From: rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 09:52:43 PST
Distribution: ca
Organization: Surf City Software, Orange, Calfornia - DUDE!

mike@gordian.com writes:

> You say this:
>  
> > I strongly disagree with this statement, however.  In the early days,
> > politically influential gay men -- who ran the 100 million dollar a year
> > bath house industry -- worked to prevent health officials from shutting
> > them down.  These bath house owners didn't have to work very hard,
> > either, for the mere mention of the political clout that the Castro had
> > at the time was enough to scare off the timid appointees running SF's
> > public health agency.  If, as you say, gays were NOT listening to their
> > leaders for validation, then they surely agreed with them when they said
> > that "fucking like bunnies" was a political right.
> 
> And then you say this:
> 
> > A few things: I think the general relaxation of social mores was a good
> > thing.  I have strong libertarian leanings, and so cannot see clear to
> > wasting public monies policing people's bedrooms.  
> 
>   Which is it? Politically, if the state doesn't have an interest in
> people's consentual lives then by extention it should not have an
> interest in any consentual transactions that may bring about. Are
> you implying that "fucking like bunnies" is not a political right?
> I'd have to ask you elaborate on that one.

Indiscriminate, random sexual encounters may be a political right, but
only in a world where the people involved are willing and able to accept
the risks and the consequences.  Take the state out of the equation and
I have no trouble with that.  However, I have a hard time with the
situation observed in San Francisco VD clinics, which became well known
as places to "pick up both a shot and a date."  That's contempt --
contempt for the taxpayers whom they expected to pick up the tab for
their sexually acquired diseases, and more importantly, contempt for
their sexual partners.

>   In any case I think you answer your own question. It was the 
> popularity, and hence a constituency, that enabled these folks 
> to get the state to back down -- not the other way around.

In which case it still makes no difference.  The bottom line -- whether
the philosophy flowed from the bottom up or from the top down -- was
that promiscuous sex was a right.  Intolerant, influential, moneyed, the
self-styled revolutionaries sneered at monogamous gay sex, and failed
to use their power to stop the unfolding tragedy.  Eventually, of course,
this changed.  It had to -- nobody was left to defend promiscuous
unprotected sex.

> >  Similar
> > situations occured in New York, and to some degree, in Los Angeles.  Of
> > course, these men could have simply decided not to be promiscuous -- and
> > certainly, some did.  But the majority who went to the bath houses
> > continued until they died, or the houses were effectively shut down.
> 
>   Wrong. How would you know how many went to bathhouses? I don't
> even know that and I'll say that I'm in a much better to position
> to know than you. Even if you are talking about gay city dwellers
> I would be suspicious of your pronouncement, but to apply that to
> the majority is *very* dubious.

You're reading things into my statement; "... who went to the bath
houses" is not an independent clause modifying "the majority," but
rather, part of the subject.

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Just a minute!  The 'het community' never set itself up with organized
> > sexual encounter places to the magnitude of that which gay men did, and
> > never adopted promiscuity as a fundamental right. Even Randy Shilts
> > commented on how the lack of women as a moderating influence added to
> > the frenetic pace at which men went from partner to partner.
> 
>   It had no need to. Remember, just because Stonewall came along did
> not mean that to the outside world that being gay was hunky-dory. What
> you mistake here is the centralization of gay sexual activity which
> was necessitated by moralizing, and repressive communities like here
> in OC. There wasn't this sort of need in the het community; you didn't
> have to beg and plead to startup a straight "pickup" place like, say,
> TGIFriday's or something of that nature. It was all above board, and
> on the up and up. 

TGIFriday's doesn't have holes drilled in the toilet stall walls for
random anonymous sexual encounters, nor does it sport custom seating for
fisting. Bathhouses had one purpose only: promiscuous gay sex.  A gay
bar -- probably a closer analogy to TGIFriday's -- has more uses than
just that.

> > Other commentators have noted the element of teen-age rebellion in the
> > Gay Liberation movement.  Apparently, gay men learned by dying.
> 
>   Well, how nice of you. I hope you'll remember that when you have
> to give the car keys to your teenager.

Sorry, but it's true.  (If I ever become the parent of a teenager who
proclaims to me that it's his moral and political duty to drive 100 MPH
on surface streets, he can get the keys to somebody else's car. As an
aside, my father never let me drive his car; I always had my own, which
I paid for, and maintained, and insured.)

> > >   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.
> > 
> > A few things: I think the general relaxation of social mores was a good
> > thing.  I have strong libertarian leanings, and so cannot see clear to
> > wasting public monies policing people's bedrooms.  I do have problems
> > with some of the ways that socialism has gotten tangled up in the
> > sexual changes -- the "I'm not getting married, I'm gonna have a baby,
> > and the state's gonna pay for it" attitude evinced by a number of young
> > women. 
> 
>   This was part of the sexual revolution? Gad, ignorant as am of het
> culture, I had thought that most people of that mindset were against
> having children because it was too confining or mimiced _Ozzie and
> Harriet_ to closely. I really don't recall much in the way of "I'm going
> to have a baby and the states going to pay for it."

I refer to the general rise in fatherless children, particularly as paid
for by AFDC, etc.  It seems to me that fatherhood has been given short
shrift lately; one story told of an artificially impregnated lesbian
saying that she'd show her child a turkey baster if it ever wanted to
know who its father was.  This, too, is part of the sexual revolution.

> I wouldn't say that
> this is an artifact of the sexual revolution but of the other social
> thing that was going on at the time: the rise of the welfare statist
> state. The sexual revolution, though intertwined with much statist
> rhetoric was actually quite libertarian despite protestations to the
> contrary.

True, but the sexual revolution paved the way for the idea of women
becoming pregnant outside of marriage to become accepted, and for this
to become common.

> > Monogamy is a practical answer to horrific STD's.  That this latter is
> > part of the Christion moral code whose practitioners frequently condemn
> > homosexuality does not make them any less desirable for gays -- or
> > straights.
> 
>   Whether safety against STD's was the end goal of the Churches 
> proscriptions against promiscuity is really neither here nor there.
> The rebellion was against mores which were divinated from some
> stupid 2000+ year old book. It is not to say that some of these
> teachings weren't right, but the *reasons* are all important too.
> When the only reason that somebody can come up with is "well God
> says NO", people of reason, including our founding fathers, are
> not going to be too plussed by such "reasons". It is not too suprising
> that when such a feeble reason gets overthrown finally that much
> experimentation is going to happen to find out the *real* reasons
> why certain elements of human nature imply certain sets of behavior.
> This was the 70's sexual revolution; one whose questions it awoke
> are *far* from being comfortably answered today. HIV has only
> brought one aspect of that revolution into a tangible focus: sex
> is not without risk.

The problems with STDs, among other things, came in the throw-out-the-
baby-with-the-bath-water attitude that says that the book is 2000+
years old and therefore hasn't any value.  I directly fault the Gay
Liberationists who knowingly promoted promiscuous sex even after AIDS
had killed hundreds and thousands, who in fact redoubled their efforts
in the face of such deaths.

> > Re-reading this, I think I misinterpreted what you originally wrote.
> > Here's what I should have written: Morality doesn't enter the equation;
> > statistics do.  Multiple partner sex, even using barriers, is still an
> > accident waiting to happen.
> 
>   As is serial monogamy. As is driving a car. The question is what
> risk at what gain. This is a profoundly personal question and is
> very much intertwined with your own set of values. I don't think
> you can answer that question for me any more than I can answer it
> for you (even if we share an identical morality). This is not 
> necessarily moral relativism, but it does take into account that
> I don't have your complete context nor you mine.

Probably true.  I don't think we're actually that far apart on most
things.

>  i From a public health standpoint this is really the proper level
> of deference: let people know the risks and allow them to make
> decisions within their own context. I don't see how this is radically
> different from, say, smoking.

Note that I have the same problems with promiscuous gay sex that I have
with chain smokers when either group insists some governmental agency
pay for their self-inflicted woes.

> > >   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.
> > 
> > Remember, the report mentioned "sex for money", not visiting a
> > prostitute.
> 
>   What is the difference wrt to your complaint?

Again: if you're hooking, you have less control over the situation than
the john.  Unprotected, insertive sex is more likely, and therefore a
greater risk.

> > Not really.  Heterosexual AIDS continues to be a red herring issued by
> > people with a specific axe to grind -- researchers who need dollars, and
> > absolutely cannot let on that AIDS in fact is largely a disease confined
> > to gay men, IV drug users, some blood products users, and
> > third-worlders. If straight people are going to get the disease any day
> > now (which they have been for years), they won't question all the
> > dollars spent on it.  
> 
>   Look, if it's the tax dollars you are talking about I am just as
> angry and annoyed about having to pay for all of the damn perks that
> het people get.

No, I'm saying that they have a motive to be mendacious.  There are far
greater wastes of taxpayer dollars than AIDS research (which, by the
way, rate the highest federal priority if measured on a dollars per
death basis than any other disease) for me to concern myself with.

> > The people issuing this "Safer Sex Guide" also,
> > it seems, have a specific axe to grind -- a politically motivated return
> > to unsafe practices, or failing that, to practices that appear to
> > sacrifice little other than the use of condoms.
> 
>   Speaking of axes to grind. I just don't see how you can conclude
> that telling people the relative risks of various activities is
> tantamount to a green light on all of the above. I think that if
> you were to tell that to one of the authors faces they would laugh
> at you. 

Basic probability tells you that taking a low probability single event
and multiplying it many times you will end up with a high probability
that the event will occur -- once.  It's like rolling two dice to with
the intent of getting 12.  There's only a 2.7% chance you'll get a 12 on
any one roll, but after 33 rolls, you'll be almost guaranteed (60%
chance) to get at least one 12.  The same reasoning (albeit with
different numbers) holds for promiscuous sexual behavior.  Therefore,
the claim that it's low-risk is misleading. Likewise for prostitution,
more so on the end of the hooker than on the john, but both have
decidely enhanced risks.

Summarizing: The sexual revolution of the 1970s brought mixed results.
Some of the worst excesses were brought about by the intolerant Gay
Liberationists who knowingly promoted disease settings that Michael
Callen, himself a Gay Liberationist who later recanted and formed People
With AIDS, called "equivalent to those of poor third-world nations in
one of the richest nations on earth."  These men did so based on a
political agenda which claimed promiscuity to be indistinguishable from
homosexuality.  This agenda now appears transformed in the guise of
"Safe Sex", which seeks to mask the true risks of certain practices,
particularly promiscuity.