didn't foucault claim that no sex is ever safe...
as for the above claim, james miller essentially rejects it in his decidedly unsympathetic bio of foucault...for miller, foucault's *passion* (which serve as the book's title: _the passion of michel foucault_) is an obsession with sex...this obsession ostensibly led foucault to engage in dangerous/reckless sexual behavior...miller at times seems obsessed with foucault's alleged obsession, engaging as he does in a good bit of speculation about the latter's activities...
despite his criticisms, miller ultimately doubts the veracity of the claim that foucault knowingly set out to infect others, adopting an agnostic position that the *truth* will likely never be known...here he speculates some more: wondering whether or not foucault had been diagnosed, asserting that foucault would *not* have thought such pursuit to be a *revolutionary act*, maintaining that there was nothing in foucault's persona to indicate that he would have been so vengeful/vicious, suggesting that foucault's unprotected sex in san fransisco bathhouses during his last stay there would probably have been with persons already infected as the behavior of many had changed by that time (82? 83?)... mh