From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:51:03 GMT

In article <k706wB1w165w@surfcty.com>, rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
> mike@gordian.com writes:
> 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."

  Did you just pick that up from Phil? I'd be careful if I were you.
Besides, *VD* clinics? Are really serious worked up about how much
they cost to operate? They're small peanuts. So close them down. 
See what changes or would have changed in the 70's -- nothing.

>   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.

  Are we not taxpayers too? You know, I have a real hard time when
people start moaning about how their tax dollars are being spent
on something immoral while they steadfastly hold onto their own
perks. 
  So what's your opinion of, say, public education? How's about
abolishing it?

> 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.

  Um, except for one thing. No one knew what the transmission vector
for AIDS was. They didn't even know that it was a virus. Besides
I don't ever recall anybody sneering at monogamous sex except for
when it was being pronounced as something that everybody ought to be 
doing. A large difference if you consider it.
  And they had the power to stop the unfolding tragedy? Just like that?
When did they lose the power out of curiosity?
 
> 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.

  Gad. Ever been to Hollywood? Are you *really* trying to imply that
these sorts of shenanigans weren't going on in the het community? I sure
hope not. 
  If not what's your point? You've already qualified your statement previous
that you aren't prepared to say that this was happening in the majority
of gay men of the time. Unless you are trying imply that this was 
happening on any large scale in the gay community your observation is
worthless.

> >   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 do not accept the fatherless child syndrome vis a vi AFDC as being
part of the sexual revolution. The idea that a woman didn't necessary
need to be beholden to a man, however evil, for the children's sake
might be but the welfare mother syndrome was is rooted in the welfare
state mentality. They are pretty much seperate phenomenon.
  And *horrors*, a lesbian couple had a child through artificial
insemination. Gad, what is the world coming too. In my book, the
first priority for parents ought to be to give a loving and supportive
family. This trancends any Ozzie-and-Harriet notions of what a
"proper" family ought to be. The legacy of dysfunctional families
from this set should be clear enough evidence that this is no
panacea.
 
> > 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.

  There are many reasons for this but I think your getting worked up
about a spectre which has very little pertinence to the real problem.
The sexual revolution may have changed some of the specifics about
the actual outcome, but to think that it is a key issue is overblown.

> 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 said that people of reason are not going to take moral proscriptions
from an age long gone based solely upon mysticism. That's a far cry
from saying that some of the teachings don't have any value. As I said
the reasons are as important as the conclusions.

> 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.

  Huh? Do you actually know what you are talking about? Do you actually
even have any clue to the chronology of events? The gay community has
been at the forefront since the transmission vector was understood.
That is precisely why the gay communities rate of increase is dropping
while the poor benighted straight community whistles in the dark.

> >  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.

  And Cancer too? You know those coal miners really should have known
better. Sorry, the fact is that we live in a welfare statist state
for better or worse (much worse IMHO). This does dictate some realities
of the situation, principles aside. This is a losing game if you
really want to get down to into the details. Gay people, though
gaining acceptance, are hardly the darlings of the porkbarrel set.

> 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.

  The exact same thing can be said about heterosexual sex. I just
don't see what the point is. If the risk is sufficiently low, people
will take that risk for the reward. Het sex has risks too. Have you
ever considered childbirth? Women *still* have a good deal of risk
of dying in and around childbirth -- probably higher overall then
a gay men practicing safer sex. Given your seemingly all or nothing
attitude toward risk, women shouldn't have babies. 
  Worst of all is to be Catholic. :-)

> These men did so based on a
> political agenda which claimed promiscuity to be indistinguishable from
> homosexuality.  

  You know, this is about the third time I've heard you make that
equation. I don't even doubt that there were some people who said
that. I have also never heard it before. I have been an out gay
man since 1978. Why should I believe that these grand proclaimations
really had any profound effect? Why insert conspiracy when simple
human frailty will do?

> This agenda now appears transformed in the guise of
> "Safe Sex", which seeks to mask the true risks of certain practices,
> particularly promiscuity.

  Bah. This on the other hand is a wild fantasy. You're again
seeking some grand agenda when simple honesty will do.
-- 

		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)