From: marc@carlyle.com (Marc Salomon)
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Organization: Carlyle Systems, Inc., San Mateo, CA.
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:11:02 GMT


>>|> As Randy Shilts also points out - "Gay men made up about 80% of the 70,000
>>|> patient visits to [SF} VD clinics. ... and the [VD] clinic was considered
>>|> an easy place to pick up both a shot and a date".
>>|> 
>>|> [...other quotes about queer culture==gobs of promiscuous sex]
>>|> 
>>|> 
>>|> And homosexuals wonder why most of public "doesn't like them".
>>

First of all, most of the public, from surveys that I've read and my
personal experience as a queer, is indifferent to people based on 
their sexual preference.  Certain sectors of the population will hate
(disguised as love for their god) anyone who tries an alternative to 
their mythology.  I feel that our problem is with that 20-30% of the
population who would have all of us live under their arbitraty mythology.

Secondly, Randy Shilts' view of the "gay community" comes from a vantage
point of SF in the 70's, hardly reflecting the reality most queers, even
teenage ones like myself, lived elsewhere during that period.  Queer
activity was around long before the SF Castro ghetto was settled; it was
merely more visible during the sexual revolution in a culture that didn't
mind.  

My theory, as a bisexual queer, is that the sexual dynamic between two men
is completely different than a het dynamic.  Men's sex drive is more or
less constant, especially in the younger years.  Women, from my experience,
seem to have different needs in the frequency of sexual release.  In
a nutshell, if you have two men (or 20,000) whose sex drive is almost 
always "on," odds are that they will seek sexual release more frequently.

So I find it nearsighted to infer, as Shilts seems to, that SF in the 70's
created a culture of "anything that moves and has a dick".  I think it was
around long before that, just underground.

Now onto the failure rate of condoms.  Pregnancy has been studied furiously
over the past few centuries.  Data exist on the efficiency of het intercourse
to concieve based on amount of semen, sperm count, time of the month, pH, 
and a host of other factors.  There are no such data for the efficiency of
transmission of HIV, iff indeed HIV is the cause of AIDS.

So, we don't know the mechanics of transmission, so it is impossible to 
say, if you take one "load" in the butt that AIDS will follow.  Indeed,
there are many cases at the extremes of the spectrum.  Cases exist where
people were slut pigs for years that test negative for HIV and show no
signs of immunocompromise.  Conversely, there are people who get HIV/AIDS
from a single needle prick.

Since there is a lack of data and thorough scientific an analysis (to test
would imply subjecting the experimental group to death) , the curent 
theories are just that--unproven and full of holes.  Does this mean
that we should all slut out and say the hell with it, as the Reagan Bushies
did with acid rain?  No.

There are enough data in to say that something is out there that is killing
people, so people should take precautions.  However, it would be a losing 
battle to expect people to choose between celibacy and no protection.  If
our society allows people to take risks and careen down the freeway en 
masse each day at high speeds, or allows people to take the risk for
themselves and others by smoking cigarettes, then we have to accept the
risk of condom usage during the AIDS crisis.

marc salomon
marc@carlyle.com
---
Thank cthulu for AB2601.  I can finally discuss my boyfriend when
appropriate at work without fear of losing my job.