From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS gay
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:26:57 GMT

In article <BVLZwB2w165w@surfcty.com>, rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> Of course!  (By the way, there are some feminist theorists who agree
> with that sentiment for other reasons...) As an aside, I tend to think
> that there's something to the recent studies showing a (admittedly, at
> this time, nebulous) link between gayness and biology.  I don't believe
> that the people at the Human Genome Project will one day leap out of
> their chairs because they've discovered the sequence that causes
> homosexuality, but I do think they will find genes that push people one
> way or the other.  The religious right will be in for a shock: God made
> gay men, for the writing is on the DNA!

  And then we can tests. Wonderful. But seriously, I doubt that
there is going to be any silver bullet which lights the little
neon sign. It's likely to be a complicated mix of biology and
environmental stimulus -- just like trying to find the part of
your brain which gives you that special feeling when you see
somebody attractive, it's probably pretty mixed up. :-)

> Actually, the authors of Gay Liberation as a political movement stamped
> it from much the same mold as Marxism.  Tolerance for other ideas was
> not one of the hallmarks of either Marxism (especially as Stalin viewed
> it) or of Gay Liberation, as Larry Kramer discovered.  Numerous public
> health officials found out just how intolerant Gay Liberation
> politicians could be when these officials just mentioned -- privately --
> the idea that it might be a good idea to shut down bath houses after
> they had been shown to be the root of the AIDS problem in large cities.
> Gay Liberationists simply could not find "monogamy" in their
> dictionaries.  Belatedly, they did -- after thousands had died.  But, I
> still see much of that kind of thinking in the "Safer Sex Guide".

  I think that part of your problem is that you are trying to find
a monolithic entity which is the "Gay Liberation political movement".
There isn't one. Gay people come from in *every* stripe, shade, and
political hue. If you think that gay people were listening to their
fearless leaders for validation or something like that, you are
seriously deluded. The only real upshot of Stonewall was that
at *last* gay people were freer to go and fuck like bunnies 
just like the het community. There was no social bulwark which
ordained proper behavior; indeed most gay people shunned het
social mores as symbols of their long oppression. What got 
picked up by default were the "progressive" values of the
60's which, quite simply, were expedient. The other prevelent
view was sort of typified by the "republican" social prudes.
That was hardly likely to be taken seriously. 
  This is not a conspiracy or an organized movement with leaders
or anything of the sort. If it was anything it was an *explosion*,
a riot, simultaneous convergence of millions of people who had
just *had* it and were thumbing there nose at anybody who would
get in their way. One giant "Fuck you". This has many of the 
same qualities of teenagers testing out their own efficacy.
You wish they wouldn't, but how else are they to learn.
  I guarantee you that I have a *great* number of differences
with gay leaders and organizations, but what you need to realize
is that they are not in any real sense instrumental to the
gay movement (after the initial unchaining as it were). It is
just the sheer number of people involved from *every* walk of
life that have, for their own reasons, stopped hiding and come
forth to say "enough". 
  Forget the leaders and their socialist leanings (which I tend
to agree with). They aren't to blame, much as they would like
the credit. Look to your own socialization and see that the
exact same thing happened in het society, though with *much*
less fanfare.
  Just out of curiosity, do you find anything redeeming that
can out of the sexaul revolution in the 60's and 70's? Promiscuity
was not the only thing you know.

> Sorry, but I believe in the First Amendment, even so far as to let my
> critics have their day, and even to letting people who have "demeaning,
> obnoxious, hateful" things to say.  Who knows but that I may someday be
> viewed as saying things that others may describe thus, and find myself
> censored.

  Not really my point. The point was that providing information, much
like giving someone liberty is not tantamount to sanctioning all possible
uses of that liberty/information.

> Possible, but again: where is the money coming from?  And why go to a
> hooker if not for insertive sex?  I find it hard to believe that a john
> would go to a hooker for just a hand job or a bondage fantasy (though I
> don't believe it beyond the realm of possibility).

  Heh. But that was the point of the report, right? If you take
these precautions and only do these safe(r) activities, even a 
visit to a prostitute could be safe(r). I think that was the
only point of the report. If you consider this advice in terms
of multiple partners, this becomes far more understandable and
believable.

> Heterosexual men are, in general, at a much lower risk for contracting
> AIDS (and HIV) than homosexual men.  The blood isn't there in the vagina
> -- unless something's wrong with the woman's health.  AIDS has been
> around for over ten years.  If there were large increases in HIV
> infection, it would have shown up already.

  Wasn't it you who was all worked up about risks even if they
were orders of magnitude less? You seem to be contradicting yourself. 
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)