From: rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 10:28:52 PST
Distribution: ca
Organization: Surf City Software, Orange, Calfornia - DUDE!

mike@gordian.com writes:

> In article <ZoqVwB1w165w@surfcty.com>, rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
> > Question: what is included in talking ill of homosexuality?  I personally
> > have no problem with gay sex -- the act, that is.  Short of murder in
> > the form of a duel, consenting adults should have the right to do 
> > anything they want to, so long as it infringes on no one elses rights or
> > property.
> 
>   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. 

> >  But am I allowed to say that gay political aims still seem,
> > at least from some quarters, to focus on a return to a latexified 1970's
> > where homosexuality = multiple partners with the added twist of a 
> > barrier?  This is what I see in things like the "Guide to Safe-r Sex" 
> > that has widely circulated on the Internet.
> 
>   I think that what is missing here is that this was not just a gay
> phenomenon in the 70's -- it was widespread throughout heterosexual
> society as well. Trying to imply that promiscuity was/is a gay quirk
> does not acknowledge the wider context within which this was set. 
> Remember _Saturday Night Fever_?

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.

>   Also, I'm not certain why you qualify disseminating safer sex
> information as some sort of promotion of promiscuity, nor as
> particularily "political" for that matter. Acknowledging the
> reality of living in the age of AIDS is not tantamount to
> promotion of promiscuity any more then acknowledging that
> a car accelerator can allow you do 100 on the freeway. 
>   Facts are facts, use them at your peril.  

I can see that what I need to do is to publish part of this tract.  It
doesn't pass what I call basic sanity checks, i.e., there's something
fundamentally wrong with their line of thinking.

--- start of first excerpt ---

>From: liz@AI.MIT.EDU(Liz A. Highleyman)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re:  (3347) Safer Sex Text Files
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 09:46:34 EDT
Note:	Copyright 1990 by Daniel R. Greening.  Permission granted for
Note:	non-commercial reproduction.
Archive-number: 3348
 
Below is the text of a pamphlet I wrote for a local group.  It is
aimed at bisexuals, so talks about sex involving both men and
women, same and opposite.  Most of the info is from various books
and pamphlets I have picked up and talks I have attended over
the years.  Any comments are welcome.
 
-Liz

[foreword deleted]

THINKING ABOUT RISK: A CONTINUUM
 
Safer sex recommendations vary greatly.  Many AIDS organizations and
public health departments promote stringent guidelines.  People rely
on this advice to make life-and-death decisions, and it seems better
to err on the side of too much rather than too little caution.  Other
people (especially those in groups with a low incidence of AIDS)
figure that statistically most people have less chance of getting AIDS
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.

--- end of first excerpt ---

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,
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.
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:

--- start of second excerpt ---

``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.  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.

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.

--- start of third excerpt ---
 
Sexual activities fall on a continuum from high to low or no risk.
Activities at the top carry a high risk of HIV transmission
(especially for the receptive partner).  Upper-middle range activities
carry a minimal or indeterminate risk.  Lower-middle range activities
carry a theoretical risk.  Activities at the bottom are completely
safe.
 
Sharing needles, piercing or cutting tools
Unprotected anal intercourse
Unprotected vaginal intercourse
Getting urine or feces in mouth, vagina, ass
Unprotected oral sex on a menstruating woman
Unprotected oral sex on a man with ejaculation
Unprotected oral-anal contact
Unprotected fisting or finger fucking
Unprotected oral sex on a man without ejaculation
Unprotected oral sex on a non-menstruating woman
Anal intercourse with a condom
Vaginal intercourse with a condom
Oral sex on a man using a condom
Oral sex on a woman using a latex barrier
Oral-anal contact using a latex barrier
Fisting or finger fucking using a glove
Petting, manual-genital contact
Deep (French) kissing
Spanking, whipping that does not break the skin
Bonadge and discipline play
Masturbation (alone or with partner)
Hugging, kissing, touching
Massage
Talking dirty, phone or net sex, fantasy

--- end of third excerpt ---

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?

> > Now, clearly not all gays are of these opinions.  But the fact that such
> > misinformation continues to spread worries me; it looks like nobody has
> > learned much.
> 
>   And mostly the heterosexual set. Sigh

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.

Postscript: In the above post I mentioned that Liz Highleyman appears to
have written the "Safe-r Sex Guide", although this is contradicted by the
information in the Note: headers.  It's unclear who actually wrote the
above.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc