From: rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS gay
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 19:21:14 PST
Distribution: ca
Organization: Surf City Software, Orange, Calfornia - DUDE!

In article <1993Jan5.200514.8609@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>,
fogarty@sirc.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:

> from the manual:
> 
> >>They are unwilling to restrict
> >>their sexual options in the face of such low odds, especially since
> >                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>this plays into the anti-sex agenda of moral conservatives.  When
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>people are told to restrict most of their favorite activities, they
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>may ignore safer sex advice altogether. 
> 
> his comments:
> 
> >The portion I underscored is an example of what I consider the "return
> >to the 1970's" political mentality.  That is to say, do what you like,
> >with as many people as you like, and don't let the facts confuse you;
> >anyone saying differently is trying to restrict you politically.  Now,
>
> To me the portions you underscored says the following:  People,
> especially the young people who tend to be promiscuous, are not going to
> pay attention to advice coming from certain types of people.  If the
> person feels that he/she is being preached at, the person will ignore
> the advice all together.

There may be that aspect of it.  However, these statements echo
sentiments common to the larger context of gay liberation.  In a recent
article in {The American Spectator}, David Horowitz quotes Edmund White,
co-author of {The Joy of Gay Sex} as saying "gay men should wear their
sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war
against a sex-negative society."  And this attitude that confused the
sexual with the political was what made AIDS so widespread among
homosexual men. Horowitz goes on: "Michael Callen, a gay youth present
at [a public] meeting [of gays], had already had 3,000 sexual partners
and was shortly to come down with AIDS... thought, 'Every time I get the
clap I'm striking a blow for the sexual revolution.'"  In this case, the
use of the terms "agenda" and "moral conservatives" calls up images of
Southern senators or certain ex-presidents -- obvious political terms at
odds with the politics of gay liberation.

> >These don't pass basic sanity checks. In high school, they taught us
> >that one in six condoms fail.  If this is so, then multiple partner
> >sex using condoms would merely delay transmission of the AIDS virus
> >rather than putting the participant at a "minimal risk of AIDS."  The
> >revolver with which you play Russian roulette has gone from being a
> >six-shooter (or a twenty-shooter, or whatever the base likelihood is)
> >to being a 36-shooter, still with one bullet.  That one bullet will
> >still kill you as dead as if it were in a six-shooter.
> 
> I think we need more recent data.  Condoms are latex.  Latex breaks down
> in oil.  In the gay community, the word has gotten out, via ads and 
> safer-sex manuals, not to use anything oil based as a lubricant.  Only
> use water base lubs.  Since using water based lubs, I have never had a 
> condom break.

That you know of.  Granted, the data may be out of date... but you get
the point.  (pun intended! :)

> >Sex for money adds a still more gruesome twist.  Both the prostitute and
> >the john have to assume that each has some disease and in theory both
> >would want to use protection.  However, if you're on the side that's
> >accepting money for sexual favors, you're in a weak position: your john
> >can always go somewhere else if he wants to be suicidal (or homocidal
> >if he has AIDS already) and have unprotected sex.  This is scarcely
> >moralism talking.  I think what we have here is a failure to think
> >clearly, motivated by gay liberation politics.

> There are plenty of prostitutes on the streets.  Living in Hollywood, I
> see lots of both male and female prostitutes.  The males are mostly
> run-aways, age 16 to 22, sometimes younger.  It would be great if we
> could get them off the streets and into schools or jobs.   But society
> has not choosen to work on that problem.  AIDS prevention organizations
> do not have the resources to do it.  The only thing that they can do is
> give the prostitutes the knowlege of how to protect themself until the
> prostitute figures out how to get off the street.

But that isn't really the point, is it?  The person writing this "Safer
Sex Guide" says that sex for money can be made reasonably safe, when for
the reason I mentioned earlier -- the lack of control of the situation
by the sexual contractor -- it can't.  And that has nothing to do with
ending prostitution; the fact is, the only way for these people to
reliably protect themselves is to get out of the business.

> [list of sexual activities, from most unsafe to safer]
>
> >In the second excerpt, the author says that, multiple-partner sex and
> >prostitution are acceptable practices and can be done safely with the
> >right precautions.  Interestingly, she lists neither of these practices
> >here on this "risk thermometer".  What is she hiding from?  The facts?
> 
> Anything that one would do with multiple parnters or with a
> prostitute/john would fall under one or more of the activities from this
> list.  If three guys are having anal sex with condoms, then the risk is
> that of having anal sex with a condom, not that there are three people
> instead of two. (assuming one does not share condoms)

This is wrong, even assuming that one does not share condoms.  The
variables are dependent: that is, a condom failure doesn't equal getting
HIV if the other person hasn't got it in the first place.  BUT, if one
of those men has AIDS AND you have a condom failure, then it is possible
that you could contract HIV.  And yes, it is necessarily dependant on
the number of people you have sex with.

> I dont think the author of the safer-sex manual was saying that these
> things are acceptable, as much as she was saying that these things
> really occur in the real world.   This is not gay liberation politics,
> but realism.

> >If heterosexuals aren't personally worried about AIDS, it's because
> >they're not nearly as much at risk as gays.  The myth that heterosexuals
> >will start getting AIDS in large numbers any day now is either wishful
> >thinking or scare tactics.  
> 
> Again, and again:  Dont look at the rate of increase in AIDS, but the
> rate of increase of HIV infection.  Those who are coming down with AIDS
> today, on the average, were infected 10 years ago.
> 
> In the US, the rate of increase of HIV infection is highest today for
> young heterosexuals.  Heterosexuals are already becoming infected with
> HIV in large numbers.  The only tool we have to slow the spread is
> education.  It is much more likely to get an already sexually active
> person (gay or straight) to have safer-sex than to have no sex.

I find this difficult to believe; I've yet to see the statistics from
the CDC on this one.  And in any case, one other question comes to mind:
were there other factors involved?  IV drug use, sex with bisexuals?