain
> a relationship
> with. "I" statements are so sensitive! And so
> nonjudgmental! But in
> the situation in which you found yourself, MBK, "I"
> statements are so
> fucking useless.
>
> When total strangers are about to do something
> dangerous, MBK, feel
> free to liberally use "you" statements. Who cares if
> you pissed off
> that bottom by saying, "You shouldn't let guys fuck
> you in the ass
> without using condoms, you stupid motherfucker!"
> It's not like you
> were going to see him again, right? If that didn't
> work, you could
> have said, "You would be an idiot to let someone
> come in your ass
> just because he tells you he's negative. You are
> going to get HIV
> doing shit like this." And there's always that ol'
> conversation
> starter, "What the fuck is wrong with you?"
>
> The above "you" statements are all for the stupid,
> stupid bottom, of
> course. For the other top: "You look like you're
> positive. Are you
> lying about your HIV status?"
>
> When I wrote a couple of months ago that positive
> guys didn't have an
> absolute right to expose other people to HIV, guys
> wrote in to say
> that it was solely the bottom's responsibility to
> protect himself. We
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html