From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:32:22 GMT

In article <Ti3wwB1w165w@surfcty.com>, rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
> mike@gordian.com writes:
> >   How libertarian of you :-) Why the qualifier on "the act" though?
> 
> Because where I stand, there are quite a few gays who still view gayness
> as interlocked with multiple-partner sex.  This is part of the "return
> to the 1970's" to which I refer later. 

  As do many heterosexuals. I don't see why you are so intent on
painting this is a "gay" thing. When the moral censure of heterosexuals
about their sexual proclivities has any real teeth I might have some
sympathy for this argument. It, however, does not. Thus this is
rather hypocritical in my mind.

> Of course; I do not deny that heterosexuals as well as homosexuals
> engaged in very promiscuous sex during the 1970's. However, as Randy
> Shilts pointed out in his excellent book, {And The Band Played On}, with
> gays, promiscuity became part and parcel of gayness.  To deny the one
> denied the other.  And, this became a basic political tenet of the gay
> liberation movement.  No equivalent politicization occured among
> heterosexuals. Defense of this indefensible tenet continued even after
> AIDS had started to kill gays in large numbers, and to some degree, it
> continues today.

  I'm not very convinced of your reading of this. Clearly, the sexual
revolution which happened within the 70's had promiscuity as one
of its highlights. This was not, as I mentioned earlier, anything
unique to the homosexual community. It does so happen that these
two, essentially distinct events coincided and were very intertwined.
However, to say as Shilts does, that they are _inseperable_ is 
nonsense. There are *many* *many* gay people who are monogamous.
  The only correlation I have seen is that growing up and finding
your sexuality, which in the case of gay people is generally
repressed which adds other factors not associated with het
society, is that it mimics the times it is in. Since the 
age of AIDS, homosexuals have demonstrably cut down on 
the average number partners, much in line (if not more) 
with the general population. 
  Also, you have conveniently dismissed lesbians which have, 
in general, many fewer partners. This in itself says that
there is possibly something biological going on. Although
socialization undoubtably has something to do with it, much
research has show that there are real differences in "attitude"
(for lack of a better word) between the way that males and
females socialize (This from a recent Scientific American 
article). This is hardly an earth shattering revelation,
but it does suggest that given for public health we should be
monogamous, all  women would be better off as lesbians;
a conclusion which I'm not sure you'd be comfortable with :-)
  My point here is that the field of human nature is not
set in stone, and there is still *much* to be learned. 
Naive, restrictive views about what is proper in sex
qua man is doomed to lead to situations like I illustrated
above. Also, since many of these strictures are based
upon religious dogma, many people who either reject or
question that dogma are not willing to pass ultimate
judgement until more facts are known.
  About your problems with the politicization of the issue,
may I ask what need heterosexuals had with this? Most of the
politicization had been done in the 60's (ie the free-love
movement et al) The 70's had no such need since they had
in effect won that argument in the 60's. The Gay Liberation
movement, starting with Stonewall could certainly claim no
such victory; it had only just begun. As such, it had to
contend with *all* of the baggage which comes along with
a political movement which heterosexaul society had
conveniently swept under the carpet while they were fucking
like bunnies.
  I'm not necessarily defending the conclusions gay activists
drew, I am just stating that it is quite understandable/inevitable
that they took *some* stand on these, by now sub-surface issues,
in het society. In fact, their conclusions where generally
based on tolerance and inclusion (generally by use of moral
relativism) -- a feature which is to some degree necessary
in any political movement. 

 [much elided]

> than of being struck by lightning.  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.  Given the low or
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> indeterminate risk of many activities, some AIDS organizations and
> activists have decided to just emphasize avoiding the most risky ones.
> Many European and some American AIDS agencies, for example, no longer
> recommend against oral sex.

  I'm don't see why this bothers you, this is ultimately, pragmatically,
true. However, what this does not address is that life en toto is
a calculated risk. Sex, even in the best of times, is one of the
greatest risks. It also has one of the highest rewards (if not the
highest). Utterly proscribing against all sex acts will in fact
lead to people dismissing the advice altogether.
  Consider what this would feel like if the edidemic were on the
other shoe, so to speak, which it in the past has most certainly
been on several times (eg syphilis). If a health agency were to
flat out state that people should stop penile/vagina intercourse
since there is a risk do you honestly think that people would
heed that advice? I can't even imagine it being taken as anything
other than a joke. This is the conundrum that the public health
officials face.

> The portion I underscored is an example of what I consider the "return
> to the 1970's" political mentality.  

  Wrong. You are projecting that into it.

> 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,
> of course, the author wishes to have it both ways: that is, to appear to
> be doing something about AIDS by recommending people use barriers, while
> at the same time suggesting that the old orgiastic order can continue.

  Just like allowing people freedom of speech to giving a free moral
check to say any demeaning, obnoxious, hateful oratory? I don't buy
that. Freedom to act does not imply anything about the morality of
how one acts.
  All I see is her not wanting to get involved in the moralizing
pandora's box -- a sentiment I'm sure you can sympathize with
from a public officials standpoint.

> With her comment that erring too much on the side of caution "plays into
> the anti-sex agenda of moral conservatives," the author links sexual
> behavior to political behavior. But wait, there's more:

  Well, it does in fact. That is not to say that theirs is the only
agenda which frowns on promiscuity -- it is, however, the loudest
of the bunch though.

> ``Unusual'' Activities -- Some sources recommend against unusual and
> stigmatized sexual practices such as s/m (sadomasochism), sex with
>                                                           ^^^^^^^^
> multiple partners, fisting, and sex for money.  With knowledge and
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> precautions, these can be done with minimal risk of AIDS.  Such
>                                                            ^^^^
> warnings are based on moralism not medicine.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> --- end of second excerpt ---
> 
> These don't pass basic sanity checks. In high school, they taught us
> that one in six condoms fail.

  Incorrect. If I recall correctly the chances of a woman becoming
pregnent within one year of continual intercourse using condoms
is about one in ten. This means that the per condom failure rate
is much lower -- and most of these are due to improper usage.

>  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.

  Much the same can be said about heterosexual sex, though the odds
change. The question anyone has to ask is "what is it worth to *you*".
Also the odds are not nearly as grim as you paint them (though not
insignificant).

> 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.

  Um, I don't see where that conclusion is necessitated by that
argument. Again, presenting the facts of risk is not tantamount
to endorsing the practice -- a common thread of your misunderstanding
I think. Also, you miss the point: going to a hooker does not 
necessarily mean that you have to perform insertive sex. Taken
in this light, it could indeed be perfectly safe to go to a 
hooker, have him/her perform bondage, for example, and "get off"
in a safe manner (such as mastrubation). 
  This is the point: here is the list of risky activities, you
  decide for yourself.

  [risk list elided]
> 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?

  No. She said that some acts which have moralistic strictures from
other quarters (namely religion) do not necessarily have any basis
in medicine. For example, I doubt that you'd get Pat Robertson to
agree that Bondage is OK, though from a medical standpoint getting
tied up has no higher risk *in itself* then kissing or other low
risk activities.
  I suspect that the author did not list any venue for obtaining
a partner for any of these acts because, *conservatively*, it makes
not one whit of difference! You should treat *all* of you sex 
partners as if they were HIV+, not just prostitutes!

> 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.  Sans the mitigating factors present in
> Africa -- surgical re-creation of the hymen, lots of promiscuity, poor
> health care leading to advanced cases of syphilis and other genital
> sore-causing diseases -- we won't see heterosexual AIDS case rates go
> ballistic in the United States or Canada.  I do see a prospect for
> people who have sex with prostitutes to start getting AIDS in large
> numbers if we also have (as I think we surely will) sexually transmitted
> diseases that cause vaginal sores which are completely resistant to the
> present battery of antibiotics.  But in no case do heterosexuals, in the
> main, have anywhere near the risk that is presented in most of the
> media.

  And this is where you are completely wrong. I guarantee you that
nature will always have a ready supply of things which are transmitted
sexually -- it's just to easy an infection route. Heterosexuals are
absolutely not immune to this. Until biology can cure any microbe
in a few days time, we will never be safe from natures various
scourges. It does little good to moralize about how awful STD's
are because we as humans are sexual creatures *by our nature*.
We will always have risk in this domain and it is up to each 
individual to determine whether the risk/reward ratio is great
enough. This is no different in essense then the risk one assumes
driving to work in the morning.
-- 

		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)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian